The URL can be used to link to this page

Backup Documents 04/14/2009 Item #16I BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS MISCELLANEOUS CORRESPONDENCE April 14, 2009 1611 1. MISCELLANEOUS ITEMS TO FILE FOR RECORD WITH ACTION AS DIRECTED: A, Minutes: 1) Affordable Housing Commission: Minutes of January 5, 2009; February 2, 2009. 2) Airport Authority: Minutes ofJanuary 12,2009; February 9, 2009. 3) Animal Services Advisory Board: Minutes of January 20, 2009; February 17,2009. 4) Bayshore/Gateway Triangle Local Redevelopment Advisory Board: Minutes of February 3, 2009. 5) Collier County Citizens Corps: Minutes of February 18,2009. 6) Collier County Planning Commission: Agenda of March 19,2009. Minutes of December 18,2008; January 15,2009; January 16,2009 Special Session; January 20, 2009 Special Session; January 28, 2009 Special Session; January 30, 2009 Special Session; February 5, 2009; February 5, 2009 Special Session, 7) Contractors Licensing Board: Minutes of February 18, 2009, 8) Development Seryices Advisory Committee: Minutes of February 4, 2009. 9) Environmental Advisory Council: Minutes of February 4. 2009, 10) Habitat Conservation Plan Ad Hoc Committee: Minutes of November 21, 2008; December 10,2008 - no quorum; January 13,2009 - no quorum; February 25, 2009, 16 I 11 11) 1mmoka1ee Enterprise Zone Development Agencv: Agenda of February 18, 2009; March 18,2009, Minutes of January 26. 2009; February 18,2009, 12) Immokalee Local Redcvelopment Advisory Board: Agenda of February 18,2009; March 18,2009, Minutes of January 26, 2009; February 18, 2009; February 23, 2009 Emergency Meeting w/EZDA. 13) 1mmokalee Master Plan and Visioning Committee: Agenda of February 18,2009 joint w/CRA; March 18,2009 joint wi CRA. Minutes of January 26, 2009 joint w/CRA; February 18,2009 joint w/CRA, 14) Isles of Capri Fire Control District Advisory Committee: Minutes of February 12,2009. 15) Land Acquisition Advisory Committee: Minutes ofJanuary 12,2009; February 9, 2009. 16) Librarv Advisory Board: Agenda of March 18, 2009, Minutes of February 18, 2009. 17) Parks and Recreation Advisorv Board: Minutes of February 18, 2009. 18) Pelican Bav Services Division Board: Minutes of January 12,2009. 19) Rural Lands Stewardship Arca Review Committee: Minutes of January 6, 2009; January 16, 2009 Special Session; January 23,2009 Special Session; March 3, 2009. 20) Utilitv Authoritv (Water and Wastewater Authoritv): Minutes of January 26. 2009. 21) Vanderbilt Beach Beautification MSTU Advisory Committee: Minutes of January 8, 2009. 1611 B. Other: I) Code Enforcement Special Magistrate: Minutes of January 12.2009. 2) Public Safety Coordinating Council: Minutes of December 12.2008, RECEIVED FEB 1 1 2009 Fiala Halas Henning Coyle Coletta v January 5, 2009 , '!t A 1 ROrlrd of Counr., comrnisS1ol1ers MINUTES OF THE MEETING OF THE COLLIER COUNTY AFFORDABLE HOUSING ADVISORY COMMITTEE Naples, Florida, January 5, 2009 LET IT BE REMEMBERED that the Collier County Affordable Housing Advisory Committee in and for the County of Collier, having conducted business herein, met on this date at 3:00 P.M. in REGULAR SESSION at Building "F," 3rd Floor, of the Government Complex, Naples, Florida, with the following members present: CHAIRMAN: Vice-Chair: Stephen Hruby J ames Warnken John Cowan Cormac Giblin Brian Goguen Christine Jones Kenneth Kelly Sally Masters James Pusateri Bradley Schiffer Chris Spencer-Alternate (Absent) ALSO PRESENT: Marcy Krumbine, Director, Housing & Human Services Frank Ramsey, Housing Manager Priscilla Doria, SHIP Loan Processor Mise, Corres: ~opies \0 January 5, 2009 1. Call to Order The meeting was called to order by Chairman Steve Hruby at 3:02 PM, Chairman Hruby read the procedures to be followed during the Meeting, 16 I 1 A 1 2. Introduction of Committee Members and Staff Chairman Hruby called the roll and a quorum was established. 3. Approval of Minutes The following corrections were noted: . Page 7, under Item "7," the motion was made by Vice Chairman James Warnken, James Pusateri moved to approve the Minutes o/the December 1, 2008 Meeting as amended. Second by Cormac Giblin. Motion carried, 7-"Yes" with 2 Abstentions. Ken Kelly and Sally Masters abstained/rom voting since they did not attend the December 1st meeting. 4. Approval of Agenda Cormac Giblin moved to approve the Agenda as presented. Second by Jim Pusateri. Carried unanimously, 9-0. 5. Information Items A. Presentation by the Collier County Housing Authority - Angela Edison, Director Copies of the PowerPoint Presentation were distributed to the Committee, Brian Goguen reminded the Committee he is also a member of the Board of Directors for the Collier County Housing Authority and had previously tiled a Notice of Conflict of Interest with the Clerk concerning his abstaining from voting on issues concerning distribution offimding to any Organization where he may be a member. (Christine Jones arrived at 3:09 PM) Topics presented: . Background - brief history of the Collier County Housing Authority ("CCHA") . Board of Commissioners, Executive Staff and Organizational Structure . Two non-profit organizations are part of the Housing Authority: - CCHA Land Acquisition - New Development, Inc, - CCHA Community of Luxury Apartments, Inc, . Mission Statement: "To provide choicesforfamilies to have decent, safe and affordable housing with opportunities for education to provide economic upward mobilityfiJr the residents of our communities, .. . Properties and Programs Farm Worker Village (Total Units: 611) - USDA Rental Assistance Program funds 311 units Collier Village (30 Units) Horizon Village (Dormitory - 192 beds) Private Management Consultation to assist non-profits with property management 2 16111A January 5, 20091 . Community Partners include the Immokalee Sheriffs Department, the Immokalee Health Department, and the Immokalee Library Questions were asked by the Committee concerning funding sources for the non-profit organizations, residency/citizenship restrictions, and occupancy rates for the properties, Ms. Edison stated there was no waiting list for apartment rentals since there were 138 current vacancies. Farm workers were moving out of the area because they could not afford to pay CCHA's reduced rate rents (under $500 per month), She stated the CCHA accepts Section 8 Housing vouchers and acquired the program from Collier County in 1992, Eighty percent of the participants in the Section 8 Program are located in the Naples area, Ifthe vacancy situation continues, CCHA will contact the USDA to obtain permission to open the rental program to the general public since farm workers are not participating. 6. 2008 Incentive Review and Recommendations Report - Steve Hruby and Frank Ramsey Chairman Hruby read a portion of a letter from the Board of Collier County Commissioners dated December 18,2008 and signed by Commissioner Tom Henning: "On December 16, 2008, under agenda item lOG, the Board of County Commissioners was presented the 2008 Incentive Review and Recommendation Report, Following discussion, the Board of County Commissioners desires that the Affordable Housing Advisory Committee study and draft a report on thefollowing topics, I, The reservation of infrastructure to ensure that there is a sufficient capacity for development of affordable housing 2, Proximity of aifi)rdable housing to major employment centers and public transportation should be considered during discussion of'the reservation of infrastructure, 3, Strategies to strengthen the Collier County Loan Consortium to provide financing for affordable housing .. Frank Ramsey stated of the eleven State-mandated Incentives contained in the Report and the four Additional Recommendations made by the Committee, the three read by Chairman Hruby were the only items accepted by the BCC for further action. State-mandated Incentives: . Expedited Permitting - no direction was given by the BCC . Impact Fee Waivers and Modifications - not accepted by the BCC . Density Flexibility - no direction was given by the BCC . Reservation of Infrastructure - directed to study and report back to the BCC . Accessory Dwelling Units - not authorized by the BCC to take any action . Parking and Setbacks - not authorized by the BCC to take any action . Flexible Lot Configurations - not authorized by the BCC to take any action . Street Requirements - not authorized by the BCC to take any action 3 16"; Al January 5, 2009 . Oversight (Ongoing) - not authorized by the BCC to take any action . Land Bank Inventory - not authorized by the BCC to take any action . Proximity - directed to include in reservation of infrastructure Additional AHAC Recommendations: . Housing Trust Fund - not authorized by the BCC to take any action . Transportation Enhancement - directed to study and report back to the BCC . Infrastructure Investment - directed to study and report back to the BCC . Inclusionary Zoning - not authorized by the BCC to take any action Committee members expressed their disappointment with the Board's directives, Chairman Hruby suggested the Report should be retained and built upon for future use, He stated the Board's focus was on the immediate crisis and it was not as concerned with future issues. The BCC discussed the "oversaturation" affordable housing units in certain areas of the County as well as the topic of "fair housing." It was implied that the Committee should examine the issue of "fair housing" to determine any "best practices" that could be presented to the BCe. Chairman Hruby stated the topic could be added to future AHAC agendas, It was suggested that the SupplylDemand Subcommittee examine Loan Consortium and the other topics would be studied by the Aff('lftlal9le W (;,ltftlfee Subcom~ I ~,....~..1;..1~~ ~ Bradley Schiffer asked to be copied on all of the Subcommittee meetings, There was discussion concerning whether or not the Transportation Department should be consulted to obtain information concerning capacity, Frank Ramsey stated he would contact Comprehensive Planning to obtain guidance as to which department(s), i,e" Transportation and Public Utilities, should be contacted, Vice Chair James Warnken suggested consulting Staff to determine which issues were being addressed and to obtain further information concerning the Loan Consortium, i,e" membership, and why should it be strengthened, It was suggested a starting point for the Subcommittees would be to assess "where do we stand" and discuss "where would we like to be," Ken Kelly suggested the Report was a good platform to base future reviews - to revisit and refine the concepts presented. The research should not be discarded, He further suggested the topics could be reviewed annually by the Committee for applicability to future market conditions and presented to the Board of County Commissioners for consideration, 7. Update on Applications for COBC Funding - Marcy Krumbine Ms. Krumbine stated 26 applications had been received (requesting $10 M in funding) and will be discussed and scored by the Grant Application Review Committee. . The Review Committee's recommendations will be presented to the AHAC at the February meeting 4 16 tls,AoJ . The Action Plan will be presented in March or April prior to presentation to the Board of County Commissioners in April, 2009 . $3 M is available for distribution . Sally Masters represents the AHAC's interests on the Grant Application Review Committee, 8. Review of Impact Fee Deferral Program for BCC Recommendation - Frank Ramsey A copy of the Status Report was distributed to the Committee, Topics reviewed: . Impact Fee Deterral Agreements Year-to-Date Developer Agreements Owner Occupied Agreements . Averages Year-to-Date . Remaining Funds versus Averages . Summary 8 fully-funded deferrals (General Impact Fees and Water/Sewer) 30 additional will be funded without Water/Sewer 50 estimated Additional Transfers (i.e., no money needed) Estimated 156 Deferrals (including 68 approved Agreements) . Suggested Use of Remaining Funds for Fiscal Year 2009 Four options were outlined Staff recommendation: No changes to the program, Since there has been only minimal demand for the program by (for-protit) builders, the program has been utilized primarily by Habitat for Humanity and currently benefits those with the greatest need, Discussion ensued concerning which Option would place more people in homes and be a more efficient use of the funds, Public Speaker: Brian Morrison, Director of Communications - Habitat t(lr Humanity, stated he thought the preference would be for 100% funding, Frank Ramsey stated funding will be less for 2009 due to the reduction of Impact Fees collected during the prior year, He mentioned the SHIP Down-Payment Assistance Program was reduced by the Board of County Commissioners to matching funds with a ratio of 3 to I, It was suggested the goal should be to find a steady stream of revenue to fund the program, Ken Kelly moved to recommend to the Board of County Commissioners that it accept the Impact Fee Deferral Program as presented without change. Second by James Pusateri. Carried unanimously, 10-0. 9. Next Meeting - February 2, 2009 at 3:00 PM, BCC Chambers. 5 16 ,Lu! s,AoJ There being no further business for the good of the County, the meeting was adjourned by order of the Chair at 3:55 PM, Collier County Affordable Housing Commission ~ ~CN. v)(.~ C~I9-'~1}.t<. These Minutes were approved by the Board/Committee Chair on ~ as presented v, or as amended . J,! ~~OOf , 6 Fiala - D..y~ O/QL Halas -a~ - Hennin9------v------ \\I€'O Coyle ---.w-.- '1"' E.. C E. Coletta~~--- '~t>.R \'\ \) 1~JJ:i,UTES OF THE MEETING OF THE COLLIER COUNTY 01 c.,woN GO"""'. AFFORDABLE HOUSING ADVISORY COMMITTEE ~.n:>o.f\"\ ~ . A ~ F162,12oJ 1 Naples, Florida, February 2, 2009 LET IT BE REMEMBERED that the Collier County Affordable Housing Advisory Committee in and for the County of Collier, having conducted business herein, met on this date at 3:00 P.M. in REGULAR SESSION at Building "F," 3rd Floor, of the Government Complex, Naples, Florida, with the following members present: CHAIRMAN: Vice-Chair: Stephen Hruby (Excused) James Warnken John Cowan Cormac Giblin Brian Goguen (Excused) Christine Jones (Excused) Kenneth Kelly Sally Masters (Excused) James Pusateri Bradley Schiffer Chris Spencer-Alternate (Absent) ALSO PRESENT: Marcy Krumbine, Director, Housing & Human Services Frank Ramsey, Housing Manager Priscilla Doria, SHIP Loan Processor Mise Corres: Date,_......------- lE'ro:~ ---------.-' 1 F~rut2~~09 A 1 1. Call to Order The meeting was called to order by Vice Chairman James Warnken at 3:05 PM, Vice Chairman Warnken stated since a quorum had not been established, only Information Items would be presented, The Members were not allowed to ask questions or hear any topics that required a vote, Public Speakers could present their comments, Vice Chairman Warnken read the procedures to be followed during the Meeting, 2. Introduction of Committee Members and Staff Vice Chairman Warnken called the roll. 5. Information Items A. Presentation by St. Matthew's House - Vann Ellison, Executive Director An information packet was distributed to the Committee, Mr. Ellison stated St. Matthew's House was approximately 20 years old and began in Coilier County as an out-reach to the poor. . A soup kitchen was established to focus on the needs of the poor . The East Naples facility was established to provide housing for individuals . During the past year, the East Naples facility operated at 130% of capacity (124 beds) The focus ofSt. Matthew's House is the Homeless Recovery Program, . Increased numbers of women and children, in addition to families, requesting shelter . In 2007, there were 6 children at St. Matthew's house during Christmas while in 2008, there were 26 children . Individuals are also seeking shelter because their apartments have been foreclosed upon without adequate notice . Individuals who are alone are the primary clients In October, 2008, St. Matthew's House merged with the Immokalee Friendship House. St. Matthew's House serves the urban poor while Immokalee Friendship House serves the desperately poor and the migrant community, . 168 beds (total bed capacity) . 200 + individuals are accommodated on an average basis . 3 babies were born in the past month - younger mothers are requesting assistance . Scholarships are provided for day care, and job training through V o-tech . Wolfe Apartments - 46 units - provides transitional housing with a maximum stay of two years . During their stay at Wolfe Apartment, families are prepared to buy a home . St. Matthew's House generated 53% of its operating budget through its own resources including a thrift store, catering business, and rents from Wolfe Apartments . Donated dollars enable St, Matthew's to directly serve the community (Ken Kelly arrived at 3: 17 PM.) 2 1.6b~atY1200~ 1 Vice Chairman James Warnken announced that a quorum had been established and the proceedings were re-opened as a full Committee meeting. Committee questions: How many individuals are served on a yearly basis by St, Mauhew's House? . As a combined organization, approximately 2,000 individuals (1,300 by St. Matthew's House and 895 by Immokalee Friendship House) What happens to the "over~flow" when the organization is at capacity - where do those people go? . A waiting list has been established (51 awaiting assistance) and applicants are ranked by critical need . Priority is given to families with small children and to the physically impaired . Hospitals discharge patients to St. Matthew's House - the patients have no family locally and no place to live . Mattress are placed on the dining room floor whenever needed . The public schools reported 380 enrolled students are receiving assistance due to homeless situations . 85% of the homeless students in the schools arc from Naples What are the/acilities, i,e" the number ofhuildings? . 2 shelters in Naples: o One is the soup kitchen which can also house 16 individual men o The second is located at Glades and Airport Roads . Immokalee shelter has a 44 bed-capacity . Wolfe Apartments - four separate buildings Mr. Ellison stated the thrift store not only served as a revenue stream but also provided an opportunity for work training. Last year, approximately $25,000 in merchandize was given to the desperately poor - i,e" essential household items as well as clothing. He further stated a Strategic Planning Process was in development. . Provide affordable housing . Bed space is a priority - add to existing, or build - will be determined . Provide for medically-compromised individuals What is the status offunding? . Some funding has been reserved for expansion . Will seek grants for capital projects . Construction is largest expense . Existing facilities cannot be expanded Mr. Ellison stated waiving/delaying payment of Impact Fees would be very helpful in proceeding to making improvements, 3 I 6rulTY!zooA 1 What is the relationship between St, Matthew's House and Staff? . A good working relationship has been established with Collier County's Department of Housing and Human Services, . St. Matthew's House is a sub-recipient ofHUD funds through the County . Statlhas been eager to work out solutions with St. Matthew's House Marcy Krumbine stated St. Matthew's House is a recipient of the H&HS' Emergency Shelter Grants, on a rotating basis with the Shelter for Abused Women. . Recipient of the Continuum of Care Grant (HUD Grant through H&HS) . Recipient of the Challenge Grant . H&HS has placed clients, through its social service programs, in the Wolfe Apartments . The Neighborhood Stabilization Program will offer renovated homes for sale and a number will be available in Golden Gate City Mr. Ellison stated the County has worked with St. Matthew's House in order to provide funding to place residents from the Wolfe Apartments into homes, What is the availability a/other apartment buildings - can any be utilized by St, Matthew's House? . Some small apartment buildings (quadplex) have been identified . Management is a concern since St. Matthew's House requires abstinence from substance abuse and extensive case management - easier to accomplish in a concentrated area . No decisions will be made until after the Strategic Planning Process has been completed A suggestion was made concerning rental of foreclosed homes to St. Matthew's House clients, Mr. Ellison stated Code allows for up to four non-related individuals to occupy a single- family residence, Some landlords have approached St. Matthew's House about rental availabilities and a few have been placed into rental units on a limited basis based on their individual progress, 3. Approval of Minutes The following correction was noted: . Page 4, fifth paragraph, the "Affordable Workforce Subcommittee" was changed to the "Housing Incentives Subcommittee," John Cowan moved to approve the Minutes of the January 5, 2009 Meeting as amended. Second by Ken Kelly. Carried unanimously, 6-0. 4. 6rd Approval of Agenda JJI illll Schiffer moved to approve the Agenda as presented. Second by Jim Pusateri. Carried unanimously, 6-0. 4 16el!a12.2eA 1 5. Information Items B. Report from Subcommittees (1) Housing Incentives Subcommittee: . Did not mect in January . Next meeting: February 18,2009 at 3:00 PM in Building "H" - Environmental and Epidemiology Conference Room (2) Supply/Demand Subcommittee: . The consortium process was reviewed and discussed . Also discussed were ideas concerning how to approach the problem, research, and other strategies Public Speakers: Carl Keener, Immokalee Non-Profit Housing Board Member and Chair of Florida Non- Profit Services, reported a special session of the State legislature was held to fiil a $2,3 M gap in the budget. . $190 M of pre-committed funds, previously ailocated to Atlordable Housing organizations, have been removed. . Two Coilier County organizations were affected: the C-WHIP Program and Florida Non-Profit's Esperanza Place development He stated approximately $400,000 Florida Non-Profit's fund had been expended to satisfy ail requirements of the Statc to build the I 76-unit project. Suggestions were made at the FHFC meeting (Steve Unger, Chair) to exclude the non-profit organizations and "shove- ready" projects from "de-ailocation." If Florida Non-Profit does not receive the funds, additional funding from the USDA wiil also be lost. The Florida Housing Finance Committee Board wiil meet on March 13,2009 to adopt the ailocations recommendations, He further stated the State legislature did not recognize, or understand, the difference between the abundance of foreclosures versus the need for affordable housing for those earning 50% or less ofthe Average Median Income ("'AMI"), Would letters o/supportfrom the Committee Members would be helpfill? Yes. Mr. Keener stated suggested draft letter formats were available which he would provide to the Committee, Marcy Krumbine stated the lobbyist who works for Collier County has been contacted. SHIP Funds, however, remained intact. She further stated she would provide email addresses for Committee members for the Florida Housing Finance Committee Board members. Ken Kelly moved to authorize the AHAC Chairman to draft a letter of support to send to the Florida Housing Finance Committee. Second by Brad Schiffer. Carried unanimously, 6-0. 6. Selection of Affordable Housing Advisory Committee Member - Chairmanl All Marcy Krumbine stated the vacancy must be fiiled by a representative from lmmokalee who is an advocate for low-income individuals, A copy ofMr. Patrick Peck's application 5 161fjary 120nA 1 was distributed to the Committee, Ken Kelly moved to approve the application of Patrick Peck andforward it to the Board of County Commissioners for approval. Second by John Cowan. Carried unanimously, 6-0. 7. CDBG/HOME/ESG/SHIP Funding Recommendations- Marcy KrumbinelMargo Castorena Spread sheets were distributed to the Committee, Marcy Krumbine outlined the revised process used to evaluate the applications: . Committee consisted of 6 individuals . Sally Masters represented AHAC . Margo Castorena represented the H&HS Grant staff . Counseling given to non-profits stressed that application "told their story" . The scoring sheet was speci fic and the scores were automated . The focus was narrowed per direction from the Board of County Commissioners, i,e., no construction projects were considered . No organization will receive full funding - goal is to "grow" the organizations . Support will be given to non-profits' programs while encouraging them to find other revenue sources Ms. Krumbine noted the House of Representatives' version of the Economic Stimulus Package #2 is recommending $1 B in additional funding for CDBG, additional funding both HOME and Emergency Shelter Grants, plus additional funding for the Neighborhood Stabilization Program ("NSP"), The Senate version incorporates everything except the CDBG funding allocation, If the additional funding is received, it will be passed on to the approved applicants as determined by the Legislation, Margo Castorena explained the spread sheet format: . Organizations outlined in red were public service and limited to CDBG funding . There were no tunding limits or amounts specified since HUD allocation has not been finalized . 26 applications werc evaluated . $10,136,848 was requested . Recommended programs: o Habitat for Humanity - Acquisition/Rehab/Resale Program; o Shelter for Abused Women - Legal Services Program - an attorney will be hired to facilitate Court cases; o City of Naples - "vest pocket park" (small, passive sitting park) o Housing Opportunities Made for Everyone ("H,O,M,E,") - Acquisition/ Rehab/Resale Program o David Lawrence Center - expansion of mental health services o Collier County Housing Authority - interior renovations to Collier Village o Boys and Girls Club of Collier County -land acquisition for Immokalee site o Immokalee Non-Profit - rehabilitation of multi-family units o Empowerment Alliance of S W Florida - homebuyer education program o Housing Development of Collier County - homebuyer education program 6 16biary lzooA 1 o Collier County Housing Development Corp, - foreclosure prevention program to provide legal aid for families displaced by foreclosure o City of Marco - install sidewalks within Marco Highlands subdivision Committee questions: What was the maximum score possihle on an application? . 120 points What is the total amount to he granted if the approved applicants werefullyfunded? . $10,136,848 . Of the total requested amount, $6,5 Million was approved How much was received last yearfi"om HUD? . $3,5 Million (minus 20% allowed for Administrative costs) The HOME rehab program was approved, hut the same program for the Housing Development Corp. was denied. Why did the Housing Development Corp, of Collier County score so low for its rehah program? Wouldn't that he more important to the community than a vest-pocket park? . The City of Naples and the City of Marco are entitlement communities and will receive timds in any event . Technical assistance was provided by Staff, as advertised, both in Naples and Immokalee and one-on-one counseling was provided to help applicants complete the forms . One applicant did not answer any questions . Some housing development corporations did not provide requested information Marcy Krumbine stated only the homebuyer education programs were recommended for SHIP funding. Since SHIP tunding amount for next year is unknown, no other dollars were committed. When will a determination be made regarding how much each approved applicant will receive? What is the process? . Nothing can be done until the HUD levels are released - supplemental tunds may also be available . Also considered will be the type of projects - for example, there is a cap for public servIce programs . Some projects have been qualified for HOME funds and others were not . Another factor is how much each applicant can "bring to the table" - the goal is to assist the organizations but not necessarily fund the entire project Is there an exact formula that is used? . Other funding sources are considered . The focus is on the acquisition offoreclosed properties . The Boys & Girls Club project for vertical construction is heavily supported by the Naples Wine Festival but they needed assistance to obtain a site . The funds will be divided to support as many organizations as possible 7 1 &41i,?09A 1 It was pointed out if an organization cannot find matching funds, its project could not be completed even if the application was approved, Scoring and leverage are important considerations, It was suggested thatfullyfimding two or three projects would be more beneficial than partially funding so many Marcy Krumbine discussed the various options that were considered, For example, the Boys & Girls Club requested funding for land acquisition, The property was appraised at $1.2 M but the application asked for $750,000, If the Boys & Girls Club cannot make up the difference, even with the Grant, the property could not be purchased, If an organization has been funded for two years in a row, it was not considered for funding, The Committee determined that programs should not be funded over and over. If the same program is presented again, the Committee suggested subtracting points from future applications, Margo Castorena stated all applications were reviewed to determine if the programs were eligible for federal funding utilizing the CDR ("Code of Federal Regulations") guidelines, Some were not eligible, Marcy Krumbine stated the Action Plan will be presented to the Board of County Commissioners for approval. Were applicants given a "cure" period to correct their applications? . Some organizations were asked to cure missing items or explain questions asked by the Committee Vice Chairman Warnken recused himself from voting due to potential conflict - he thought his company may have provided services to one of the organizations, Corbin Giblin also recused himself for similar reasons, The proposed projects were presented to the AF AC but a vote could not be taken due to lack of quorum. Public Speaker: Ernesto Velasquez, a member of the Hispanic Affairs Advisory Board, stated he is the Hispanic Affairs Advisory Board's liaison to AHAC, He asked if the grant program had been advertised in the Hispanic community, Margo Castorena stated advertising appeared in the Naples Daily News and Staff met with members of the Immokalee community to provide technical advice and one-on-one counseling, She stated she would be happy to address to Hispanic Affairs Advisory Board, Stan Swithart, Vice President of Habitat for Humanity, stated he attended the National Habitat Convention and noted the 300,000th house built was dedicated in memory of Maryann Durso, 8 16reltJ2,A91 8. Next Meeting - March 2, 2009 at 3:00 PM, BCC Chambers. There being no further business for the good of the County, the meeting was adjourned by order of the Chair at 4:20 PM. CollieN::ounty Affordable Housing Commission , Chairman These Minutes were approved by the Board/Committee Chair on ~h Ztl~ } ooq , as presented v' ' or as amended 9 ~ COLLIER COUNTY AIRPORT AUTHORITJ 6 I 1 t~~I~;D MINUTES OF REGULAR MONDAY, JANUARY 12,2009 MEETIl'iJg d' , r of COurlty Commissioners MEMBERS Byron Meade Michael Klein Dave Gardner Frank Secrest PRESENT: Steve Price Jim Murray Lloyd Byerhoff STAFF: Theresa Cook Debbie Brueggeman Colleen Greene PUBLIC: Andres Correa Steve Fletcher Bill Garret Marvin Courtright Tadeusz Sz anski Fiala Halas I. MEETING CALLED TO ORDER Henning Coyle ~ Meeting called to order at 1:00 p,m. A quorum was present through~llNIan;;'t '~ III. APPROVAL OF AGENDA Mr. Gardner made a motion to approve the agenda. Mr. Secrest seconded, and the Agenda, was approved by a 7-0 vote. IV. AWARDS AND PRESENTATION No awards were presented at the January 2009 meeting. V. APPROVAL OF DECEMBER 8, 2008 MINUTES Mr. Gardner made a motion to approve the December 8, 2008 minutes, Mr. Murray seconded, and the December 8, 2008 minutes were approved by a 7-0 vote, VI. FINANCE REPORT - QUARTER ENDED NOVEMBER 30,2008 Ms. Cook addressed questions regarding fuel inventory. No action required, VII. WORK ORDER/AGREEMENTS STATUS REPORT The work order status report provides an update of the outstanding work orders and contracts/agreements, including payments made to date, No action required, VIII. EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR'S REPORT Updates and discussion of the following took place: Marco Island Executive Airport. The Site Development Plan for the parking lot relocation will be submitted to the County in mid-February, The geotechnical testing for the taxiway is complete. Funding for construction ofthe taxiway has not yet been sllfi:W~rres, Date:~ Item #.110 I (, 1)4 d- ['!0<; i,; CCAA Minutes January 12,2009 1611,\ dage2 Immokalee Regional Airport, The Planned Unit Development (PUD) will be resubmitted to the County within the next several weeks. The PUD resubmittal was put on hold in order to coordinate with Collier Enterprises Tradeport DRI, which has been withdrawn. Everglades Airpark. Shop drawings for the T-hangar building have been provided to Purchasing. IX. NEW BUSINESS A. The Airport Authority's fiscal 2010 Budget is due to the Office of Budget & Management (OMB) in March 2008. A draft was distributed to Board Members for their review prior to the February 9, 2009 meeting, No action required at this time. B, Mr. Price made a motion to approve Resolution No. 09-16 recommending that the Board of County Commissioners accept and authorize its Chairman to execute a $5,000 grant agreement from the Florida Airports Council (FAC) to provide wages, living assistance and/or transportation expenses for one internship program during the spring of 2009 for the Marco Island Executive Airport, Mr, Byerhof seconded, and Resolution No, 09-16 was approved unanimously, C, Mr. Price made a motion to approve Resolution No, 09-17 recommending that the Board of County Commissioners accept and authorize its Chairman to execute a $5,000 grant agreement from the Florida Airports Council (FAC) to provide wages, living assistance and/or transportation expenses for one internship program during the spring of2009 for the lmmokalee Regional Airport, Mr, Klein seconded, and Resolution No. 09-17 was approved unanimously, D. Mr. Courtright, Hummingbird Flight Service LLC, located at the lmmokalee Regional Airport presented a proposal to move sections of fencing and gates at the airport to allow public access to Hummingbird Flight Service, The proposed changes to the perimeter barriers and access points raised some concerns about security, The Authority deferred the decision to Airport management, but emphasized that they would like to ensure that customers can easily access businesses located at the airport. XI. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned "without objection," COLLIER COUNTY AIRPORT AUTHORITY COLLIER C TY, FLO ~ Ii .~ ;y; ~ Y:\Administration\AA Board\Minules\Ol-/2-09 minutes.docx Fiala ~f 1 iR~CflA/rV/ Halas 0 " Henning M R 7 20 Coyle ~~~~ COUNTY AIRPORT AUTHORITY "'" Commissioners eMjftU AR MONDAY, FEBRUARY 9, 2009 MEEf~fc-, l'/ MEMBERS Byron Meade PRESENT: Steve Price Michael Klein Jim Murray Dave Gardner Frank Secrest STAFF: Theresa Cook Debbie Brueggeman Colleen Greene PUBLIC: Mark Minor Andres Correa Marvin Courtright I. MEETING CALLED TO ORDER Meeting called to order at I :00 p.m. A quorum was present throughout the meeting, III. APPROVAL OF AGENDA Mr. Price made a motion to approve the agenda. Mr. Gardner seconded, and the Agenda, was approved by a 6-0 vote, IV. AWARDS AND PRESENTATION No awards were presented at the February 2009 meeting, V. APPROVAL OF JANUARY 12,2009 MINUTES Mr. Murray made a motion to approve the January 12,2009 minutes. Mr. Klein seconded, and the January 12,2009 minutes were approved by a 6-0 vote, VI. FINANCE REPORT - QUARTER ENDED DECEMBER 31, 2008 Ms, Cook addressed questions regarding fuel sales, and confirmed that the "high cost" fuel purchased for Everglades Airpark has been sold, No action required, VII. WORK ORDER/AGREEMENTS STATUS REPORT The work order status report provides an update of the outstanding work orders and contracts/agreements, including payments made to date. No action required. VIII. EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR'S REPORT Updates and discussion of the following took place: Annual Ethics Coverage, The Collier County Ethics Ordinance and a copy of CMA Instruction 5311, the current Administrative Procedure that addresses th~ acceptance of gifts by County employees, were distributed to the Authority. MISC, Corres: Date: item#' >;pies to CCAA Minutes February 9, 2009 1-6-J-j p~ 2 Proposed FY 2009/2010 Budget. Three scenarios of the proposed fiscal 2009/2010 budget were presented to the Authority, The Authority proposed submitting the scenario showing a general fund transfer of$657,000, indicating that this is the Budget the Authority believes is necessary to safely operate the airports. Immokalee Regional Airport. The Site Development Plan (SDP) for the USDA Manufacturing Facility will be submitted in March 2009, The USDA must approve the building plans, specifications and bid documents and concur with low bidder and contract award before construction can begin, This is a "Fast Track" project. It is anticipated that construction will begin in August 2009. The Site Development Permit for the Apron expansion construction was received on February 6, 2009, Construction will begin the week of February 9, 2009. Florida Architectural Products (F AP) has requested a rent reduction, Funding for the facility leased by F AP was provided by a Department of Community Affairs (DCA) Community Development Block Grant. DCA receives a percent of the rent, a rent reduction may need to be approved by DCA. Mr. Price made a motion to reduce F AP' s rent, pending DCA approval and attorney review, Mr. Gardner seconded. The Planned Unit Development (PUD) will be resubmitted to the County within the next several weeks. The PUD resubmittal was put on hold in order to coordinate with Collier Enterprises Tradeport DRI, which has been withdrawn, Marco Island Executive Airport. The apron (north) construction/parking lot relocation is in Permitting, which is expected to take an estimated 6 months. The SDP submittal fee to the County is approximately $15,000. Funds for the apron (north) and parking lot relocation are available from the FDOT and FAA. The design of the taxiway is 70% complete. Permitting is expected to take about 6 months. The SDP submittal fee to the County is approximately $30,000, Funds may be available from the FDOT and/or FAA. The original cost of mitigation at Rookery Bay for the Taxiway Project was about $750,000, The total on-going cost over the next five years to maintain the mitigation site at Rookery Bay will be approximately $500,000 if contracted out. Management is looking into the possibility of having the Immokalee Airport staff perform the five-year annual maintenance of the Rookery Bay site, A comparison of the costs for vegetation management at the airport utilizing in-house staff and day laborers versus contracting out the entire project was distributed to the Authority. Everglades Airpark, The request for bids (RFBs) for the T-hangar construction went up on the Purchasing website on February 9, 2009, The recommendation for the award of the bid is expected to be on the March 2009 agenda, The request for quotes for the Sheriffs dwelling has been sent out to the County's design contractors. A work order for the low cost contractor is expected to be on the March 2009 agenda, Y:l4dministrationIAA Board\Minutes\02-09-09 minutes.docx CCAA Minutes February 9, 2009 16-f--t-A-Z2- IX. NEW BUSINESS A. Mr, Murray made a motion to approve Resolution No, 09-18 approving and authorizing the Authority's Executive Director to execute URS Corporation Work Order with CCAA Tracking Nwnber #URS-FT-3889-09-01 in the amount of $22,000 for required professional planning, engineering and consulting services through September 30, 2009 at the Everglades Airpark, lmmokalee Regional Airport and Marco Island Executive Airport. Mr. Klein seconded, and Resolution No. 09-18 was approved unanimously, B. The Authority requested that staff provide further justification for the need for a "Compact Track Loader" before approving the purchase of this equipment. Mr. Gardner made a motion to defer Resolution No. 09-19 recommending awarding bid number 08-5162 "Purchase of Compact Track Loader" to the lowest qualified, responsive bidder meeting specifications, W,E. Johnson Equipment d.b,a, Bobcat of Naples, and authorizing the Authority's Executive Director to execute a contract in the amount of $70,621.29 with W.E, Johnson Equipment d.b,a. Bobcat of Naples, contingent on funding from the FOOT and compliance with Purchasing policies and procedures until the March 2009 meeting, Mr. Murray seconded, and Resolution No, 09-19 was deferred until the March 9,2009 meeting. C, Mr. Murray made a motion to approve Resolution No. 09-20 recommending that the BCC accept and authorize its Chairman to execute a FAA Grant Agreement in the amount of $187, 150 and approve associated Budget Amendments, for the construction of the apron expansion at the lmmokalee Regional Airport, Mr. Klein seconded, and Resolution No. 09-20 was approved unanimously, 0, Mr. Klein made a motion to approve Resolution No. 09-21 recommending that the BCC accept and authorize its Chairman to execute a FAA Grant Agreement in the amount of $1 0 1,741 and approve associated Budget Amendments, for the construction of the apron at the Marco Island Executive Airport, Mr. Murray seconded, and Resolution No. 09-21 was approved unanimously E, Mr, Klein made a motion to approve Resolution No. 09-22 approving and authorizing the Authority's Executive Director to execute Change Order #1 to Q. Grady Minor & Associates Work Order # QGM-FT-3969-08-17 in the amount of $5,370 to finalize County permitting required for the apron (north) construction and parking lot relocation at the Marco Island Executive Airport, increasing the total amount ofthe Work Orderfrom $19,730 to $25,100, Mr. Murray seconded, and Resolution No. 09- 22 was approved unanimously. F, Mr. Gardner made a motion to approve Resolution No. 09-23 approving and authorizing the Authority's Executive Director to execute Q, Grady Minor & Associates Work Order with CCAA Tracking # GQM-FT-09-04 in the amount of $35,860 for construction layout/survey services and engineering services during construction of the apron expansion (north) and parking lot relocation at the Marco Island Executive Airport, Y-tAdministrationl4A Board\Minutes\02~09-09 minutes.docx CCAA Minutes February 9, 2009 16 I 1 Aa24 X. PUBLIC COMMENT Mr. Courtright, Hummingbird Flight Service LLC, updated the Authority about a recent F ederal Aviation Administration (FAA) inspection of his leased airplane and aircraft incident at the lmmokalee Regional Airport, XI. ADJOURNMENT Before adjourning, the Authority was reminded that the annual BCC Workshop is on Friday, March 27, 2009 at 9:00 in the BCC Board Room, The Authority also agreed to discuss liability insurance requirements at the March 9, 2009, and to have the March 9 meeting in lmmokalee, The meeting was then adjourned "without objection," COLLIER COUNTY AIRPORT AUTHORITY COLLIER C.:~Y~Y, FLORI~-' L -/(7 Byron M Y: \Administration lAA BoardlMinulesI02-09-09 minutes.docx RECEIVED MAR I 8 2009 t=iala {)F~ Halas '/1/. ./ Henning + l-r ,/ Coyle v Coletta 4e-. 16 , 1 A 3 January 20, 2009 ;~{';~~d (jf :-~ount\l Commissioners MINUTES OF THE MEETING OF COLLIER COUNTY DOMESTIC ANIMAL SERVICES ADVISORY COMMITTEE Naples, Florida, January 20, 2009 LET IT BE REMEMBERED, that the Collier County Domestic Animal Services Advisory Committee in and for the County of Collier, having conducted business herein, met on this date at 6:30 PM in REGULAR SESSION at Domestic Animal Services Training Room, Davis Blvd., East Naples, Florida with the following members present: CHAIRMAN: Michele Antonia VICE CHAIRMAN: Marcia Breithaupt (excused) Dr. Ruth Eisele Sergeant David Estes Tom Kepp, Jr. Sabina Musci (excused) Jim Rich ALSO PRESENT: Amanda Townsend, Director ofDAS Mise, Corres: "Jpies to: 1611A3 January 20, 2009 I. Call to Order Michele Antonia called the meting to order at 6:30 p, M. II. Attendance A quorum was established. III. Approval of Agenda Jim Rich moved to approve the agenda. Second by Tom Kepp. Carried unanimously, 4-0. IV. Approval of Minutes: December 16, 2008 Dr. Ruth Eisele moved to approve the minutes of December 16, 1008, as presented. Second by Tom Kepp. Carried unanimously, 4-0. V. Old Business A. Director's Report Amanda Townsend reported on: 1. The one-hour presentation on Animal Cruelty at Manatee Middle School given by Nan Gerhardt who is a Certified Interpreter, qualified to give such presentations. It covered the three kinds of cruelty. Amanda elaborated on the presentation topic and the impression on the students and teachers. Sgt, Estes arrived at 6:35 pm, Presentation kits will be put together in the future for various age groups. DAS members as well as other volunteers could be trained to give these presentations. Michele Antonia offered her services to train for presentations to Adult Programs in Immokalee. 2. The 40 hour Animal Control Investigation- Level 2 class Training course was attended by her, four Officers and the Animal Control Supervisor; as well as people from allover the country. The course, hosted by DAS, was given by the University of Missouri Law Enforcement Training Institute and a non-profit group called Code Three Associates. She explained the curriculum and identified the presenters and their areas of expertise. AIOO question test, which will be graded by the University, followed the course, Amanda Townsend Provided reminders of upcoming events: 1. Feb. 14,2009 from 11 :00 to 3:00 Smooch a Pooch, Kiss a Kitty Meet and Greet Annual Adoprion Fair, which will include hourly shelter tours. 2. February 24, 2009 Spay Day USA, with the opportunity to pre-pay with DAS for those making appointments with the various participating Veterinarians. Information on total costs is to be provided. 2 16' 1 A 3 January 20, 2009 B. DAS Statistics (handout) Amanda Townsend Reviewed the monthly statistics and answered questions from the Members regarding various items, VI. New Business A. Regulating Breeders- at the request of Tom Kepp A lengthy discussion was held regarding policies and solutions to the unlicensed breeders and pet sellers. Speaker Pallas Diaz asked to speak at this time as her comments were directed solely to this issue. She distributed copies of a research done by the National Animal Interest Alliance and the issues were discussed after her address on several aspects regarding both hobby and backyard breeders. She also researched other Counties' policies on the issue. Tom Kepp requested a special meeting or workshop be scheduled, whereby members of rescue groups, animal advocacy groups and the general public could gather to discuss breeder fees, licensing, enforcement, registered breeders and other policies related to indiscriminate breeding. They would then present their recommendations to DASAB. Dr. Eisele commented that by making registration a benefit to the reputable breeders will help weed out the bad ones. It was brought out that there are both State and Federal laws regarding breeders. Amanda suggested conducting a survey to target the proper areas and protections to the buying public. The consensus was that legitimate breeders would benefit by structured policies The workshop was scheduledfor February 10,2009 at 6:30 pm. B. Off Site Adoptions - at the request of Jim Rich The question was, if DAS does do adoptions, why is it not a focus and why can' 1 there be more off-site adoptions using trained volunteers. Discussion on various options followed. Amanda responded the concern for DAS was limited funds, time constraints and risk issues when animals are sent out from DAS without DAS staff present, She will discuss possibilities with Kathy Drew who handles the once a month off -site adoptions. C. Domestic Animal Abandonment - at the request of Jim Rich Jim asked what recourse the county has when an animal is abandoned. Amanda responded that in Violations of the Ordinance an Animal Officer must witness it or 2 witnesses sign an affidavit. ln a criminal offinse, it becomes more complicated. ln both cases the offinder must be located and can be prosecuted Sgt. Estes explained the determination of proving a crime. Instances were given. 3 16)lA3 January 20, 2009 D. Reporting LostIFound Pets - at the request of Jim Rich Jim asked the policy and procedure when a pet is found. Amanda responded that in both lost andfound cases the iriformation is entered into the Chameleon data base on Pet Harbor computer program, Stafffollows up on data to find a match. A kiosk will be installed in DAS Lobby by the next meetingfor instruction on Pet Harbor, VII. Public Comment Stepben Wright restated his plea to the Committee Members for their recommendation to DAS to focus on adoptions. By making it a part of their Mission Statement, adoptions would not be put aside in favor of fundraising and/or education which are harder to do and more labor-intensive. Animals will always be coming into DAS. Changing hours, increase cat inventory, pet store viewing and advertising were some of his suggestions. Discussion followed regarding procedure if the Mission Statement were to be changed. Amanda responded there was training of volunteers and liability risk involved, as well as constricted budgets, wrong timing for changes and significantly less tax revenue expected as some of the many reasons DAS would not support changing the Mission Statement. However, as Staff Liaison, she was obliged to bring the Committee's recommendations forward. VIII. Advisory Board Member Comments Tom Kepp commented that he hoped to see some kind of consensus on how these issues can be addressed over the next 6 months. . Better end results, especially with the rescue groups' participation which would occur through discussions and agreements. . Utilizing volunteers to relieve staff shortage with clerical work. Jim Ricb reported on a positive incident of a DAS rescue on a Sunday. Sgt. David Estes mentioned . Using DAS Trust for the breeder situation. . Volunteers could check ads in the newspaper or report signs in yards, . Economy has a lot to do with owners not spaying and neutering animals. Micbele Antonia spoke of a University of Florida Pediatric Spay and Neuter Clinic in March. She will provide Amanda with the information to pass along to Dr. Brown, if she would find this clinic useful. Amanda Townsend: . Explained the County's "measure of success" determination Process which provides how each department is meeting its expectations. . Noted, regarding breeder laws, that County Laws can be more stringent than State Laws, but not any less stringent. . Reported she was interviewed on a Studio 55 educational piece on micro- chipping. 4 ~an~aryt,lft 3 The next regular meeting of the Domestic Animal Services Advisory Board is scheduled for February 17,2009. There being no further business for the good of the County, the meeting was adjourned by the order of the Chair at 8:23 P.M. COLLIER COUNTY DOMESTIC ANIMAL SERVICES These minutes appro~ by the Board/Committee on as presented V , or as amended J //7/01 I . 5 RECEiVED MAR 1 8 2009 ~::, ~;ltj",j 16 I 1 A 3 Henning / Coyle v / February 17, 2009 CQlott$ =4------ v j:.;-o, Ii :.:1 .>iUnlv Cormnissioncrs MINUTES OF THE MEETING OF COLLIER COUNTY DOMESTIC ANIMAL SERVICES ADVISORY COMMITTEE Naples, Florida, February 17,2009 LET IT BE REMEMBERED, that the Collier County Domestic Animal Services Advisory Committee in and for the County of Collier, having conducted business herein, met on this date at 6:30 PM in REGULAR SESSION at Domestic Animal Services Training Room, Davis Blvd., East Naples, Florida with the following members present: CHAIRMAN: Michele Antonia Marcia Breithaupt Dr. Ruth Eisele Sergeant David Estes Tom Kepp, Jr. Sabina Musci ALSO PRESENT: Amanda Townsend, Director, DAS Nan Gerhardt - Shelter Operations Manager Kathy Drew, Volunteer Coordinator Hailey Alonso, DAS Mise, Corres: Date: ilem# -----,.__._--~.- ";A,'P(' 1611A3 February 17,2009 I. Call to Order Chairman Michele Antonia called the meeting to order at 6:32 P. M. II. Attendance Roll call was taken and a quorum established. III. Approval of Agenda Staffrequested moving New Business Item C. Lost and Found Demonstration to the next DAS meeting. Sgt. David Estes moved to approve the agenda, with the exception of "New Business Item C. Lost and Found Demonstration", which will be taken up at the March DAS meeting. Second by Marcia BreiJhaupt. Carried unanimously 6-0. IV. Approval of Minutes: January 20, 2009 Correction: Page 2, Item I, the word is meetinf! (sp) Dr Ruth Eisele moved to approve the Minutes of January20, 2009, as amended. Second by Jim Rich. Carried unanimously 6-0. V. Old Business A. Director's Report Amanda Townsend spoke about "Spay Day USA" taking place on February 24, 2009. Contacts and individual visits were made to veterinarians willing to take part by the coordinator of the event. As a result: · 96 slots have been reserved · 250 requests for appointments have been received · 50 vouchers given out (pre-payment by money order required) The show of interest in the community appeared to indicate no lack of desire for spay & neuter service, rather a lack of financial ability. In the coming months DAS will formally recognize the veterinary community for their willingness to participate. Kathy Drew reviewed the success of the "Smooch-a-Pooch-Kiss-a-Kitty" event: · Brought over 300 visitors to the shelter . An adoption fair was held · Several rescue groups were on hand · Shelter tours were conducted. Upcoming event- March 15,2009, lOam to 4pm - For Footed Friends, a privately owned food store and several other sponsors are contributing to "For Footed Friends Dog Run", which will include a 5-stop Poker Run to benefit the Donation Trust Fund. 2 A3 February 17,2009 B. Departmental Statistics and Reports (January 2009) Statistic reports were e-mailed to Advisory Board members prior to the meeting. Amanda Townsend reviewed the reports, elaborating: . The new Vet Tech under employment since January 2009 . Intake figures were measured against population . Assessing spay & neuter on returns to owner . Effected 63 spay & neuters based on changes to the Ordinance Sabina Musci arrived at 6:48 pm. . Euthanasia's and Intake nwnbers were down . On-line venders taking part in "Give Back America" which returns a percentage to Donation Trust Fund- one way of fundraising Amanda distributed copies of the letter of request by a gentleman from Orlando who is doing a research project on the amount of monies spent per animal in each of the 67 Florida counties. By taking the Operating Budget and dividing it by the nwnber of animals taken in, she arrived at the figure of $31 1.16 per animal handled by DAS. VI. New Business A. Change DAS Mission Statement (handout) Amanda Townsend reported the response from the County Attorney's office to the DASAB's inquiry on making changes to the Mission Statement. She read the current Mission Statement. Their opinion was it is an administrative function of the Director since there was no County ordinance which specifically addresses department "mission statements, " Recommendations to the BCC from the public or DASAB can be carriedforward. Further discussion on changes to addfocus on adoptions to the Mission Statement wi/I be added to the April agenda. B. Ethics Training (handout from County Human Resources Director) Amanda Townsend asked the members to read through the memorandwn on the Ethic Ordinance, the Ethics Guide to the Sunshine Amendment and Code of Ethics for Public Employees and the CMA Instructions 5311 (Administrative Procedure addressing the acceptance of gifts by County employees.) Advisory Board Members as well as County employees are responsible for being familiar with this ordinance. C. Lost and Found Demonstration -(moved to next meeting by prior vote) D. Presentation on House Bill 451 (handout copies Resolution) Amanda Townsend explained the Resolution regarding- "requiring sterilization of dogs and cats of a specified age and providing for exceptions" to be brought forward to the BCC upon DASAB approval. 3 3 February 17, 2009 Discussion of the various parts of the bill and exceptions followed, Tom Kepp moved to recommend approval of the Resolution supporting House Bill 451. Second by Jim Rich. The matter was tabled until copies of the House Bill 451 and its exceptions were made and handed out. E. Assistance from Vets - Jim Rich Discussion was about communications with local Veterinarians regarding incidences in which Veterinarians require extra expensive tests for a simple spay & neuter. Vets cite "quality of care." Amanda responded she does speak at Veterinary meetings and can make suggestions, Some vets work as community partners that work with DAS; some rely only on the marketplace. Returned to item D, Amanda Townsend read the exceptions from Bil1451and provided explanations. A lengthy discussion followed regarding the mandates, exceptions, fmes and penalties under the law. Sgt. Estes had concerns regarding: I. Too many added regulations and mandates in stressful and tough economic times affecting even responsible pet owner's rights. 2. People should not have to jump through more and more hoops to own a pet and be regulated on things they should be able to decide on their own. 3. There is no perfect law 4, Not for imposing more restrictions or forcing sterilization- prefers to emphasize promoting spay and neuter and adoptions. Discussion followed on whether the public are being responsible or not and if imposing laws will make them more responsible. Several suggestions were made about protecting those who are responsible pet owners and breeders, Michele Antonia moved to amend Tom Kepp's motion to recommend approval of the Resolution supporting House Bill 451 to include the word "sterilization" in place of "spaying and/or neutering" in the Resolution. Second by Marcia Breithaupt Motion carried 4-3. (Sgt David Estes, Dr. Ruth Eisele and Sabina Musci voted against) VII. Public Comment - None VIII. Advisory Board Member Comments Tom Kepp asked if there was a training program for Vohmteers and is helping with paperwork part of a volunteer's duties. 4 lOTI A 3 February 17, 2009 Amanda responded "Yes" to both questions. Marcia Breithaupt inquired about the deadline for registering for Spay Day Amanda Townsend announced that anyone interested in riding along with an Animal Control Officer for a day, to contact her for scheduling. The next meeting of the DAS Advisory Board is scheduled for March 17, 2009 There being no further business for the good of the County, the meeting was adjourned by order of the Chair at 7:45 P.M. Collier County Domestic Animal Services These minutes approved by the Board/Committee on as presented V or amended 3/;}/0'1 , .. 5 Cl W > W () w a::: 1-- ~,I~ THE BAYSHOREjGATEWAY TRIANGLE REDEVELOPME1~~1'i ~ 27~ ~y~~ ~R~EI l:1~ 17 ~~L~S~~3~1~ ?}:N~2~~3~111\~ ~91~ c ? 8 BjYSHORE/GATEWAY TRIANGLE COMMUNITY REDEVELOPMENT LOCAL ADVISORY BOARD N 13 MINUTES OF THE FEBRUARY 3, 2009 MEETING = u > = "]!jie meeting of the Bayshore/Gateway Triangle Community Redevelopment Advisory Board was called ~ t8 order by Chairman Mr, Lindsey Thomas at 6:00 p,m, at the CRA Office Meeting Room 4069 Bayshore ~ ~rive, ::c :g 1, Roll Call: Present: Advisory Board Members: Lindsey Thomas, Chuck Gunther, Steve Main, Bill Neal, Ron Fowle, Maurice Gutierrez, and Bruce Preble, Excused absence: Jill Barry, Karen Beatty called and will arrive late, CRA Staff Present: David Jackson, Executive Director, Jean Jourdan Project Manager and Sue Trone Operations Analyst, Shirley Garcia Operations Coordinator, County Staff Present: Marjorie Student-Stirling, Assistant County Attorney, Michelle Arnold, Alternative Transportation Modes, 2, Adoption of Aaenda: Chairman Thomas asked if there were any additions or corrections to the published agenda, Hearing none, he asked for a motion to approve the agenda: Motion: Mr. Preble, Second: Mr, Neal. Approved 7-0 - Ms Beatty absent. 3, Adoption of Minutes: Chairman Thomas asked for a motion to approve the January 6, 2009 regular meeting minutes: Motion: Mr, Main, Second: Mr. Preble, Approved 7-0 - Ms Beatty absent. 4, Executive Director's Report: a, Presentation: Bayshore Drive (south) Design Concept. Mr, Jackson introduced Ms Jourdan as the presenter of the update on the project jointly funded by the Bayshore Beautification MSTU and CRA. Ms Jourdan detailed the events that occurred at the project's public meeting held on January 22'd at the East Naples Community Center. The consultant, Agnoli, Barber & Brundage gave a presentation to approximately 20 residents and staff, The public viewed the scope of work and three road improvement options and the associated costs to design and construct them, The first option was to install one sidewalk on the east side, minimum landscape treatments and improve the drainage swale system, Cost approximately $600,000, Option Two was two sidewalks installed with curb and gutter, significant landscaping and piped drainage system that may require the purchase of land for drainage treatment. Cost approximately $2,2M, Option Three was one 10 foot wide sidewalk on the east side with curb and gutter, significant landscape and a piped drainage system, Cost approximately $2,2M, There was also an option to install traffic control medians that are landscaped in the southern portion of the street. The attending residents voted for their desired option and the results were: 2 for Option One, 7 for Option Two and 8 for Option Three, In discussion: I. Mr, Gunther asked what happened to the existing bike lane and about bikes and pedestrian conflicts on the single 10 foot sidewalk in Option Three, Ms Jourdan explained that the 4 foot paved shoulder was not a bike lane, that there wasn't enough right of way to install sidewalks and two bike lanes and that it is not illegal for bicycles to be on sidewalks in Collier County, il. Mr. Neal asked who was going to pay for the selected Option, Ms Jourdan stated that the CRA agreed to jointly fund the design concept. Mr. Jackson reminded the CRA-AB that the follow-on work would be the MSTU's responsibility, and that was the agreement made when the idea was presented to the Board last year, Mise Corres iil. Mr. Gutierrez asked for a cost breakdown and Ms Jourdan restated the estimated costs per Option, ,:Jate Ott~ 0--, ~ iY February 3 2009 CRA-AS Minutes . ~- ~il \)4 t 1611 A4 iv, Mr. Fowle asked what the status of the Naples Botanical Garden's sidewalk requirements as part of their PUD agreement. Ms Jourdan stated that there was not going to be a payment in lieu of construction and that the Garden's sidewalk requirement was only for the first 500 feet or so, not the entire length, v, Mr, Main made the motion for the CRA-AB to support whatever Option the MSTU selected to install. Second Mr. Neal. Approved 8-0, b, Proiect Updates, i. Inauqural CRA Event. Ms Jourdan briefed the CRA-AB on the inaugural CRA event progress, She stated that she and Ms Garcia were working with Collier County parks and Recreation event staff, and that if the event were approved, that it would cost approximately $45,000, ii. Bank Loan RFP, Mr, Jackson informed the Board that the Bank RFP was released on January 30th and that there were four weeks for the banks to respond, iii. Land Offered to CRA. Mr, Jackson briefly described a handout that showed multiple parcels in the Bayshore Drive area that had been offered to the CRA. He stated that there was no discussion of price or terms and that he would keep the Board informed if anything progressed to serious discussions, He suggested that the CRA-AB wait until the Bank RFP responses were received, 5, Old Business: a, Request for Pavment - Appraisal Services - Burqer Kinq Site, b, Request for Payment - Appraisal Services - Corradi Site, c, Request for Payment - Johnson Enqineerinq, Inc, d, Request for Pavment - Q, Gradv Minor & Associates PA. e, Request for Pavment - Aqnoli. Barber & Brundaqe, f. Request for Pavment - Appraisal Services - 17 Acres & Shadley Site, Mr. Gunther made the motion to approve Old Business items a through f as detailed in the Executive Director's Memos that detailed the services rendered and invoices received, Second: Mr. Preble, Approve 8-0, g, Residential Infill RFP - Bid Relection, Mr, Jackson reminded the CRA-AB that at the January 6th Board meeting, this item was tabled after much discussion, He restated his request for bid rejection based on the demonstrated inability for Kaye Homes to meet the explicit terms stated in the RFP, Also Mr, Jackson stated that he did not believe it was well-served for the CRA to proceed with this project with only one bidder, because without a competitive bid the CRA wasn't able to clearly determine that it was receive the service at the best cost. Lastly he stated that the CRA should re-bid the RFP at a later date with a revised scope of work, and that Kaye Homes can submit their proposal at that time, Motion to reject RFP 08-5112 and the sole bid from Kaye Homes: Mr, Neal. Second: Mr, Gunther, In discussion: i. Mr, Thomas gave Mr, Stuart Kaye of Kaye Homes three minutes to present his comments, Mr, Kaye handed out a marketing flyer and stated why he felt the CRA-AB should proceed with his company in the construction and marketing of three homes on four CRA-owned lots, Mr, Thomas thanks Mr, Kaye and asked if there were any speakers in the audience, ii. Mr. Dwight Oakley stated that he felt the bid should be rejected because there was only on bidder and not a true competitive bid process, iii. Mr, Victor Brittan stated that he did not know Mr, Kaye and that as a local realtor, he had three people qualified to buy homes, but there is a lack of quality stock within the Bayshore Drive area, iv, Mr. Rick Edson stated he was involved in the local citizens group, Naples Bay Corridor Alliance, and that he supported the rejection of the RFP bid because there is still an over-supply of houses on the market and that right now the CRA- AB should consider purchasing additional land while the land values are greatly reduced, and then build houses when the residential market stabilizes, v, Mr, Thomas asked if there were any more public comments or Advisory Board discussion, Mr. Neal called the question, Motion approved 5-3 with Ms Beatty, February 3 2009 eRA-AS Minutes 2 Mr, Main and Mr. Preble dissenting, 16 ,. 1 A 4 6, New Business: a, CRA Grant Approvals, Ms Trone presented two Shoreline Stabilization grant applications for Mr, Bill King who owned two abutting lots at 2772 and 2736 Riverview Drive, Each grant application was for up to $5,000 (per lot) and that they met the scope and intent of the program, Each site's total cost was $28,405 and $28,470 respectively, Motion to approve: Mr, Main, Second: Mr. Preble, Approved 8-0, b, Redevelopment Plan Update RFP Bid, Mr, Jackson asked the Board to review an update memo that showed the results of the RFP Selection Committee, The Committee selected tow firms to accomplish the eight tasks in the scope of work, This selected option allowed the CRA to select 'the best' firms based on the tasks scope of work, Otherwise the CRA would not have the most qualified firm working on each task, The two firms are: I. Award Task # 2 (LDC and CRA Overlay Update) to RWA, and il. Award Task #1 & Task #3 - 8 (CRA Plan Update - Economic Analysis, Transportation Review, TIF Projections, Capital Improvements Plan, Cultural District Plan and the basic CRA pan) to Q, Grady Minor, iil. Mr, Neal stated that he believed that the ten-year old CRA Plan need a fresh look and an update and motioned to recommend the two firms, RWA and Q, Grady Minor, to the CRA Board for approval. Second: Mr, Gutierrez, Approved 8-0, c, Work Order Proposal for Enqineerinq & Environmental Services, Mr. Jackson briefed the CRA-AB on Staff's efforts to prepare the CRA's 17 acre site for redevelopment. The RFP for a Master Developer has been released with responses due at the end of February, Whether or not a company's proposal is selected, there will still be a tremendous amount of environmental permitting to be accomplished prior to any site development. Ms Jourdan briefed the Board on the information that was discussed at a meeting with South Florida Water Management District (SFWMD), Permits could be as short as two years to as long as five years, By attending meetings with SFWMD, Staff can keep the permitting and review process moving through the system; however, Mr, Jackson recommended that the CRA-AB approve a Work Order on a Collier County Fixed Term contract with Johnson Engineering to provide engineering and environmental consulting services for the Staff during the meetings with SFWMD, Motion to approve: Mr, Neal. Second: Mr, Gunther, Approved 8-0, 7, Citizen Comments, Mr, Thomas asked if there were any comments from the audience, There were none, 8, Adiournment: The regular meeting was adjourned at 7:00 pm, ~-, ~.~~;;,:. - ~~ ",'--;:r ../ arded by Lindsey Thomas, CRA-AB Chairman, February 3 2009 CRAwAB Minutes 3 r-, f/ .,-1_ Fiala '1' / w.,j Halas . I . ,~-- Henning* Coyle .. Collier County Coletta . Citizen Corps Advisory Committee February 18, 2009 REc16do11A~ 1'A R ! () 1009 ?fl, ! <,; t. ..-,', '.~ ','C ;"':LO, (; (' ::":HniS::;ioners Voting Members Present Reg Buxton, Greater Naples Chamber of Commerce Jerry Sanford, North Naples Fire Floyd Chapin, Community Emergency Response Volunteers Lt. George W dch, Collier County Sheriff's Office Walter Jaskiewicz, Coast Guard Auxiliary James Elson, Collier County Veterans Council Captain Castillo, Salvation Army Doug Porter, Naples Civil Air Patrol Deborah Horvath, American Red Cross Gerry Sugarman, RSVP Voting Members Absent: (Excused Absence) Russell Rainey, Community Emergency Response Team Expert Consultants Present Joe Frazier, Collier County Emergency Management Kathleen Marr, Collier County Health Department Greg Speers, East Naples Fire District Joe Irene, Neighborhood Watch Group Voting Members Absent: (Non-Excused Absence) Mise, COITeS: Oale:1!:l-ft-V cj 118m .:.lli 1.{ 1)1+0 Meeting was called to order at 3:00 p.m, Pledge of Allegiance recited and roll call taken, Xipies to Approval of Minutes Motion to accept the minutes of the January 21,2009 meeting made by Floyd Chapin, and seconded by Walt Jaskiewicz, Approved unanimously, Threat Update Per Lt. Welch, we are still at the Elevated Threat (Yellow) at the National level. For domestic and international travel, it is at High level (Orange), Recommend everyone remain vigilant. New Business HMGP Grant Rick Zyvoloski reported that the State gave a workshop yesterday regarding opportunities, About 15 people attended, including folks from Charlotte County, There will be a special meeting on Friday at 9 a,m. to review any new projects, If you are interested, get your worksheet to Rick by Thursday and come Friday to present you information for vote by the committee, State applications are due April 6th and we are guaranteed $2 million, If we use all our money, we can get any available unused money as well, Grants are open - the website is collierem,org - there are 10 pages regarding who is eligible for the LMS grants, Proposed Stimulus Package Per Joe Frazier, President Obama is pushing his stimulus package out to the public, A major caveat with these types of grants is they have to create temporary or permanent jobs within the community, There is one available through Economic Development Administration for reconstruction after Tropical Storm Fay. FEMA has sent ideas and provision. We are looking at a fire station on the Alley, since we cannot meet the 12-minute water on fire rule, $210 million is available for non-Federal fIre stations and departments, $150 million is available in Public Transportation ~!n~ a~d $!o 'A 5 1 million available for port security, Debbie Horvath mentioned that the House passed a bill under Title 7 Homeland Security, Joe said that DHS hasn't delved into this yet. Project management on grants is labor-intensive with DHS Grants, Per Debbie, Walmart gave a $5 million grant - ARC received $17,000, which went for a trailer. Joe said the Citizen Corps/CERT was under programmatic review because he didn't specify the type of radio equipment. He has selected equipment from the approved equipment list ($45,00 more than original cost) and has resubmitted the application, Airport Exercise Per JDe, a majDr exercise is held every couple years - this year is just a tabletDp to cover FAA requirements fDr the Naples Airport, It is called "OperatiDn Desperate Response" and will include the Salvation Army, Sheriff's OffIce, ARC and Dthers, The exercise includes a plane accident that will take out a fIre statiDn, He is meeting with the Naples Airport folks tDmorrow and the tabletop will be held sDmetime in April. Y DU are all welcome tD attend, School Training Results Les Williams from EMS, JDe and Dan Summers put tDgether a training consisting of cDmbined courses from 100,200 and 700 Independent Studies (G-402 training) fDr the Superintendent Df SchDDls and his senior staff. Crisis management is their ultimate job, The first 40 minutes was NIMS training and then they did an exercise on a schDDI shDoter incident. Joe said there are cameras in all hallways Df all schoDls, Lt. Welch has access tD the school cameras at their cDmmand center. The next stage is tD get the schDol board members in for training, Lt. Welch said he was at the FEPA conference and sat in on Orange County meeting - the schoDls there have a 3-day intensive command ICS training. There will be two sessions held in March with Les, Phil Reid from the SchDols and an SO person attending, Other Per Kathleen Marr, there will be a radiDlogical training at North Naples Regional Park Dn April 24th, sponsored by the Health Department. Old Business Ese Update Per Jim vonRinteln, the ESC is on schedule; however, it is behind schedule on getting the CO, Expect tD have EM and the EOC operational in about 60 days, We are working with IT for phDnes. cDmputer systems, etc" and the furniture has been ordered, At this point we are on budget and the grants are intact. We did fine with the grant audit. The group will get a tDur as SODn as we have full access, Other Jerry SanfDrd annDunced that the FreedDm Memorial ground-breaking will be held at 10 a,m. Dn Thursday, March 19th (it is located on the comer Df GDlden Gate Parkway and GDDdlette-Frank Road), TWD 4x8 signs with pictures Df the memorial will be placed adjacent to the park. Per Walt, the CG Auxiliary and CAP in the 7th District (CDllier CDunty), cDnsisting Df 675 people, will have to have the 210 cDurse by March 15, A reminder that YDU are the Incident Commander until SDmeone arrives Dn scene - you need to know how to transfer cDntrDI. Joe printed Dut all the Emergency Management Institute (NIMS) cDurses for the group's informatiDn, Will bring multiple copies to the next meeting, Next MeetingfAdioum Motion to adjourn the meeting at 3:35 p,m. made by Floyd and seconded by Walt. Approved unanimDusly, Minutes submitted by Mary Ann Cole, 4~~ ~ Reg Buxton ~/~ Date Approved by Chair: 16 hI A 5 medical reserve corps The Public Depends On You Get Trained with the Florida Bureau of Radiation Control Date: Radiological Incident Response Awareness Course for Volunteers Friday I April 24, 2009 Course: Time: 10:00 - 2:30 PM (3.5 hours and a break for lunch on your own) Location: North Naples Regional Park 15000 Livingston Road, Naples FL 34119 Exhibit Hall A Instructors: Dave Pieski and Hector Tabares Division of Radiation Control / Dept of Health Course will provide instruction in: .:. Radiological Basics including Terminology and Survey Instruments .:. Weapons of Mass Destruction including "Dirty Bombs" and Nuclear Devices .:. Protective Action Guidelines and County Response Overview .:. How Volunteers Can Help In the Intermediate and Recovery Phases Tarqet Audience: Medical Reserve Corps (MRC), ,~(cU ~ 'us'; and CERT Volunteers Sponsored by the Collier County Medical Reserve Corps Please call Kathleen Marr @ the Collier County Health Department for questions or to RSVP by 4/16/09 Phone# 252-6874 3:00 3:05 3:10 3: IS 3:50 4:00 1611A5 Citizen Corps Advisory Committee Agenda February 18, 2009 Pledge of Allegiance -Opening Remarks -Roll Call Sheriff's OtTIce CERV USCGA Red Cross Chamber of' Conunerce EMS EM City of Naples Cleveland Clinic Health Dept Everglades City NCH Approval of Minutes Threat Update New Business Chairman Fire Chiefs CERT CAP Veterans Council RSVP Salvation Army Medical Examiner City of Marco Island Neighborhood Watch . HMGP Grant · Proposed Stimulus Package . Airport Exercise . School Training Results Old Business ESC Update Next Meeting! Adjourn (March 18, 2009) Chairman Sheriff's Office Chairman Rick Zyvoloski Joe Frazier Joe Frazier Joe Frazier Chairman Jim Von Rinteln Chairman Collier County Government Communication & Customer Relations Department 3301 East Tamiami Trail Naples, FL 34112 (239) 252-8848 www.collierl!ov.net February 11, 2009 FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE NOTICE OF PUBLIC MEETING COLLIER COUNTY CITIZEN CORPS ADVISORY COMMITTEE COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA WEDNESDAY, FEBRUARY 18,2009 3 p.m. The Collier County Citizen Corps Advisory Committee will meet Wednesday, February 18'h at 3 p.m. in the Board of County Commissioners chambers, located on the third floor of the W, Harmon Turner Building, Building F, Collier County Government Center, 3301 E. Tamiami Trail, Naples, In regard to the public meeting: All interested parties are invited to attend, and to register to speak and to submit their objections, if any, in writing, to the board/committee prior to the meeting if applicable, All registered public speakers will be limited to three minutes unless permission for additional time is granted by the chairman, Any person who decides to appeal a decision of the Board of County Commissioners or quasi-judicial board will need a record of the proceedings pertaining thereto, and therefore, may need to ensure that a verbatim record of the proceedings is made, which record includes the testimony and evidence upon which the appeal is to be based, Collier County Ordinance No, 2004-05, as amended, requires that all lobbyists shall, before engaging in any lobbying activities (including, but not limited to, addressing the Board of County Commissioners, an advisory board or quasi-judicial board), register with the Clerk to the Board at the Board Minutes and Records Department. If you are a person with a disability who needs any accommodation in order to participate in this proceeding, you are entitled, at no cost to you, to the provision of certain assistance, Please contact the Collier County Facilities Management Department, located at 3301 E. Tamiami Trail, Naples, FL 34112, (239) 252-8380, at least two days prior to the meeting, Assisted listening devices for the hearing impaired are available in the Board of County Commissioners Office, For more information, call Joe Frazier at 252-8000, -End- ,- -.~_._._.,_.---_...__.__._"..._, ._----,-'.'--- ".._~,.~~~ _._......_.__.._~--~,.--=-~---",.- --,."_._"~,,-~.,~_.~.,.,.,.....-,-,_. AGENDA f&1i,~ 6 l:3oc~r(~ 01 C)llnry Cnmmissioners COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION WILL MEET AT 8:30 A.M" TffiJRSDA Y, MARCH 19, 2009, IN THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS MEETING ROOM, ADMINISTRATION BUILDING, COUNTY GOVERNMENT CENTER, 3301 TAMIAMI TRAIL EAST, NAPLES, FLORIDA: NOTE: INDIVIDUAL SPEAKERS WILL BE LIMITED TO 5 MINUTES ON ANY ITEM, INDIVIDUALS SELECTED TO SPEAK ON BEHALF OF AN ORGANIZATION OR GROUP ARE ENCOURAGED AND MAY BE ALLOTTED 10 MINUTES TO SPEAK ON AN ITEM IF SO RECOGNIZED BY THE CHAIRMAN, PERSONS WISHING TO HAVE WRITTEN OR GRAPHIC MATERIALS INCLUDED IN THE CCPC AGENDA PACKETS MUST SUBMIT SAID MATERIAL A MINIMUM OF 10 DAYS PRIOR TO THE RESPECTIVE PUBLIC HEARING. IN ANY CASE, WRITTEN MATERIALS INTENDED TO BE CONSIDERED BY THE CCPC SHALL BE SUBMITTED TO THE APPROPRIATE COUNTY STAFF A MINIMUM OF SEVEN DAYS PRIOR TO THE PUBLIC HEARING, ALL MATERIAL USED IN PRESENTATIONS BEFORE THE CCPC WILL BECOME A PERMANENT PART OF THE RECORD AND WILL BE A V AILABLE FOR PRESENTATION TO THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS IF APPLICABLE, ANY PERSON WHO DECIDES TO APPEAL A DECISION OF THE CCPC WILL NEED A RECORD OF THE PROCEEDINGS PERTAINING THERETO, AND THEREFORE MAY NEED TO ENSURE THAT A VERBA TIM RECORD OF THE PROCEEDINGS IS MADE, WHICH RECORD INCLUDES nm TESTIMONY AND EVIDENCE UPON WHICH THE APPEAL IS TO BE BASED, Fiala .w. ~ Halas ~ - 1, PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE Henning. I 2, ROLL CALL BY SECRETARY Coyle ~ Coletta --'~ 3, ADDENDA TO THE AGENDA 4, PLANNING COMMISSION ABSENCES 5, APPROVAL OF MINUTES - FEBRUARY 19,2009 REGULAR MEETING, FEBRUARY 20,2009 RLSA 6. BCC REPORT- RECAPS - MARCH 10,2009 7, CHAIRMAN'S REPORT 8, CONSENT AGENDA ITEMS A. Petition: SV-2008-AR-13664, Port of the Islands Community Improvement District, represented by Robert L. Duane, AICP, of Hole Montes, Inc., is requesting three (3) Sign Variances, The first variance is from Land Development Code (LDC) Subsection 5,06,04 C,16.bj, which allows a maximum sign area of 12 square feet for an off-premise directional sign to allow a 32 j, square foot off-premise sign, The second variance is from LDC Subsection 5,06,04 C.16,b,v, which requires a sign to be located within 1,000 lineal feet of the intersection of the road serving the use to allow greater distances of up to 6,000 lineal feet for up to 10 uses, The third sign variance is from LDC Subsection 5,06,04 C.16,c which requires a sign to be located no closer than 50 feet from a residentially zoned district to allow a lesser distance of 23 feet, The subject property is located on the north side of U.S. 41 in Section 9, TowM~fpQmrf!:ljuth, Range 28 East, Collier County, Florida, (Coordinator: Nancy Gundlach, AICP) Date:M~ "em#J~J~~b 1 '--'---"--"'-"'-""--"'---.,-..' .' ~-----".__........_..,_..."~._~-"--'-_.-",' 1611 A6~~ B, Petition: SV-2008-AR-13665, Port of the Islands Community Improvement District, represented by Robert L. Duane, AICP, of Hole Montes, Inc, is requesting a Sign Variance from LDC Subsection 5,06,04 C,16,b.i, which allows a maximum sign area of 12 square feet to allow a 64-square foot off-premise sign at the Port of the Islands, The subject property is located in the Port of the Islands at the intersection of Tamiami Trail East (U.S. 41) and Newport Drive in Section 9, Township 52 South, Range 28 East, Collier County, Florida, (Coordinator: Nancy Gundlach, AICP) C. Petition: SV-2008-AR-13960, Port of the Islands Community Improvement District, represented by Robert L. Duane, AICP, of Hole Montes, Inc" is requesting a Sign Variance from LDC Subsection 5,06,04 C,16,b.i" which allows a maximum sign area of 12 square feet, to allow an 18-square foot off- premise sign at the Port of the Islands in the median of Cay's Drive (south ofU, S, 41) 18 S,F, in area with sign copy and logo designation the Port of the Islands Cay's Drive, The subject property is located in the Port of the Islands at the intersection of Tamiami Trail East (U. S. 41) and Cay's Drive in Section 9, Township 52 South, Range 28 East, Collier County, Florida, (Coordinator: Nancy Gundlach, AICP) 9, ADVERTISED PUBLIC HEARINGS A, Pettion: V A-2008-AR-13977, Tim Chess of McDonalds USA, LLC, represented by Jeffrey Satfield of CPH Engineers, Inc" is requesting a Variance from the landscape requirements of Land Development Code Subsection 4,06,02, Buffer Requirements, in the General Commercial (C-4) and Gateway Triangle Mixed Use Subdistrict (GTMUD-MXD), to allow a modification of the required 7,5-foot wide buffer on the western side of the property; and to reduced buffer widths on the property's northern side from 15 feet to ten feet, the eastern side from 7,5 feet to five feet, and the southern side from 10 feet to five feet. The O,86-acre subject property is located at 2886 Tamiami Trail East, in Section 11, Township 50 South, Range 25 East, Collier County, Florida, (Coordinator: John-David Moss, AICP) B. Petition: CU-2003-AR-3725, Close Up Creatures, Inc" in reference to NGALA, represented by Robert J, Mulhere, AICP of RWA, Inc, and Richard D, Yovanovich, Esquire, of Goodlette, Coleman, Johnson, Yovanovich & Koester, P,A" is requesting Conditional Uses pursuant to the Land Development Code Section 2.03 ,0 1 ,A.l,C. The conditional uses being requested are as follows: Number 5, to allow aquaculture for non-native or exotic species subject to Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission permits; Number 23, to allow a Cultural, Ecological or Recreational Facility; and Number 25, commercial production, raising or breeding of exotic animals, The subject property which has a Rural Agriculture zoning district designation and consists of 2]x acres, is located on Inez Road S.W., at the northwestern corner of the intersection of Inez Road and Kearney Avenue, approximately Y. mile south of Keene Avenue, in Section 30, Township 49 South, Range 27 East, Collier County, Florida. (Coordinator: Kay Deselem, AICP) C. Petition: PUDA-2007-AR-11546, Longshore Lake Foundation, Inc., represented by Robert L. Duane, AICP of Hole Montes, Inc" requesting a Planned Unit Development (PUD) Amendment to Longshore Lake PUD Ordinance No, 93-3, Section 3.2,B, to allow an off premise sign for Saturnia Falls (aka Terafina PUD) in Tract B of the Longshore Lake, Unit 5C Subdivision; or, in the alternative to allow the off-site premise sign to become an on-site premise sign for Longshore Lake; to amend Section 3.2,B, to allow an existing maintenance building to remain as an accessory use; to reinsert omitted Traffic Requirements into Section V; and to add Exhibit C, Deviations, The subject sign is located on a ,5" acre property located on the southeast corner of the Longshore Lake PUD, at the northwest corner of the intersection of Immokalee Road (CR 846) and Logan Boulevard in Section 20, Township 48 South, Range 26 East, Collier County, Florida, (Coordinator: Nancy Gundlach, AICP) CONTINUED FROM NOVEMBER 20, 2008 2 '6Jt:tA61 D. Petition: PUDZ-A-2007-AR-12046, 1M Collier Joint Venture, represented'ty Richard't, Yovanovich, Esq" of Goodletle, Coleman, Johnson, Yovanovich & Koester, P,A., and Wayne Arnold, of Q, Grady Minor and Associates, is requesting a rezone of the Mirasol PUD from the Planned Unit Development (PUD) zoning district to the Residential Planned Unit Development zoning district (RPUD) to remedy the sunsetled status of the project in compliance with LDC Section IO,02,]3,D,6. The number of dwelling units originally approved, 799 dwelling units, is not proposed to change, Ordinance No, 01-20 will be repealed and a five acre tract will revert to Agricultural zoning, The subject 1,543 acre tract is located ou the north side of lmmokalee Road, bordered on the east by Broken Back Road and future Collier Boulevard in Sections 10, IS and 22, Township 48 South, Range 26 East, Collier County, Florida. (Coordinator: Kay Deselem, AICP) 10, OLD BUSINESS II, NEW BUSINESS 12. PUBLIC COMMENT ITEM ]3, DISCUSSION OF ADDENDA 14. ADJOURN 3/19/09 cepe AgendaIRay Bellows/cr 3 Fiala Halas Henning Coyle ~,- Coletta 4.// TRANSCRIPT OF THE MEETING OF THE COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION Naples, Florida December 18, 2008 1611 A 6 ~ December 18, 2008 RECEIVED FEB 1 '2 2009 Boa.u of C<>UIlty Commlssloners LET IT BE REMEMBERED, that the Collier County Plarming Commission, in and for the County of Collier, having conducted business herein, met on this date at 8:30 a,m, in REGULAR SESSION in Building "F" of the Government Complex, East Naples, Florida, with the following members present: CHAIRMAN: Mark Strain Karen Homiak Donna Reed-Caron Tor Kolflat Paul Midney Bob Murray Brad Schiffer Robert Vigliotti David 1. Wolfley ALSO PRESENT: Jeffrey Klatzkow, County Attorney Joseph Schmitt, CDES Administrator Ray Bellows, Zoning & Land Development Review Thomas Eastman, Real Property Director, c.c. School District Page 1 Mise, eorres Dale: Item #: "':('ir:i"S to 16~:(rIA6 December 18,2008 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Good morning, everyone, Welcome to the December 18th meeting of the Collier County Planning Commission. If you'll all please rise for pledge of allegiance, (Pledge of Allegiance was recited in unison,) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you, Item #2 ROLL CALL BY SECRETARY CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And will the secretary please do the roll call. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Mr. Eastman is absent Commissioner Kolflat? COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: Here, COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Commissioner Schiffer" COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Here, COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Commissioner Midney? COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Here, COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Commissioner Caron" COMMISSIONER CARON: Here, COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Chairman Strain? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Here, COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Commissioner Vigliotti is here, Commissioner Murray? COMMISSIONER MURRA Y: Here, COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Commissioner Wollley? COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Here, COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: And Commissioner Homiak? COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: llere, CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you, Item #3 ADDENDA TO THE AGENDA CHAIRMAN STRAIN: We have a couple of items to change on the agenda, The fIrst item is 9,C. 9,C is the Diocese of Venice for a change to the southwest -- 2760 52nd Terrace Southwest and 5280 28th Avenue Southwest location, We're going to move that up to first on the agenda, The applicant's representative is not feeling as well as he usually does, and he asked ifhe could move through the meeting earlier today. Is there any objections from the planning commission on that? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Of course not, COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Not at all. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The next item that I'd like to ask that we make as close to 10:00 a time certain as we possibly can to accommodate the petitioner who has to lIy out of here by noon, (At which time, Mr, Eastman enters the boardroom,) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So just in case that one takes a couple hours, That one is the Savannah Place RPUD, It's over on Orange Blossom Drive. And by as close to 10:00, what I was suggesting is we start moving through our agenda, And if we get a break point somewhere close to 10:00, 10: 15 or 9:45, something like that, we take it and move into that petition so we can accommodate those that need to be accommodated here today, Is that okay with evel)'one? COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Fine, COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Fine by me, Page 2 16 , I!.~ IJj ~ December 18, 2~~ Item #4 PLANNING COMMISSION ABSENCES CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, thank you, With those changes to the agenda, we can move on to planning commission absences. OUf next regular meeting you're going to -- I know this is going to break everybody's heart here today, but we don't have another meeting scheduled till January 15th, And I know staffs gormajust be so concerned about not having to do between now and then, COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Yeah, nothing to do, CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But is everybody planning to be here on January 15th" Mr. Wolfley, maybe -- you're going to be out killing exotic weeds or-- COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: You're so funny, No, I may still be out of town, but I'll try to get there, CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, And then the other two meetings in January that are very important, they will start at 8:30 on the 28th and another one on the 30th on the same subject, it will be the RLSA meetings, and they'll be held over at the Developmental Services conference room 609, So I'm hoping, based on our last meeting, everybody still can make it to that. So we'll -- that's our agenda for January, Item #5 APPROVAL OF MINUTES - NOVEMBER 6, 2008, REGULAR MEETING CHAIRMAN STRAIN: We have one set of minutes to be approved, November 6th, 2008, Is there a motion to recommend approval or modification? COMMISSIONER CARON: Motion to approve, CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion made by Commissioner Caron, COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Second, CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Seconded by Commissioner Vigliotti. Discussion? (No response,) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: All in favor, signity by saying aye, COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Aye, COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Aye, COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Aye, COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: Aye, COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Aye, CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye, COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Aye, COMMISSIONER CARON: Aye, COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Aye, CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody opposed? (No response,) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion carries 9-0, Ray, the BCC report? Item #6 BCC REPORT - RECAPS -- NOVEMBER 14,2008, LEGISLATIVE MEETING, NOVEMBER] 8,2008, REGULAR MEETING MR, BELLOWS: Yes, On December] 6th, the Board of County Commissioners heard the conditional use for the public restroom facilities up at MaTaya. That was approved 5~O. They also heard the variance for the trellis at Moraya, and that was also approved 5-0, Page 3 Dec1Qtl'~46 ~ They approved on the summary agenda the K,O,V,A.C, recycling facility, And that was approved on the summary agenda. They pulled off the summary agenda the King's Lake amendment, but that was approved on the regular agenda 5-0, And we also have news on the noise ordinance, The board heard and approved that subject to the CCPC recommendations. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Great Thank you, And the first one you mentioned, the restroom facility in Vanderbilt Beach? MR, BELLOWS: Yes, CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Wasn't that -- wasn't there some discussion about that may come back in another form by changing the building to a lower variance or something like that, Mr. Schmitt? MR, SCHMITT: Yes, For the record, Joe Schmitt, The board directed that the staff pursue a variance to the flood ordinance or the flood requirements so -- to mandate that that be built as a single-story structure, So that will have to go through the variance process for -- basically to allow that it be built below the FEMA flood elevation requirement for that area, And it is programmed to be in a VE zone as well. So it's going to be -- it certainly will be an interesting staff report and then certainly that will come to you for a recommendation before it goes to the Board of County Commissioners, just as any other normal variance. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: When it comes back to this Board, I think it certainly would be helpful to understand the impacts of modifications to the flood ordinance, if it has any cost associated to the other residents of Collier County as a result of giving that kind of a variance, Because that would weigh heavy on whether the variance mayor may not be warranted, MR, SCHMITT: From what I just heard you say, I guess you're asking will it impact the National Flood Insurance Program, Is that what you're -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I'm hoping you'd come back with that analysis, yes, MR, SCHMITT: Yes, Okay, yes, that in fact will be part of the analysis, CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, thank you, Item #7 CHAIRMAN'S REPORT CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, the chairman's report, I have several items, And unfortunately I know it's a big disappointment for the holidays, no handouts, MR, SCHMITT: Ray forgot to mention that the variance -- or the conditional use associated with the private beach club was continued. So that -- there was decision by the board on that. That was continued at the request of the petitioner. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you, Okay, first item. I wish to welcome today Robin Scofield. She's in the audience and she is auditing OUf proceedings here today as part of debate requirements for I guess it's speech and debate, And I can tell you that's a fantastic program, There's a lot of very energized young people involved. Last year I had the honor of actually being a judge on part of it It was an excellent time, and I sure learned a lot and I was impressed with the people participating, So welcome Robin, And I guess you may not want to take everything you learn here today to heart, but we'll do the best COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Mark" CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes, sir, COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Note Mr. Eastman showed up, CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you, Our secretary just noticed for the record Commissioner Eastman just showed up, MR, EASTMAN: Here, thank you, CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You missed the coffee time, sorry, You don't get colTee because you're late, MR, EASTMAN: Sorry for being late, CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Last meeting I think it was -- or maybe two meetings ago, time seems to change, go fast now-- the consent items that we have today, I notice one was missing, and that was the denial item on the Bayview Park. And I asked staff to please give us consent approval for even denial items. And the reason J am stressing that is because I have now watched twice when we've denied something and it's gone to the BCC either as a regular agenda item or on appeal to them, and both times the BCC was very concerned that they were not given enough clarity on our reasons for denial. And I think that might highlight itselfifwe get a chance to see, even if it's a denial, Page 4 DecUeJ ~dA~ 'I how staff writes up our denial. And we can -- certainly I think that will aid the system and help the BCC to understand more explicitly why we may have reasons for denial. So-- MR, BELLOWS: In that regard, I have put together a draft, and I'm going to run it by Joe and Susan, is the fonn of the executive summary that deals with the CCPC recommendation, We will make that part of a memo that goes to the planning commission on the consent agenda so you can see what we are putting in as staffs summary of the cepe findings. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And I expect that on January 15th we'll have that on consent? MR, BELLOWS: If you have it -- yes, For the one that was recently denied? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: For the Bayview Park one, MR, BELLOWS: Yes, the planner has indicated that will be ready, CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, thank you, And the last thing I want to mention, occasionally when I have the ability, I like to tune into the Board of County Commissioners' meetings to try to keep track of how they are handling stuffwe send them to see if they're in agreement with things or what we need to change, Well, if you tTied to do that this week, you would have gotten a bunch of fuzz on Channel 11 ,And I found out that Channel I I has been moved by Comcast to Channel 97, So if you punch in Channel 97, you'll find out it's -- not only -- there's a picture there, but it's fuzzy and full of lines, just as you're probably seeing this show today if you're watching it on that channel. I've talked to county IT staff, and it seems to be a problem with Comcast in their selection of that location for the channel. The fix is individual visits by Comcast to every home in Collier County to adjust their apparently signal. It's wrong, It shouldn't be done this way, I don't know how this board can make a suggestion, but hopefully by saying this today on record, and by hoping it's broadcast, maybe Comcast will take the hint they need to provide a little bit better service so the public of Collier County can watch the program that they're entitled to see through public participation, So Mr, Schmitt, I don't know if we can have any emphasis with that, but I know you've got some very good people who coordinate these things with Corneast, and if you could at least let them know our displeasure with Channel 97, because it is inferior in a whole number of ways from where it used to be on II, Also, there is video streaming for this particular program. And while that's a good alternative, it does -- it's intermittent, unfortunately, And I don't know what the problem is there, because the Corneas! high speed is an excellent service, And I've used that in two locations. So I don't think it's that. I don't know ifit's the buffering or the way the transmission's in, but that's not as viable as the television. The television is actually the best source for the public to view these programs. So maybe we can see something written up on that. Item #8A PETITION: SY-2006-AR-10482, FAIRWAYS RESORT CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, with that, we have two consent agenda items, The first one is Petition SY-2006-AR-I0482, It's the Seasonal Investments, the Fairways Resort, requesting seven variances, And we had a hand-out just given to us this morning, and we've had a couple renditions of this sent to us. Mr, Kolflat? COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: Seems my recollection is that we talked a lot about the support of the sign and that it was going to be two poles to allow less wind resistance and also to convey the historical perspective of the sign. But I note the exhibit in here shows the original layout, which was not two-pole design, CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The exhibit does, And surely -- Nancy's here, she can explain, If you look at your Exhibit C, item two on Exhibit C basically allows the applicant an exemption from the pole cover requirement ofLDC 5,06,04,C.1 ,e, And it is my understanding, and I would like staff to eonfinn, that that exemption allows them to go back to the pole standard that was there before, And -- yes, sir, Mr. Kolflat? COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: Well, Exhibit A on Page I of2 shows the old one, not the new pole design, CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right, that's the design that was submitted, But I think they don't have to stick to that. based on the conditions of approval on Exhibit C; is that -- Nancy, you're going to need to confirm this for us, please. MS, GUNDLACH: Good morning, Commissioners, For the record, Nancy Gundlach, with the Department of Zoning-- is this on? -- Zoning and Land Development Review. And yes, Commissioner, you are correct. We've written into the conditions of approval that the applicant is allowed to Page 5 161""jl.. 1 "hecem'b'tr 1 ~ ~08 install a pole sign without the covering, CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right, you didn't --I mean, that's not how it's worded, But wording says, this sign may be exempt from the pole cover required by LDC Subsection 5,06,04,CI,e for health, safety and welfare ptrrposes, And that -- I did pull the section of the code, That's the one that requires everything to be covered, MS, GUNDLACH: That is correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: By removing that cover, you're thus allowing poles; is that-- MS, GUNDLACH: That is correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, Mr. Vigliotti, then Ms, Caron, COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: The way this is worded, they may do it. I thought we decided that they should do it and they have to do it with the poles rather than the stanchion, CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I thought it was an option that we're providing to them, COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Suggestion, MR, SCHMITT: We left it strictly up to the applicant. They can choose to do it. It wasn't a requirement. And I don't know if it would be the appropriate thing for this board to direct that it be done, Let the applicant choose whether they want to do it or not. And understand, they still have to come in through the building permit process, So the variance and the -- the exhibit was the original exhibit, but that does not necessarily mean that's what they're going to submit. They still have to submit a plan and come through the normal building permit process for a sign permit. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Okay, thank you, CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ms, Caron" COMMISSIONER CARON: Yeah, I would just say that I think that nwnber two needs to be more specific, I think we should have these things written in English so everybody knows what that condition of approval is, And it shouldn't have to be -- for a condition, you shouldn't have to go back and look up the code, It should tell you specially what the condition is that we're authorizing for approval. It should be stated, CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Do you have some suggested language? It's a good point, because as I've found out that -- I had to call yesterday to find out why the pole issue wasn't in here, After later in the day I discovered that, and then I found out it was in here by this reference, because I didn't catch that reference either. Is there a way that you could tack on a clarification of the intention of number two as a second sentence to it, Nancy? MS, GUNDLACH: We could do that. Oh, go ahead, Ray, MR, BELLOWS: Yeah, for the record, too, the executive summary will specifically tell the board that this decision was requested -- or this recommendation was made by the planning commission, in more detail explaining the issue and that if the board wishes, that they will make that -- COMMISSIONER CARON: But that will not go along into the future with the ordinance, MR, BELLOWS: I see what you're saying, CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah, recorded language would be more useful, rather than having to go back and study minutes is what I -- that's the only point I think we're trying to make, Mr. Kolflat, then Mr. Schiffer. COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: Would the elimination of Exhibit A clarifY it? Because that's what shows the old picture, And if you take that out of it, why then it won't be carried through, Exhibit A, Page I of2 of what you handed out today, MS, GUNDLACH: I don't know that it clarifies it, because we reference it in the staff report, CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah, on Exhibit A, Mr. Kolflat, the six feet that's shown for the base, it doesn't necessarily mean it's six feet of a solid wall, it could be six feet from outside, outside of poles that are there, I think that's what they're saying the base is going to take, that dimension. So I'm not sure that means the wall, based on the way it's written up on Exhibit A. So it may not be that problematic to leave it in. Mr. Schiffer? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: My concern with it is in there it says the sign may be exempt I think the intent is the sign is exempt. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Right. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And the concern with that is it gives the illusion that there's an authority down the trail to make that decision. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So the word would be -- that's a good point The word will be shall be exempt. It's the same -- it comes back to the intention I know you had, Nancy. Page 6 1 ~J!JbeAl ~ 2do8 So if we say, this sign shall be exempt, and then we added one sentence to clarity that the issue is the allowance of poles to support the sign, I think that takes care of the issues that were brought up, Is that fair for everybody here? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Yeah, COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Uh-huh, CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, with those comments in mind, can we get a recommendation of approval for that particular consent item? COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: So moved, COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Second, CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr, Vigliotti, seconded by Mr, Schiffer, Approval of consent Item SV-2006-AR-I0482, All in lavor, signity by saying aye, COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Aye, COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Aye, COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Aye, COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: Aye, COMMISSIONER MlDNEY: Aye, CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye, COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Aye, COMMISSIONER CARON: Aye, COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Aye, CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody opposed? (No response,) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion carries, Thank you, MS, GUNDLACH: Thank you, CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thanks, Nancy, Item #8B PETITION: PUDZ-A-2006-AR-l 0325, SUNGA TE CENTER CPUD CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Now we'll go to the consent item Petition PUDZA-2006-AR-l 0325, That's the Wynn Properties and Carbone Properties for the Sungate Center on Green and Collier Boulevards in Golden Gate, Are there any comments, questions, clarifications on that particular item? (N 0 response,) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, is there a recommendation for approval on the consent agenda for that item? COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: So moved, CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr, Vigliotti made the motion. Is there a second? (No response,) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Somebody, Somebody? COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: I'll second it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you, Ms, Homiak. Motion made by Mr. Vigliotti, seconded by Ms, Homiak, Is there any discussion? (No response,) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: All those in favor, signity by saying aye, COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Aye, COMMISSIONER MlJRRA Y: Aye, COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Aye, COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: Aye, COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Aye, CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye, COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Aye, Page 7 DJc~Jl~'8, A6 l COMMISSIONER CARON: Aye, COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Aye, CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody opposed? (No response,) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion carries 9-0, Item #9C PETITON: CU-2008-AR-I339L DIOCESE OF VENICE CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, moving on to our first advertised public hearing, It will be 9,C, the one we moved up, And that is Petition CU-2008-AR-13391. Bishop Frank J, Dewane, Diocese of Venice, for a conditional use, And let's see, it's on 5280 28th A venue, and 2760 52nd Terrace, All those wishing to participate in this particular item, plcase rise to be sworn in by the court reporter. (Speakers were duly sworn,) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Are there disclosures on the part of the planning commission? (No response,) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I had a phone call from Mr, Anderson for a meeting to go over issues, I didn't have any issues, so it didn't seem like we needed to waste the applicant's legal time, and so I canceled the meeting, And with that, Bruce, it's all yours, MR, ANDERSON: Good morning, Mr. Chainnan, Commissioners, My name is Bruce Anderson with the Roetzel and Andress Law Finn, representing the St. Elizabeth Seton Diocese of Venice, Initially I want to thank you very much for accommodating my request. With me today is Father Dennis Harten, Pastor ofSt. Elizabeth Parish; Joan Haden, the office manager; Margaret Peny, the planner for Wilson-Miller; and Engineer Jared Brown, also ITom Wilson-Miller. This is a request for an expansion of an existing conditional use for a church and school related uses on four lots that are adjacent to the currently existing approved conditional use area. On the overhead projector it is the lots, the shaded lots that are the subject of the hearing today, These Jots are all zoned RMF-l2. And churches. private schools and associated uses are allowed as conditional uses in this area. St. Elizabeth Seton Church and School have been a fixture and active community member in Golden Gate for many years, The original church was constructed in 1979, and the school in 1987, although a temporary school was provided back in 1980, The original church building is now used as a parish center. And the current church, which was constructed in 2000, is not within the lands that are the subject of this conditional use, The current church building is located entirely within the Founders Plaza PUD, And that abuts this property, At this time, the parish does not have specific plans lor development or redevelopment of these additional lots, However, the proposed uses include church and school related offices, religious goods store limited to 2,000 square feet, a chapel, perhaps priest residences, andJor expanded parking lor the existing uses, The future uses will be detennined by the needs of the parish and the available funding for the improvements, The lots one through three currently contain five duplex units, which the church will be upgrading, The future church and school related uses may be housed in these existing structures after renovation, or new structures may be built along with demolition of some or all of the existing duplex units. The only concern that we have heard voiced is that during the season some parishioners park illegally on the grassed right-of-way along Golden Gate Parkway, Father Harten has warned his parishioners during services, and will put it in the church bulletin, that it is against the law to park there, The church has plenty of parking within easy walking distance, The grassy area where this parking sometimes occurs is county right-of-way. And we would request, frankly, that the county install "no parking" signs in this area and enforce it. When this application was first filed for purposes of transportation impacts, the figure of 8,900 square feet of retail commercial was used to demonstrate the maximum transportation impacts. Since that initial filing, we have instead simply limited the religious goods store to 2,000 square feet. The actual size of the other buildings and uses will be detennined by required setbacks at the time of site development plan approval. A neighborhood meeting was held on October 29th, and a presentation was also made to the Golden Gate Civic Association on November 10th. They issued a letter of support for this application, but again expressed the concern about the Page 8 nl~Jer18!\Q8' parking along Golden Gate Parkway, Future development and redevelopment will obviously be in compliance with the Land Development Code as required at the time, And the applicant is in agreement with all of the conditions of approval, as outlined in the staff report, Now, J am available or any members of our team to answer any questions that you may have. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Questions on the part of the planning commission? Mr, Wolfley, then Ms, Caron, COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Bruce, what -- on number two here of the recommendations from staff, they wanted limited to the chapel church school related office, so on, so forth, What uses were proposed that staff did not want" In other words -- or was there nothing" What was the problem there? MR, ANDERSON: Oh, this was what we originally applied for. I mean, it was a self-imposed limitation, Staff didn't-- COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Why? MR, ANDERSON: Well, because we weren't -- we tried to make it as all-encompassing as possible, But if you, you know, what want to remove those, we certainly have no objection. COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: No, no, no, that wasn't the point. I was just wondering what was there that we didn't -- that I missed, I thought I might have missed something, MR, ANDERSON: No, No, sir. COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Okay, thank you, CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ms, Caron? COMMISSIONER CARON: Yeah, Bruce, in the staff report on Page 4 of 10, it states that the chapel, if that is built, will be no more than 200 seats, Can you tell me where that is in the ordinance and why that isn't reflected in either conditions and/or slated in the ordinance itself? MR, ANDERSON: No, 1 cannot. If you want to insert that in your conditions of approval, that was the maximum size that was talked about. FATHER HARTEN: Good morning, I'm Father Dennis Harten, I'm the pastor at St. Elizabeth Seton, And the chapel, as we say, is really not -- is only a concept that we have at this point in time, The property -- the purchase of the property did put the community in considerable debt, and so we'll be paying for that for an extended period of time. You'll notice that the property, actually it belongs to -- we're all around that particular piece of property, And since we have taken possession of the property, we have improved certainly the condition and the look of it. But at this particular point in time I wouldn't be inclined to defme what might be the possibility 10 years from now, So ] think if -- what we're bringing before the Commission is the fact that we will keep this property within church and school related uses. That is really the request that we're making to the planning commission this morning. COMMISSIONER CARON: But it was stated that if you were to build a chapel, and that's up to you, it would be no more than 200 seats, FATHER HARTEN: Yes, I understand that that is in our report, And that would be something that I would certainly consider as a number that would be what we would be looking for in tenns of our needs, In other words, I wouldn't be looking to build a second church, COMMISSIONER CARON: Right. And so all I'm asking is that that be stated as a maximum in the conditions, FATHER HARTEN: So you want that in there" COMMISSIONER CARON: Yes, CHAIRMAN STRAIN: What your conditions say right now, sir, is the uses shall be limited to a chapel, church, school related offices, religious gift store, maximum of 2.000 square feet, priest residences and parking, I think the suggestion is that the uses shall be limited to a chapel, then after that do a similar kind of parenthetical that says a maximum of200 seats, And that -- just insert that and then we're done, Does that work for your operation? MR, ANDERSON: Father would prefer that that seat limitation not be included as a specific condition, CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I think we need to see what staffs-- COMMISSIONER CARON: That's a problem, CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- thoughts on that will be, Because if you have an unlimited condition there but yet it's restricted by traffic, the TIS or by some other methodology, that may help, So I think when we get to the staff report, maybe we can get that question answered. And we'll come back to you before it's over. MR, ANDERSON: Thank you, CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Murray? COMMISSIONER CARON: I have one -- no, I'm not done, Page 9 DeJm~J J, A~ 1 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ms, Caron, go ahead, That's fme, COMMISSIONER CARON: I had one more question, Right now on that southern portion there are duplex -- there's duplex housing, Are people currently living there or is that empty duplex housing because the church bought the property? MR ANDERSON: It's empty, No one's living there, COMMISSIONER CARON: It's empty, Okay, thank you, CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Murray" COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I note here that you've taken out the facilities will not be rented out to other congregations, school groups or clubs, Does that preclude -- in your mind does that preclude the church sponsoring organizations such as Boy Scouts or 4-H or whatever that the church itself would sponsor and not lease the property or license the property? Because my interest is in not precluding opportunities for the youth of our comrnllility. FATHER HARTEN: Right Thank you for that question, I appreciate it At the present time, St Elizabeth Seton has a Boy Scout troop, a Girl Scout troop, a Cub Scout troop, and we're thinking of a senior cub scout -- no, we do have a full range of services for our young people, And I appreciate your noting that fact No, we would not want this property to be excluded from that kind of use, thank you, COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Thank you, CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Are there any other questions? (No response,) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Bruce, as 1 mentioned to you, we didn't have a meeting because I didn't have any, But I certainly want you to know that this is a vast improvement to the Golden Gate City area, And any time we can take out duplexes to improve the area with something as nice as a church, I'm certainly in favor of it. I think it's a good example what we need to do in the urban area like this. So with that I'll ask for staff report, MS, GUNDLACH: Good morning, Commissioners, I'm Nancy Gundlach, for the record, Department of Zoning and Land Development Review. And Commissioners, this petition is consistent with the Growth Management Plan, And for that reason, staff is recommending approval. And we are recommending approval subject to two conditions: The fIrst condition is that this conditional use is limited to what is shown on the conditional master plan, And the second condition is a limitation on the uses, And the uses shall be limited to a chapel, a church school related offices, religious gift store, a maximum of2,000 square feet, priest residences and parking, And we can certainly add in that we are limiting the chapel to 200 seats, And I'm happy to answer any questions that you might have, CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Midney, then Mr, Wolfley, COMMISSIONER MlDNEY: Yeah, I have a question about this 200 seats thing, The chapel would be the smaller group, so it wouldn't be as big as the main church service, I don't see why we have to limit it to 200 seats unless there's some specific reason from transportation that says that it -- you know, that anything more in the chapel would create a problem, Because this is not the main where they have the big services. The chapel is for smaller services. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And of course where is transportation when you need them most" Okay, And they're not here to answer that question. So I know Nick is probably watching things, maybe he could e-mail Joe, who's got his computer on, and through that e-mail we can get an answer to the question. MS, GUNDLACH: Commissioner, they've been called and they are on their way, CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you, MS, GUNDLACH: I can -- would you like me to attempt to answer the question" COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Please, CHAIRMAN STRA1N: The TIS is based on 8,900 square feet. And certainly the 2,000 square feet is a reduction from the original 8,900 square feet. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: What about the chapel? MS, GUNDLACH: It's a less intense use than what was originally proposed, CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, So we still wouldn't have a worst case condition on the TIS -- MS, GUNDLACH: Yes, CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- ifthey made the chapel 200, 300, But at some point -- at what time would it break the TIS; Page 1 0 16 '" A 6 December 18, 2008 do you know? MS, GUNDLACH: No, I don't. And the 200-seat chapel came from the applicant -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I understand, MS, GUNDLACH: -- so we consider, you know, what they propose to us, CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, Mr. Wolfley, then Ms, Caron, Did you finish, Paul? COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Yeah, just making the point that unless there's some reason, some substantive reason why we have to limit it to 200 seats, if the church would prefer not to have that limited, I would be in favor of not limiting it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr, Wolfley? COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: I feel the same way as Mr, Midney, Nancy, I feel compelled -- I don't doubt Bruce at all, but what is number two? What was in nwnber two of your recommendations? What did not you want there? What did you not want there? MS, GUNDLACH: Well, we put in exactly what the applicant requested, COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Okay, MS, GUNDLACH: So it wasn't an issue of what we wanted and what we didn't want. It's what they requested in the petition, COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: I just rarely see things like that, when everyone's in agreement on something, you put it in as a recommendation. I just-- MS, GUNDLACH: Oh, it's a condition of approval, and so we state it as part of our recommendations, COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Well, I doubt they're going to put any objectionable retail stores or whatever. But okay, I'm tine, thank you, CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ms, Caron, then Mr. Murray, COMMISSIONER CARON: Nancy, do you know how many seats are in the main church? MS, GUNDLACH: The main church, ] do not know how many seats, Perhaps -- do you know, Father? FATHER HARTEN: Yes, I do, 1,100, MS, GUNDLACH: The main church -- the Father says that the main church has 1,100 seats, And that's in a separate PUD-- COMMISSIONER CARON: Right, I understood, MS, GUNDLACH: -- and not part of this application, COMMISSIONER CARON: Understood, But if there is no maximum for this chapel, then it's unlimited only -- it is limited only by the setbacks; is that correct? Buffering and setbacks, COMMISSIONER MURRAY: No, it's limited by the size, CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Nancy, it is limited by traffic impacts, would it not be? MS, GUNDLACH: Correct. COMMISSIONER CARON: But we don't know what that is yet, because transportation's not here, CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Then lets go on to something else, CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right, we're going to -- COMMISSIONER CARON: So we can't make a decision until transportation gives us that answer, CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. And they're probably on their way, Mr. Murray? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Yeah, I just wanted to second Commissioner Midney's comments, I think it is limited by its physical size when they construct it. And all the other factors, including the TIS factor that we'lIleam about. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr, Vigliotti? COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: I tend to agree with that I'd like to hear from transportation, but if not, they're still limited by transportation and size, CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, any other questions of county staff? (No response,) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ray, do we have public speakers? MR, BELLOWS: No speakers on this item, CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, So now we've got an impasse to wait for our transportation department. Bruce, I know you needed to be up and out ofliere, I know you're not feeling well, I think it would be worth the wait to get an answer from transportation on this. And then we'll -- so what I'd like to do is continue this one to after the next one and go Page 11 DeJm~J' J, 2~~ W right into the next one, and hopefully by that time transportation will be here, MS, GUNDLACH: Thank you, Commissioner. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Mark, one thing, CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you, Mr, Schiffer? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Nancy? I'm sorry, In the development of this site, though, the parking and everything else would kind of restrict the size that this thing could be, So, I mean, what is it that transportation's going to give us that -- the trip count in their -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: My con -- oh, here's transportation, This is good, My concern is that if we can put this on the summary agenda, it saves everybody money, time and the BCC a lot of effort. If there's one commissioner here who has a concern, we need to resolve that concern so that there's a better chance of it going on summary agenda. So that's the only reason I was trying to delay it, Brad, And we don't have to now, because transportation just showed up, COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: But the fear is what, that the chapel will get to be too big? I mean, is that-- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I think the fear is if they go beyond the 200 seats -- and I'm paraphrasing Commissioner Caron -- it may pose intensity items that we haven't looked at, because they -- and the staff report indicated it was 200 seats, Is that a fair statement, Ms. Caron? COMMISSIONER CARON: Yeah, I'll be very specific, They proposed the 200, Now they don't want it. That leads me to believe that they have other grandiose schemes here for this chapel to turn into a second church, limited only by the dimensions of the piece of property that they have, And potentially parking, though it looks to me from the site that that's not an issue, I'm concerned about the traffic issues on both Golden Gate and Santa Barbara, And I'm anxious to hear, Ifit's unlimited for the chapel, do we run into problems from transportation? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mike, you walked into it today, thank you, (Speaker was duly sworn,) MR, GREEN: For the record, Michael Green, Transportation Planning, What questions do you have? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ms, Caron's got a little bit of a sore throat today, so let me try to help her with it. MR, GREEN: I was trying to come up to speed on exactly what project we were on, CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The applicant, when they applied for this, produced a TIS that had a bunch of variables in it, including a larger retail area than they currently are asking for. But that's not the issue at hand. The issue at hand is a chapel. They requested -- they indicated in their narrative that they're going to have a 200-seat chapeL The concern is that if we don't limit it in the stipulations to 200 seats, how are they limited then, by the size of the chapel, and where and when and how does a TIS trigger a re-review for traffic standards based on the size of the chapel" Is that fair, Ms, Caron? COMMISSIONER CARON: Uh-huh. MR, GREEN: A TIS on a chapel is done both by seats and gross square footage, depending on if you're looking for PM weekday trips or peak event trips, COMMISSIONER CARON: Okay, There are no square footages in here either. So what are you basing it on? You were basing it on the 200 seats because that's what they told you, right? MR, GREEN: Correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: If you turn to Page 2 of the TIS, you got your table there, and it talks about the uses that are proposed, Or I'm asslUning proposed, Which one of these would have utilized the chapel? Or any of them, Or how would you have looked at the chapel in regards to the TIS? MR, GREEN: I think in this TIS we were looking for the areas that were grade out in the map as being part ofthe extension of the conditional use in which we looked at the specialty retail proposal. Because the specialty retail and the proposed extension of this conditional use would have the highest impact. They weren't discussing making changes with any of the other existing buildings. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Vigliotti? COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Question, Transportation, When they do decide how large they want this facility, they're going to have to go back through transportation and you will restrict them based upon seats at that time, MR, GREEN: That is correct, Page 12 161'1 A 6' ~ December 18, 2008 COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: No matter what happens here, they can only build what you allow them to do, MR, GREEN: That's correct. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Okay, thank you, CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Do you know at what size a chapel would have to be seat-wise to have a negative impact to a point where you couldn't approve it? I mean, they're saying they want to do it 200. If they said 400, would you guys be upset over than Ifthey said 10,000, would you be upset over that? I guess we need to peg a range so we can nail this down and get past it. And I need to -- MR, GREEN: It's hard to target a specific range for a chapel. Because when we look at traffic, we look at the PM peak hour, And chapels don't genemte large PM peak hour, they generate weekend peak event trips, which are opemtional issues, in which we bring in, you know, off-duty sheriff's department to direct traffic and such, But those are also operational issues and they're addressed at the SDP, CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ms, Caron, does that provide you with enough information at this point? COMMISSIONER CARON: Everybody seems to think it should be unlimited, That's good, CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody else? Mr. Wolfley? COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Parking obviously is an issue, So, I mean, if they plan a 10,000 seat chapel, they couldn't seat them there because there'd be no place for anyone to park, So it's selfclimited, CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I understand that, but I just wanted to kind of try to peg a range where we had some idea what transportation would say was really unreasonable, And they're not able to do it that way, so-- COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: If there's a range between 200 and 350 or something like that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: I agree with you, yes, CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Vigliotti" COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Without time to run the numbers and come up with some logical mtional nexus, you can't do it. In other words, once they submit a site plan, then you can tell them either they can or they can't and they're restricted by parking and they're also restricted by a TIS, MR. GREEN: And at that point we're limiting them to more current concurrency issues and operational issues. COMMISSIONER MURRA Y: Which is more restrictive, CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mike. just to be safe, on their TIS they use a retail square footage four times what they're now asking for. I think it was 8,900 square feet and now it's 2,000 square feet. Is that -- I believe that's the way the TIS was written up, Am I right on that, Bruce? Didn't I hear you say that? MR, ANDERSON: Yes, CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, So that means that you have at least 6,000 square feet of retail built into the TIS that the chapel could actually grow to a size before it would even exceed that 6,000 additional retail that's buffered in the TIS before you guys would have a problem, And when they come in with an SDP, do you make sure that the SDP application doesn't exceed the total ofthe TIS submitted with the conditional use? MR, GREEN: Always, CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, well, then I think we're in perfect shape then, I think that works, And Ms, Caron I think is satisfied now with that, so good, we got to the bottom line. Thank you, sir. Are there any other questions of staff or the applicant? (No response,) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Bruce, do you have any closing statements? MR, ANDERSON: No, CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, with that we'll close the public hearing and entertain a motion. Mr. Vigliotti? COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: I'd like to make a motion to approve changing the -- just removing the 200-seat restrictions and letting transportation and parking -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Wait a minute, there is no 200-seat restriction in there now, The discussion was about putting one in. It was decided it isn't needed. So basically your recommendation for approval should be consistent with staff's conditions COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: It is, right. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- and then you're off and running, Page ] 3 Ae~elJ! 18A68 1 COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Right. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Is that your motion, Mr, -- COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Yes, it most certainly is, CHAIRMAN STRA]N: Okay, motion's been made to-- COMMISSIONER MlDNEY: I'll second, CHAIRMAN STRA]N: -- recommend approval, subject to the conditions of staff, It's been seconded by Mr, Midney, Is there any discussion? (No response,) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: All in favor, signifY by saying aye, COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Aye, COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Aye, COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Aye, COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: Aye, COMMISSIONER MlDNEY: Aye, CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye, COMMISS]ONER WOLFLEY: Aye, COMMISSIONER CARON: Aye, COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Aye, CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody disapprove? (No response,) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion carries 9-0, Thank you, Bruce, I hope you feel better. Take it easy, COMMISSIONER CARON: Yeah, definitely feel better. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I think you've given a lot of people whatever you've got, because both sides of me here are sick today, COMMISSIONER CARON: It's really miserable up here, CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I'm glad I have a month off so I can recover. COMMISSIONER CARON: And everybody needs conditional use fonns, CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Oh, yes, Your forms in Item C, everybody, let's take a minute to turn those in, Item #9A PETITION: V A-2008-AR-I360L OKEECHOBEE INN. LTD CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, next item up is Petition V A-2008-AR- ]3601, the Okeechobee Inn, Limited, to permit access on State Road 29, And it's just north of Lake Trafford Road intersection, All those wishing to testifY on behalf of tllis item, please rise to be sworn in by the court reporter. (Speakers were duly swom.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you, Are there disclosures on the part of planning commission? (No response,) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Hearing none -- by the way, these go to Mr, Vigliotti, your applications, And Mr. Vigliotti, they go to Cherie' after the meeting, Okay, no disclosures, applicant may proceed, It's al] yours, ma'am, MS, GREEN: Good morning, Commissioners, My name is Gina Green, I'm a licensed professional engineering representing Okeechobee Inn, L TO, My client is requesting a variance from the Land Deve]opment Code, Subsection 4,02,27, specific design standards for the Immoka]ee/State Road 29A Commercial Overlay Subdistrict, to permit access to State Road 29 for a parcel having less than the required 440 feet street frontage minimum width, The subject property is zoned commercial intermediate C-3 and is within the State Road 29A Commercia] Overlay District. The 9,04-acre subject parcel is located on the west side of State Road 29, also known as ] 5th Street North, just north of the Lake Trafford intersection in lmmokalee. Page 14 tLQJ!ji18~~8 1 If you'd please reference the vicinity map on the overhead, you can see the exact location of the parcel. According to Subsection 4,02.27,A of the LDC, properties having 440 feet or less of street /Tontage on State Road 29 must not, when possible, take direct access /Tom the highway, However, Subsection 4,02.27,8 provides for a variance from this requirement for any possible development-- THE COURT REPORTER: Could I ask that you please slow down, MS. GREEN: Sure, CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you, Cherie', I'm sorry, I should have caught that. Yeab, you've got to -- MS, GREEN: Not a problem, I am a fast speaker, so I'm sorry, CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Everything's being transcribed, so you need to keep it a little bit slower pace, MS, GREEN: Okay, CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And by the way, we're quite familiar with the code, but you can proceed, MS, GREEN: Okay, Well, then we will cut it to a very simple, This parcel is looking only to be developed, There was a lot split application that was approved; split the parcel off to a smaller I ,7-acre parcel to develop a Suncoast School Federal Credit Union on the smaller parcel, which is what brought on this variance, because they need access to their future bank. And as you can see on the -- this is the proposed plan for the credit union, And the parcel -- the parent parcel now has no plans at this time to be developed, Also, this parcel has been at the size that it is, which is a 322-foot /Tontage on State Road 29, It was never previously split, and it was in existence this way prior to the overlay district being put in place that makes this restriction ofthe 440 feet. The owner of the parent parcel, which is the Okeechobee Inn, LId" and Suncoast Schools Credit Union would wish to have the access placed at its location to provide distance from both the north and the south entrances that are already developed, because the parcels both north and south already have commercial uses on them. By doing this, the future -- any future uses on the parent parcel would take access from this single shared access between the two tojoint owners of Sun coast Schools and the Okeechobee Inn, LId, We are about 950 feet north of the Lake Trafford intersection, State Road 29 right now is in a PD&E study for expansion of this right-of-way, which could allow for no, you know, cross traffic or anything on -- at this point, because ofthe closeness to the intersection. You know, there's really not much else to say, so I'll close my introduction and let you ask me any questions, if you have them, CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you, Mr, Midney, then Mr, Schiffer. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: We don't know ifthe -- it could be four-Ianed or ifit could be a divided highway, MS, GREEN: Right, we do not know, At this time right now it is two-lane with a continuous turn lane in the middle that allows traffic to go freely up and down that corridor on either side, so people can make left turns in a common center turn lane that is a continuous turn lane. That is its present condition right now. And that is how all the businesses in this stretch take their access. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: And we don't know ifit's going to be -- if there's going to be a turn lane there on that side, on the right-hand side or if it's going to be right in/right out? MS, GREEN: Right, exactly, I would venture to guess with its proximity and due to the fact of what State Road 29 is, I would venture to say that they would probably divide it to where this would -- I mean, knows what year it will ever get built due to funds, I would venture to guess that this would end up being a right in/right out only parcel in the far future, I don't see those -- I mean, they don't even have the PD&E study, I spoke to Department of Transportation, they are still working on the PD&E study, so they don't even have any conceptual plans, you know, anything to provide me right now to give me a little bit of idea to give you any infonnation, And I think that study's supposed to be coming out next summer, was what they had told me, CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Any other questions of the applicant at this time? Mr. Schiffer? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Quick question, Is the center line of the property the center line ofthe access easement? MS. GREEN: Yes, the center line of the access easement is the common property line between the parent parcel and the credit union parcel that has been split. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Then what is a slope easement? MS, GREEN: That is for construction in order to build the road, We've-- Page 15 Dec!~r~~!~ ~ COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Going up to -- MS, GREEN: No, actually, to slope it back down to natural grade, Because the road will have to be -- this access easement will have to be built up above grade, And so this is a slope easement to bring it back down to natural grade on the south side in the undeveloped parcel. So Okeechobee Inn has allowed that temporary slope easement till they ever, you know, decide to plat or sell off or anything to develop that piece of property, COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Any other questions ofthe applicant? (No response,) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I have a couple, The slope easement. Generally your utilities, FP&L, gas, if available, digital telephone, the rest of it, all have to go on I O-foot utility easements on each side of the right-of-way, Would you allow that slope easement to also incorporate the access for utilities? MS, GREEN: If that was the need, I do not see a reason why the setbacks from the access easement would not allow a building to be too close to this right-of-way that a 10-loot utility easement could not be placed there ifFP&L or any of the utilities deemed that that was a necessary improvement. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. So you'd have no objection then if we stipulate that the slope easements shall also include easements for private and public utilities, if needed? MS, GREEN: I don't see a reason why that can't be a stipulation, Can Ijust make a clarification, though" That if they decide to take their access in for the utilities in a different location such as, let's say, there's power poles down the north property line that FP&L's going to put a drop-in and bring in a transfonner on the north side of this property, then they would not need to utilize that easement, would it be -- could make it to where it would be on an as needed basis, based upon the design from the utility company? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well,l think if needed is as needed, but-- MS, GREEN: Okay, It's not required if it's not needed, okay, CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I'm not sure why your property owner would have any objection to it, because it would better serve everybody, So it doesn't make a lot of sense to object to it. But just it's a practical thing, so in the end down the road if you had adversarial positions here, one couldn't start fighting with the other by holding off that and extracting funds that weren't necessarily needed, MS, GREEN: Right. And in the same sense, if they decide they need to go down on the north side of this access easement towards the credit union building now, because that's what's being developed also and that's what's taking service first, it could be that, you know, they come back and say, hey, we need -- you know, this is actually Lee County Electric Co-op out there but, you know, they could come back and say, hey, you know, we need an easement on the north side of that access easement in order to bring our utilities in. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, all I'm suggesting is we provide them with one ability to access and that is the slope easement that already exists, incorporate private and public utilities into that and you're done. MS, GREEN: Ifneeded, okay, CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So as long as you don't have a problem, that's fine, The other thing is the condition that staff imposed on this says, all access to State Road 29 from the 9,04-acre tract shall be through the access location and approved as part of this variance, even if portions of the property are subsequently sold to another O\\11er. The remaining parcel is only 7,36 acres, right" MS, GREEN: Uh-huh, CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, So when staff comes up, I want to understand that that 9,04 is really to be 9,04, or is it 7,36 acres that we're talking about, so-- MS, GREEN: I think the difference between the two is the fact that at the time that this variance was applied for, the lot split had not taken place, And subsequently since the initial variance request and today and the writing ofthe statfreport the last split was submitted, was approved, and it is now actually two separate parcels, Still all in Okeechobee Inn, Ltd's name, though, CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, thank you, Any other questions? (No response,) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: If not, we'll go to stalfreport, MS, GREEN: Thank you, CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you, Page 16 16"1, AI..'1 December 18, ~~ J.D,? MR. MOSS: Good morning, Commissioners. For the record, John-David Moss, Department of Zoning and Land Development Review. The proposed use is permitted within the neighborhood center subdistrict of the Immokalee area master plan, and the proposal is also consistent with the applicable provisions of the LDC. So with the stipulation recommended by staff, staff is recommending approval. And I'll be happy to answer any questions you might have about the project. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Questions? Mr. Schiffer, then Mr. Midney. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: John-David, the condition one, that all access to State Road, that doesn't preclude the fact that you could access the residential street in the back if you're developing the back of this residentially, correct? MR. MOSS: If -- I suppose if they were able to. But that was the problem and the entire reason the applicant had to come in, as they were unable to get access through any of the adjacent parcels. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Are those private drives in the back, or on the west side? MR. MOSS: On the west side of the property, the applicant stated in the application they were unable to get any access with those owners. So I don't if it may be possible in the future, if they change their mind, but -- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: But we don't know ifthat's a public street or not? Because obviously -- I mean, if they developed a back residential, it might be preferable for those residences. Obviously -- MR. MOSS: To exit, right. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: -- I can see why. The credit union would be a disaster to come in from there. MR. MOSS: Well, I don't think the stipulation precludes them from gaining other access, but we just want to make sure that any development that occurs within that 9.04-acre tract does at least have access to State Road 29. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. But there's nothing that precludes them coming off of this North 18th Street? MR. MOSS: No. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. MR. MOSS: That wasn't the intent of the stipulation. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Midney" COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Transportation doesn't have any reservations about this variance? MR. MOSS: No. They just wanted to ensure that they all shared access. That was their only concern. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Any other questions of staff? (N 0 response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: J.D., the 9.04, is that correct as it reads, or should it be 7.36? MR. MOSS: Well, the county attorney's offce put the stipulation with 9.04 acres because the entire tract is that amount, as Mrs. Green said. The lot split did occur, and so now the remaining portion is less than that, it's seven point something. 7.36 acres. But we just want to make sure that all the properties within the original tract share access, so that's why I think they chose to put 9.04. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, minor point. Just was -- that's fine, thank you. Anybody else have any questions of the applicant or staff? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Are there public speakers, Ray? MR. BELLOWS: No one has registered on this item. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, does the applicant wish to rebut anything staff said? MS. GREEN: No. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, with that, we'll close the public heariug and entertain a motion. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: I'll make -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Midney? COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: I'd like to make a motion that we forward Petition V A-2008-AR- 13601 with a recommendation of approval, subject to staff condition one. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Second. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, motion's been made for approval, subject to staff condition one, seconded by Mr. Murray. Discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I'd like to ask that the motion maker and the second consider adding a stipulation that the slope Page 1 7 Dl&t~8, 12,6 easement will be modified to include public and private utilities where needed. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: That's fme. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Midney accepts. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: (Nods head affrmatively.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The second accepts it. Any other discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: All those wishing -- in favor of this motion, signifY by saying aye. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Aye. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Aye. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Aye. COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T Aye. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye. COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Aye. COMMISSIONER CARON: Aye. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody opposed" (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion carries 9-0. Thank you. Okay, we have time probably for the next one. And after break, we'll go straight into the Savarmah Place tlien. Item #9B PETITION: CU-2008-AR-13639, CHURCH OF JESUS CHRIST OF LATTER DAY SAINTS CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The next item up is Petition CU-2008-AR-13639, Corporation ofthe Presiding Bishop of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints, for a site located at 4935 23rd Court Southwest. All those wishing to testifY on behalf ofthis application, please rise to be sworn in by the court reporter. (Speakers were duly sworn.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You sit up here and you get that look from Cherie', you know you've done something wrong. So I will do my best. MR. SCHMITT: Duck if she throws a shoe. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I'll get the Secret Service on that. COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Oh, boy, that was a Middle Eastern comment. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Is there any disclosures on the part of planning commission? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, hearing none, we'll go into the applicant's presentation. MR. BREWER: Good afternoon. My name's Alan Brewer, with RS&H. I'm here representing my client, the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints, who's requesting a conditional use for an expansion to an existing church approximately 3,600 square feet. And adjacent parking approximately -- I'm sorry, 40 standard and two accessible parking. Sorry, I need my -- now I'm going to keep mine brief, because I've got what everyone else has going around. I won't put anymore on the microphone. If you look at the shaded areas of the expansion we're looking, one would be a foyer to the front entrance and the other is a non-chapel expansion. The adjacent parking is actually to bring the building up to code. And that's pretty much what I have. Any questions? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I think the questions -- you might want to tell us about this exit issue, because you're showing -- you've got a new -- MR. BREWER: I didn't know if you wanted to do that after the staff recommendations. I apologize. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, no, your chance is now. You can have rebuttal after staff, so-- Page 18 DeL~JN:; A~ MR. BREWER: During our -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- why don't you just explain that, whatever's going on there. MR. BREWER: If you look where he's pointing, during our discussions with the staff they wanted us to close down one of our existing entrances and move it to a different location, which is where it's shown now. The only problem is with putting it in that area, we can't meet the 50-foot throat. We actually have a 38-foot throat. To meet the 50-foot throat, we'd actually have to move an existing building, so we couldn't move that. Again, this is a compromise that we worked out with the staff to close down one entrance and move it to another location. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, I'm not -- let me get this one all on the table so we get the right questions. On the plan you're showing us right here, you have two entrances on the left side of the plan. You have a white entrance towards the top that I'm assuming is your existing, and you have a shaded entrance towards the bottom that is what I think you're proposing to add; is that right? MR. BREWER: Correct, sir. If you also look at the existing, if you went roughly 35 feet to the north, there would be another existing entrance that we were proposing to close, since we have worked with the staff to relocate it to the other location. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Now you've got me -- that just threw me. You showed two entrances on here: One existing and one proposed. You say there's a third entrance somewhere? MR. BREWER: There would be an entrance right here. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Sir, I'm sorry, you're going to have to use the walk-around mic. or something. You've got to talk through the mic. MR. BREWER: I apologize. MR. MOSS: Grab that mic. MR. BREWER: There we go. If you look, there would be an existing entrance right here that we worked with the staff, they wanted us to close it down and relocate it to the area that it's at now. But unfortunately we can't meet the 50-foot throat if we relocate it to that location. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Staff, could you put the aerial on? Or Ray, somebody, whoever's over there. The aerial, there is one in our plan. It's rather small. My question is, why are we messing with the entrance at all? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: That's what I wonder. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Yeah. MR. BREWER: That was something we worked with transportation. That's what they want -- they wanted us to close one down, but would give us the other one. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, transportation does want a lot of things, but maybe there's -- we need to understand what they want -- MR. BREWER: We would be willing to go back to the locations, the two existing, where they are. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. So this is what you have now. What you're proposing to do is close the one entrance to the far north of this one, leave the one on the south side of that semi-cir -- that circle open and then add another one to the south of that, is that -- MR. BREWER: Correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Wow. Mike, we're going to need your help on this, so-- COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Ray, could you point where the new and old entrances are here? I -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, no, the new ones aren't on here, just the old. COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Right. Where they would he. MR. SCHMITT: There, there -- COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Existing right there. MR. SCHMITT: And I believe they want -- this is the existing entrance and existing entrance, and this is where they want to put the new entrance. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No, I -- Mike, the new entrance that they're being asked to put in, enclosing half the existing north entrance, what is wrong with the operation like it's shown right here? They've got an entrance on one end and an exit on the other or vice versa. It seems to function fine, it's in a quiet neighborhood, why do we need to mess it up? MR. GREEN: Well, actually what's shown on the display shows two directional driveways, not a one direction in and a one direction out that are slightly split by a median. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. What's wrong with what's on the aerial" Page 19 DecemJr6t1 SiIA 6 MR. GREEN: Which aeria!O The-- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: There's only one aerial. That's a concept plan. Let's look at the aerial that's on the TV. MR. GREEN: The condition that's on the aerial is not a problem. The problem comes from the proposed new solution where you have two totally separate two-way driveways. We do not want to have a totally new driveway. It's contrary to trying to manage traffic patterns in a neighborhood. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ray, would you leave that one back on there till I get done with my questions, please? MR. BELLOWS: I'm sorry, I was trying to show it to you. COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Getting me seasick here. COMMISSIONER CARON: If! wasn't sick before-- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, this one, transportation has no problem with this; is that what I hear you saying? MR. GREEN: That's correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Who is insisting on adding the new entry to the south? I got the impression it was the applicant. MR. BREWER: We were relocating the existing one. We'd rather ours stay the way it is with the two entrances. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Oh" MR. BREWER: Okay" Thank you for that. The way it is is fme. We'd prefer that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, that's fine. Then transportation hasn't got a problem with it, okay, good. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Move on. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Let's not break that egg open again, okay? Whoa. Go ahead, Mr. Schiffer. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: It's for transportation. Is the throat requirement -- I never understood that to pertain to local roads before. Is that a requirement now? MR. GREEN: We always try and look at throat requirement and where you have a potential to impact the traveling public. It applies to anywhere where the county can be involved in right-of-way permits. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: So in other words, yes, you're going to have throat -- so you have throat requirements now on every -- MR. GREEN: On everything. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And has that been in the code somewhere? Is that your interpretation? MR. GREEN: That's identified in our right-of-way handbook that the code-- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Which is always isolated for collector and arterial. That's -- it does now say local? MR. GREEN: There's some interpretation involved in that. It doesn't just specifically say arterial and collector. It culls it out as roads that are public right-of-way or would fall to county right-of-way permitting. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Which is every road but a private road. Okay. I mean, I don't see the need for throat requirements in here anyway. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Good. The egg's still closed. Okay, are there any other questions of the applicant" Mr. Murray" COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Only one there, just for verification. We notice there's a maximum zoned height of 35 feet. What's the actual height going to be? I just want to make sure we have it correct. What's the maximum actual height that you want to build to, so we don't have any question. MR. LIVINGSTONE: Give me one second, I'll give it to you right off the plans. For the record, my name is -- COMMISSIONER MURRAY: And that should include any spires or anything else associated with it. MR. LIVINGSTONE: For the record, my name is Gil Livingstone. I'm the architect for the project with Reynolds, Smith and Hills. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You need to get closer to the mic., sir, if you could. MR. LIVINGSTONE: For the record, my name is Gil Livingstone -- he's sick, I don't want to get too close -- I'm the architect for the project. The actual height that we are adding to -- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Let me just say something while you're -- I mean, essentially what they're doing is just extending the existing roofline. MR. LIVINGSTONE: No, we're -- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: You're going to raise -- MR. LIVINGSTONE: The existing building with the existing chapel is a lot higher than we're adding to. Page 20 Decembl ~~,~ 6 COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I want to find the answer to-- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: No, but the point is-- COMMISSIONER MURRAY: -- my question. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: -- your addition is extending the existing roofline of a lower part of the building. MR. LIVINGSTONE: Yes, it is. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: So you'd be not raising anything above the existing-- MR. LIVINGSTONE: Correct. We're just extending it straight out from where it exists now. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Is that going to work, Brad" COMMISSIONER MURRA Y: Could I get the answer to my question, please? COMMISSIONER CARON: Yes. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I had the floor. Could I get the answer to my question? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Go ahead, Mr. Murray. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: No, I asked-- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Murray, go ahead, that's fine. MR. LIVINGSTONE: The existing top of roof ridge for the highest part ofthe building is 128 feet, two inches, which translates to 28 feet, two inches high. And then the existing to the addition, in other words, where we just extended out the existing part of that roof, is 15 foot, 10 inches to the top of the ridge. In other words, the peak of the roof COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Well, in my ignorance of what that means, I still have to ask you what that represents in terms of -- I heard Commissioner Schiffer's comments to you, which are probably correct, but I want to be able to understand myself that we are talking about something that conforms or something that arises much higher. MR. LIVINGSTONE: Okay, this is the existing chapel, which is the highest part of the building. That's been there for 30 years? Roughly 30 years. To this point on the ridge, not counting the spire, because I don't have a height on the spire, to be honest, but it's been there for 30 years, is 28 feet, two inches. This is the addition back here. From this point on the rendering -- or excuse me, from this point on the rendering up is where we're adding. The existing roof, if we put a line right here on this drawing, is here. So we're just extending it out. And that new roof part will be IS-foot, 10 inches. Just extending out the existing as-is. COMMISSIONER MURRA Y: Okay. So you'll never really meet the maximum zoned height of35. MR. LIVINGSTONE: No. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Okay. Really simple answer. I appreciate that very much. Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Any other questions ofthe applicant" (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, staff report. Thank you. MR. MOSS: Thank you, Commissioner. For the record, John-David Moss, Department of Zoning and Land Development Review. The subject property actually straddles two different subdistricts of the Golden Gate Area Master Plan: The urban residential subdistrict and the high density residential subdistrict. And the use is consistent with both of those. As noted in the staff report, the church has been on the site since 1979, and the proposal that they're requesting with this application is also consistent with the RSF-3 zoning district of the I.DC. So staff is recommending approval based on the stipulations contained in the staff report. Although it seems like number two is going to need to be amended. I think we're going to have to revise the conceptual site plan to show the existing entrances on 50th Street, rather than the ones that are proposed in the staff report. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I would concur with that conclusion. And also, since our consent agenda is January 15th for this item, the applicant will need to get a master plan resubmitted and back to us by that time so we could approve it on our consent, if that's the consensus of this board during the vote. MR. MOSS: I'd also like to add that a NIM was held for this conditional use, and none of the neighbors attended, so-- and I haven't received any letters of objection or phone calls about the project. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Are there any questions from (sic) staff? Mr. Wolfley, and Mr. Schiffer after that. COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: The community park facility is, oh, I don't know, just 100 feet away or so. And there are festivals there a couple oftimes a year. There's events, big events. Parking's always a problem. There is no parking when you have an event. They're all up and down Golden Gate Parkway and all over this property, from what I have seen before. Page 21 e.. Ij~ A 6 Decel~ 1~: ~08 Is there going to be a conflict -- I was kind of surprised that the community park people were not there. Are there going to be issues with that? I mean, is the church going to get a little upset if people are parking in their parking lot during those festival times, or is that a cooperation thing? MR. HAILS: My name is Wayne Hails (phonetic). I represent the church for construction here in Florida. We encourage people using the parking lot for a community event like that. As a matter off act, we try to respond quickly to any kind of a community emergency with tractor-trailer loads of supplies for the community. We are going to -- part of this renovation will be to insulate our building so that we don't hear the boom boxes and things like that, if there's an event going on while we're holding our church services. But if we're not in the parking lot, feel free to use the spaces. COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Great answer. Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Schiffero COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: That was actually kind of my question. But I'd like to add to that is, is there the ability to put some sort of a walkway? Right now people would have to climb down through a detention pond. Is there a way that we could do something to make it-- MR. HAILS: No, we would ask that you just use the public sidewalks around the edge of the facility. We're going to have a berm that goes between them and some vegetation up on top to cut down on the noise. Because we -- right now when you have an event in the park there, we can hardly hear ourselves talk inside the building. So part of our project will be to insulate the building so that we don't hear the commotion going outside. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And you wouldn't want to put a sidewalk through there? MR. HAILS: No, no. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody else have any questions of staff? MR. BREWER: Can I rebut -- say one more thing? As part of this plan, we are putting sidewalks on all four sides of our property. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Would you have any problem if we voted to retain the one entry that exists today on that one side, instead of the new plan that you have here, revising this plan by the consent agenda date of January 15th? MR. BREWER: No problem. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Any other questions of staff? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Any other questions of the applicant? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Any public speakers, Ray? MR. BELLOWS: No speakers. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, we can close the public hearing and entertain a motion. If the motion maker would like to consider the idea of leaving that one entrance that exists today on that one road in place, then we need to -- the recommendations should include an elimination of staff point number two and are-submittal of the master plan for the consent agenda. Does anybody wish to make a motiono Mr. Schiffer" COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Just to be clear, what he testified is that each of those access aisles has an entrance out onto the road. So on the northeast -- or northwest part of the property there is actually two road accesses existing, and we're going to say keep those exactly as they are? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. MR. BREWER: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Is there a rec -- Mr. Wolfley? COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: I'd like to make a recommendation for approval for CU-2008-AR- 13639, Naples Meeting House, again for approval, with -- keeping the ingress and egress the same. I believe that's 50th Street Southwest -- is that correct? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes. COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: As it is. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And staff recommendations then one, three and four; is that-- COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Yeah, one, three and four for the staff recommendation will remain. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Second. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, motion made by Commissioner Wolfley, seconded by Commissioner Murray. Discussion? Page 22 DlkJft8,A& (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: All in favor, signifY by saying aye. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Aye. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Aye. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Aye. COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: Aye. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye. COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Aye. COMMISSIONER CARON: Aye. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion carries unanimously. Thank you very much for your time. And with that, we will take a IS-minute break till 10:00, and we'll come back and resume on time Savannah Place. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: And can I get the conditional use forms signed, please? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Pass all your conditional use forms, please. (Recess.) Item #9D PETITION: PUDZ-2007-AR-] 2026. SA V ANNAH PLACE RPUD CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, everybody, welcome back from break. We have one item left on today's regular agenda. It's Petition PUDZ-2007-AR-12026, Stephen 1. Lockwood, Trustee for SLJ (sic) Realty II Trust, which is the Savannah Place RPUD 011 Orange Blossom Drive. All those wishing to testifY on behalf of this application, please rise to be sworn in by the court reporter. (Speakers were duly sworn.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, disclosures on the part ofthe planning commission. Mr. Wolfley" COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Yes, I spoke with Mr. Y ovanovich shortly about the project on the 15th, I believe. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Murray? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I had a telephone conversation with Mr. Yovanovich regarding this matter. He asked me if! had any questions. I had few. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ms. Homiako COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: I also had a phone conversation with Mr. Yovanovich. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody else? Ms. Caron? COMMISSIONER CARON: Same here. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And for me, I had conversations with I think Wayne Arnold and/or Heidi, and Mr. Yovanovich for sure about all the issues and any that I'll be discussing today. In fact, some that I didn't know at the time that have been corrected today. And we did receive a hand-out this morning correcting -- removing one column and moving the standards afthat column in to where it should have been in the PUD and into the accessory structures. So with that in mind, the applicant can proceed. MS. WILLIAMS: Thank you. Good morning. My name is Heidi Williams. I'm a certified planner with Grady Minor and Associates in Bonita Springs. I'm here today with Rich Yovanovich and Josh Evans. And Josh is a professional engineering with Grady Minor, and Rich is, as you know, a land use attorney here with Goodlette, Coleman, Johnson, Y ovanovich and Custer. We're here on hehalf -- as Mr. Strain mentioned, on behalf of SJL Realty II Trust. We're here to request your recommendation of approval of a rezoning of 6.81 acres located on the south side of Orange Blossom Drive, west of Airport Pulling Road. First today I'd like to describe our project and then I'd like to talk a little bit about compatibility. And then I'll turn everything over to Rich to talk about some of staffs concerns. And then we would be happy to take any of your questions. Page 23 l~JbJ It, ~O~ On the visualizer you can see a diagram of the subject property. As I mentioned, it is 6.8 I acres. It's located within the urban designation on the Future Land Use Map for Collier County. Currently designated rural agricultural zoning, we're asking to rezone to residential planned unit development for 20 dwelling units. Those dwelling units -- and the master plan is on the board over here -- are -- we're asking for either single-family attached, single-family detached, or townhome units. Those are all listed in the PUD document as principal uses. And then we are also asking for related accessory uses that you would expect to fmd in a residential subdivision. We have not requested any deviations from the Land Development Code. We started out with a very different product that did have deviations. We have moved away from that product. We are not asking for any changes to buffering, open space or sidewalk requirements. We are completely in compliance with the code. The next thing I would like to talk about is compatibility. You may have noticed in the staff report that there was some concerns about what we are asking to build here and how it relates to the surrounding area. The aerial photograph on the board over here indicates the subject property is outlined in yellow. It is currently used -- it's an agricultural nursery. It's surrounded by development. And I took a look at the section that this property is located in. It's everything within one mile -- I haven't shown it in this aerial, but development in this part of Collier County has occurred from 1997, in the form ofPUD's, through 2005. And there are a variety of housing types and a variety aflot sizes, and they all coexist. And although this section of Collier County is not unique, there are many PUD's in Collier County that have been approved with multiple housing types, multiple housing sizes, and it's expected that they have internal compatibility. I'd like to show you two examples that are actually fairly close to this project on the visualizer. This first photograph is an image of Monterey PUD on the west. The middle component of that is a portion of Emerald Lakes PUD. And the portion on the right is a PUD called Marker Lake Villas. Each of these properties have a different type of unit. We go from single-family to an attached home -- attached housing project to an even smaller attached project. They're in very close proximity to one another, and those were approved and deemed compatible. And as far as I know, they are very desirable residential neighborhoods to live in. That project -- those projects are accessed, a combination from Orange Blossom Drive and also from Vanderbilt Beach Road. This is at the northern end of the same section that our property is in. This second example is also located in the same section as Savannah Place. It is on the west side, a portion of the Sleepy Hollow PUD. That subdivision is actually Mill Run. On the east side is a PUD called Keystone Place. That is developed as the Arbor Walk Condominiums. It was formerly affordable apartments. And on the south what you're seeing is actually an industrial development. All three of these uses are adjacent to one another, and they've been deemed compatible. And incompatibility is dealt with by a combination of setbacks and buffering and other development standards. So what we're trying to show with these m'o examples is that the unit type is not necessarily what is the main driving cause of compatibility. Single-family, townhomes and attached, unattached products can all be located in very close proximity and not cause problems between neighbors. Another factor for compatibility is density. Staff points Ollt that the Sleepy Hollow PUD is 1.69 units per acre. And overall it is. There are large areas of preserve in that PUD. Because of the environmental conditions on that property, I don't think you could have gotten a higher -- maybe you could have gotten a higher density and changed the product types, but what I would suggest is that within this section ofland, that's the exception, not the rule to the density in the area. We have asked for three units per acre. Keystone Place, which again is Arbor Walk shown in that aerial, was approved at 11.88 units per acre. There are two other PUD's with high densities in this area. Bear Creek is one. They have ]4 units per acre. Those are outliers. They are both accessed by Airport Pulling Road. The Buckley mixed use PUD is also a high density, it's 10.99 units per acre. So what we've seen is that those projects located on a main arterial road are given a high density. And as you move away from that, the density increases. Monterey PUD is 4.7 units per acre. Cay Lagoon, which actually abuts our property on the east side, the northeast side, is a multi-family product. It's a PUD that has a 5.45 unit per acre density. So the three units per acre that we're asking for this intiII project is actually lower than many of the projects around them. It is allowed by the comprehensive plan and that's why we're asking for that today. Similarly, the lot size was raised as a concern by staff. The same list of PUD's that are contained within this section, I went through and tried to see which ones allowed multi-family, which ones allowed single-family. There's actually only one that does not allow multi-family product within the PUD, and that is the one we're adjacent to, Sleepy Hollow. Page 24 ~Jtir A,(~)08 There are three that only allow multi-family in this section. Those are Bear Creek, Cay Lagoon, which is another of our neighbors, and the Buckley mixed use PUD. All of the others allow both single-family and multi-family product within the same planned development. Obviously along the way we've determined that multi-family and single-family can be collocated and be compatible. One thing I'd like to describe is the staff report has on Page 7 in the setback comparison table, we actually asked for 15 feet from the PUD boundary. It's typed in there as five. And on the west and southern sides of the property, we would be willing to change our request from] 5 feet to 25 feet to increase the distance from our neighbors. That is unfortunately not one of the changes we made in the revised PUD pages that were handed out today. The first change that we made to the documents that were handed to you today, we simply changed the title in table one. This used to refer to the clubhouse building. We took that out. This only refers to townhomes. This is the development standards for principal structures only. And we took the development standards from the principal use table and added it to our accessory use table. So table I. I has a new column with those same development standards. So that's the -- that brings me to the end of my discussion on compatibility, and I'll turn it over to Rich. MR. YOV ANOVICH: Good morning. For the record, Rich Yovanovich. What I wanted to address was the staff comments regarding the native preservation requirements. And basically what your staff is saying in their staff report is that we are required to retain 100 percent of the existing native vegetation found on the site. We've been given two reasons for that request: One is in the staff report and one is in e-mails that we received. The first reason is that staff claims that the note on the SDP -- and the SOP was for a nursery, which is an agricultural use within the agricultural zoning district. So it was in a site development plan for the nursery and the building supporting the nursery. So we did a site development plan, which is one method of doing an agricultural use. On that site development plan there's an area that says existing vegetation to remain. The reason that was there is because we were not clearing that portion of the property related to the nursery use and the buildings to support the nursery use. Your staff is saying that those four words, existing vegetation to remain, equals the term preserve. There's no easement on that property to say it's a conservation easement, but they're saying it should be treated as if it's a preserve because we elected not to clear it as part ofthe nursery operation. I think they're wrong on a couple -- for a couple of reasons -- oh, the second reason we were given is that the nursery really isn't an agricultural use, it's a commercial use. So since it's not an agricultural use, you don't get to take advantage of the provisions in the code that say agricultural uses are exempt ITom the minimum native vegetation requirements. Well, if you look at section 2.03.0I.A. I, A.2, which is the agricultural, the list of permitted uses in the agricultural zoning district, it specifically says that we're allowed to do agricultural activities. And if you look at the use of agricultural activities in that section, it says nurseries. So nurseries are clearly an agricultural activity. So the argument that a nursery is really not agricultural is inconsistent with the county's own Land Development Code. Second, if you go to Section 3.05.02.C ofthe Land Development Code, it provides that agricultural uses within the scope of Sections 163.3162, sub-paragraph four, and 823.14, sub-paragraph six of the Florida Statutes, they're exempt from the native vegetation requirements in that section. Now, we all know that those sections are -- they're basically the Right to Farm Act sections. And in the Right to Farm Act sections, it says you have to go to the property appraiser and get an agricultural exemption to quality under the Right to Farm Act. This property has had an agricultural exemption for many years and it still has an agricultural exemption from a nursery. Now, to get that agricultural exemption, you've got to be a bona fide agricul -- you have to be a bona fide agricultural purpose. So what do the statutes define as a bona fide agricultural purpose? It says the use must be a good faith commercial agricultural use of the land. So the fact that staff may believe this is a commercial use, it has to be a commercial use to quality for the agricultural exemption. The goal is to try to sell the product that you're producing. You may not make any money doing it, but you're required to be out there doing a business, a commercial business, your product is agricultural. So the argument that we're a commercial operation and not an agricultural operation and therefore we're not entitled to the exemptions also is not consistent with the statutes or the county's Land Development Code. Now, we've -- you know, it's one of those things that you know you've done this many, many times, but I've been involved in many petitions where staff says to us, prove that the land was properly cleared. And if you can prove it was properly cleared, then you keep 15 percent or 25 percent, depending on what it is, of the then existing native vegetation. If you can't prove you have the right pemits, sorry, we go back and we look at old aerials and we figure out what the native was there, and you keep Page 25 16 ", A 6 December 18, 20~ 25 percent, 15 percent, depending on what you were, of what was there originally. Sometimes you don't have enough left and you actually replant to come up with what the required nwnber is. And we've all seen these -- you've seen the debate about whether you can prove or not. And staff will even go so far as to say, you know what, we'll work with you to get an after-the-fact agricultural clearing permit if you could show that you've had a bona fide agricultural use. And if you do that, then the clearing is fixed after the fact and you keep 15 percent of the then existing native vegetation. And the most recent example ofthat was the Naples Church of Christ that we just did on Livingston Road. Remember, we had to provide affdavits to staff that this was a horse farm. And I'm blanking on the name, but Commissioner Strain, you actually I think did the barn out there. So that's an example -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: House. And the house. COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: It looks like a barn. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I used to do just barns, but houses work, too, you know. MR. YOV ANOVICH: Okay, houses and barns. But anyway, so that was an example where staff said we'll work with you, you've proved it was a bona fide agricultural use for the required period of time, you keep] 5 percent of what's there and we rnove on. I did the Santa Barbara Aparttnents on Santa Barbara and Radio Road. Same situation. The apartments were built on ago land that had been cleared, we came in and did a PUD after the fact, because there was some land within the project that we wanted to do a different type of product. There was native vegetation. We kept 15 percent ofthe then existing native vegetation. We didn't keep 100 percent of it, we kept the then existing. So I mean, there are many examples of where they use the valid clearing as a mechanism to determine how much you've got to keep on the site. And it's usually been to determine, you know, is what's there today appropriate, and then you do whatever the percentage of what's there today. So this is the first example where staff is saying to us, you've got an agricultural use, although they don't want to acknowledge it's an agricultural use. We've got a site development plan for an agricultural use. It's been in an agricultural use for the required 10 years, because at that time it was at 10 years; it's been recently changed to 25 years. And now they're saying a note on the plat that says since you've retained that vegetation it's now a preserve. And it was a required preserve. I don't know where there was a required preserve for the agricultural lise, because the Land Development Code didn't require preserves for agricultural uses, they've always been exempt. Now all of a sudden those words become a required preserve and we've got to keep 100 percent of it. I don't think that's the way the code's been applied in the past. I think this is a new interpretation ofthe code. We think it's incorrect under the LDC provisions. And we are requesting that we be required to keep 15 percent of the one acre that's there, and that's what the code says, and we will do that. We think that -- again, I don't want to belabor the point, but to my knowledge that's the way it's always been applied, at least in projects that I've been involved in. I've never seen it applied this way. And so we believe that your staff is incorrect, we are consistent with the Land Development Code, as well as the Growth Management Plan. And Heidi's gone through the compatibility issues regarding what's around us. I will tell you, I was a little surprised when I saw the staff report, because we've done a lot of PUD's, and all those PUD's basically contain single-family through multi-family, and I've never seen staff say you can't put a multi-family parcel next to a single-family parcel in a PUD because it's incompatible. I've never seen them say to us, you need to -- you can't have "X" lot size next to "Y" lot size because it's internally compatibility. I think you look at what's around us. And if projects had to be internally compatible, and you can have those projects next to each other, why would they no longer be externally compatible because you're allowing those products next to each other? And I would point out that in the Land Development Code under the straight zoning standards, if you put RSF- I next to RSF-6, your only requirement is a Type A buffer. So even the Land Development Code recognizes that you can have these different lot sizes next to each other and the requirement is the buffer between us. And that's how we deal with it internally in PUD's. And I would give you one other exarnpIe that's not in this section, but from a compatibility standpoint. And it deals with the subdivision that I live in, which is the Pine Ridge subdivision. That is mostly straight zoning. And there's straight zoning RSF- I for most of the lots. There's straight zoning RSF -- I mean straight zoning agricultural next to the RSF- I. And there's a portion, the northwest portion of Pine Ridge where you have RMF- I 6 adjacent to RSF-I. Those have all been determined to be compatible with each other. You deal with it through the Land Development Code buffering requirements. I find it hard to accept that single-family next to single-family, albeit on smaller lots, is somehow inconsistent with those types of uses. We think that with the additional 25-foot setback, that there is -- our project is compatible with Sleepy Hollow. And I forgot to tell you, Heidi, this -- well, actually I told you this, but I forgot to ask you to say it on the record. But Page 26 16 -.adl h Decemb~ fE, Th~ when I spoke with Mr. Murray on the call, he had a concern about the lot -- I mean the square footage for the nontraditional single-family. I believe we can go down to 750 square feet. The single-family is 1,000 and we said we could make those numbers consistent. So there'd be 1,000 square feet across the board. So I forgot to mention that earlier. But with those changes, we would think that all the compatibility issues have been resolved. And again, I think the native vegetation analysis from your staff is not correct under the I ,and Development Code, and has not been the application of those provisions historically. And with that, we're available to answer any questions you might have regarding the PUD we're requesting. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, let's start with the applicant's questions. Does anybody have -- Mr. Midney" COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Do you have any land clearing permits that you could find showing when the-- MR. YOV ANOVICH: It was the site development plan. The site development plan showed what we were doing on the site. It was a site development plan for a nursery. The buildings and everything. It showed the mrrsery area that was clear. Even portions -- and staff has it with you, you'll see other portions where we cleared it. And ails it says is exactly what your staff report says, native vegetation to remain. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Are all nurseries agriculture? Because to me there seems to be two kinds of nurseries: One where stuff is brought in from somewhere else just for selling and another type of nursery where everything is grown I guess maybe in pots on the site. MR. YOV ANOVICH: I think your code says that they're both agricultural operations. So I would say yes. From a treatment of whether they're agricultural, yes, I think whether you grow it all on-site or you bring some of it there and you grow some of it in pots, I think they would quality as nursery. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: So the code makes no distinction. MR. YOV ANOVICH: I don't think it does. I haven't seen it. I don't there we were -- we're not a retail nursery. We're a-- you know, you kind of grow it and use it within your business. So in this particular case I don't think you'd have to worry about, you know, were we open to the general public. We were using it as part of the business. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Any other questions of the applicant? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I do, Mark. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Schiffer" COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Rich, there's no limit on the length of the townhouses, so conceptually they'd be big units, I'll agree, but you could run a townhouse that would go all the way around the whole road system. Would you have a problem limiting the maximum length of that? MR. YOV ANOV1CH: Maximum" COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Well, in other-- MR. YOV ANOVICH: We get 20 units. We're only allowed 20 units. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: So I said, they'd be kind of big, but-- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: How many to a cluster is what he asked -- MR. YOV ANOVICH: I'm asking, what is your -- you said -- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Well, 200 feet is a conventional break on the-- MR. YOV ANOVICH: That's fine. We don't have an issue with saying a townhome building cannot be greater than 200 feet in length. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Thank you. I'm done. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody else" Ms. Caron? COMMISSIONER CARON: In my conversation with you, Mr. Yovanovich, we talked about the height, the actual height of 45 feet, and whether that was necessary or not. You and I talked about making the zoned and actual height the same. MR. YOV ANOVICH: 0f35 feet. COMMISSIONER CARON: And that didn't seem -- of35 feet. That certainly allows you a townhouse product that would be compatible with anything else that's around it, and allows you to be compatible. MR. YOVANOVICH: We'd have to -- yeah, I understand that the definitions are different. And I would hope -- I know we talked about that. I donlt have an exact answer. And Mr. Schiffer, I hate to defer to you, but -- COMMISS10NER SCHIFFER: Well, yeah. MR. YOV ANOVICH: On that, is it a problem to design -- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I think ails you would do is force the developer to put flatter roofs on his project. That's the -- remember, the zoned height goes to the midpoint of a roof, actual goes to the peak. If you make those the same, the Page 27 16~'f lA t.. I Decembe ~2008 developer has a choice of either lowering the roof or flattening the roof. So the intent of the actual height was not to cause all the buildings in Collier to have flat roofs. MR. YOV ANOVICH: But would a 35 -- COMMISSIONER CARON: And that is not happening. And so if you want to make the zoned height 25 feet and your actual height 35 feet, fine by me. MR. YOV ANOVICH: What about 35, 40, instead of35, 45? COMMISSIONER CARON: Well, it's not going to work for me, but-- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Here's the thing, though, is what's being punished is the roof. I mean, the developer is not going to change probably his bearing height of his second floor. So aIls you're going to do is lower that roof down. Ifhe's got a wide footprint -- MR. YOV ANOVICH: How about 30 and 40? That's what our neighbors have. They have 30. They don't have an actual number, but they have 30 zoned. So that would be -- COMMISSIONER CARON: What are they actually? MR. YOV ANOVICH: You know, I -- right now I don't know. But that doesn't have to stay that way. You know, as neighborhoods get older and get more expensive, people are doing additions. So what I'm suggesting is that height would be the same that they could develop on their site. So it would be 30 zoned and 40 actual so we don't mess with the roof. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I mean, we're just playing with numbers, we're not playing with geometry. And it is a geometry problem. You would probably have -- if you had a nine-foot ceiling, two foot of structure, you have I I -- 22 feet is the lowest part of your roof bearing. So ails your doing, like I said, is just laying the roof down. We have some beautiful projects with nicely sloped roofs that I don't think are causing anybody any grief from the roof. And that's all you're dealing with is the slope of the roof here. That's the only thing you're adjusting. You're not adjusting the height of the building -- the floors of the building, just its roof. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, the applicant has suggested a compromise during discussion. We need to know where we go with that. So anybody else have any questions of the applicant at this time? (N 0 response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I do. MR, YOV ANOVICH: So close. COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: But so far. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And actually, you took care of some ofthem. The removal of the clubhouse from the principal to the accessory table works. My concern is where are you going to place the clubhouse and recreation centers if they were to go on this property? Where would they not be going? And that's to protect the neighborhood and the surrounding areas. So where are you -- where would you like to limit those? MR. YOV ANOVICH: To the east. It needs to be -- let me walk over. We're talking about in this area, okay? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So any recreational -- any of those accessories-- MR. YOV ANOVICH: This is multi-family adjacent to it. So we would put it on the east boundary and not adjacent to the west boundary, if that helps. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: It would east of the right-of-way to the roadway. MR. YOVANOVICH: Yes, sir. Of the road, yes, internal road. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. And your new table took care of all my other issues that I had. Mr. Murray's 1,000 square feet, you've agreed to that. So I think the only other thing is the argument you've just put forth on the preserve. And I didn't have a concern either way. I don't see anything wrong with your argument, so I'm inclined to agree with your position on that. So I don't have any other questions. Anybody else? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, can we have staff report. UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: There's a -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ma'am, we're not to puhlic speakers yet. And you weren't sworn in, so when you do speak, you'll have to stand and be sworn in. Page 28 ,~ 1.1~;A~ D~~beft8, 2Uo'81 MS. DESELEM: Good morning. For the record, my name is Key Deselem, and I'm also a certified planner and I'm with the Department of Zoning with Collier County. You do have the staff report, and the attachment to go with that A and B that are the findings in support ofthe staff recommendation. I won't bore you with the details that you've already heard once. There's no need to go into that. I'll just pretty much hone in to the issues that we have that are out.'tanding between the agent and the staff. The main issues that we have, as you know, are the compatibility issue with the unit types and the environmental issue. For the environmental issue I have Susan Mason here from our environmental staff that will address that particular lssue. As far as the other issue, staff will, yes, admit that it is a little bit different from what I understand. There has never been the analysis that was provided in this one as far as looking at the size of the units and the lot size. But staff did do some research, and we looked into the issue based on the input that we received from the neighborhood information meeting. If you look in the staff report, you can see there were 25 people at the second meeting that we had, and they were truly concerned, seemingly, about what was being proposed. And not knowing exactly what was being proposed I think perplexed them as much as anything. And they did seem to have concerns about the proximity of the uses that were proposed for the project. More or less that than the fact that it was single-family homes. They did have concerns about the multi-family aspect. Staff didn't really hone in on that. Staffs concerns with compatibility were the lot sizes. And we did do an analysis, as you see in the staff report, with Sleepy Hollow, which is the most impacted of the projects as far as the proposed lot sizes in this project and what is there. And staff pulled up several sources that talked about compatibility. And compatibility is -- also involves design of the project. And design of the project, it's not just the use. And this is a standard that's accepted in planning texts throughout the United States. And this is one source where it talks about the compatibility. And it talks about the hulk of structures. It's Ilotjust the use itself. There are other things that deal with compatibility. And oftentimes you'll see in a staff report with the recommendation, it will talk about the orientation ofbuilding, location of buildings, the mass of the structure. And this is another aspect of compatibility that staff tried to look at to resolve concerns raised by the neighbors. Before you now is an excerpt from the Land Development Code. The petitioner's agent mentioned that there are things within the RS- I and RS whatever and RMF whatever, whatever the different categories are of the zoning code that deal with buffering. But this is taken directly from the design standards for planned developments. And it notes in here that you can look at things differently in a PUD than you would in standard zoning. And that's what staff has done. I offer this as all excerpt from another planning book that's accepted, and it's provided by the American Planning Association. And it talks about floor area ratio as a way to evaluate projects when you have single-family homes or residential uses that will be abutting residential uses. This particular issue came up in the context ofteardowns, where you have an older neighborhood that's being changed, you have older homes that are small and now everybody's going to come in like they did several years ago and build the mega-houses, and it's like how do you deal with that issue. And we have somewhat of a similar situation here where we have an infill tract. It's ago It's surrounded by, as noted by the petitioner's agent, developed properties. Most of them have developed with residential uses. And the residential uses do vary. So how do you address that? And this particular text indicates that one way you can look at that is through the floor area ratio. And when you have an equitable floor area ratio, hopefully you have a more compatible design of a project. Staff did an analysis with the Savannah Place, what's proposed by the petitioner and what staff is recommending in comparison to the Sleepy Hollow. And this Sleepy Hollow looked at what was approved in that zoning, not just what was actually built. Because as noted in the staff report, the structures that were built and the lot sizes that were developed are significantly larger even than what's proposed here. But as you can see, the floor area ratio of the proposed Savannah Place units is quite higher than what was approved for Sleepy Hollow. And if you look at staffs recommendation for the two projects, we are proposing something that's more in line as far as floor area ratio with what's approved in Sleepy Hollow, staff believing that is a more appropriate way to address compatibility in this project. I would note that in the applicant's presentation they provided various aerial photographs and mentioned several Page 29 1611~f; A/.. December IS, 20t'S projects. But I think something that was left out of that analysis you need to consider, too, they didn't mention the size of the buffers or the setbacks that might be part of those PUD's. They didn't mention the location ofthe structures or how they're implemented. There's driveways in some, there's internal roadways in others that we're actually showing to separate the uses. And interestingly, you don't know the size of those projects. Those could have all been approved as part of a larger project. This is a very small project. Like I said, it's almost an infill, ttying to fit it into a neighborhood, which can sometimes be problematic. And that's what we're trying to address here as staff And you just don't really understand unless you look at all those and have all that information in front of you. All you're looking at is an aerial photograph. One other thing that you can't tell from that is who was there first. Which project came in first. We have a project here that's coming in after the fact next door to a larger lot subdivision. And those projects that were shown to you, we don't know who came in first. Was the multi-family project there first and then the large lot single-family, or the large lot single-family or small lot single-family came in prior to the multi-family? And I think that's a lot of the dynamics that we have here that we're trying to be concerned about and address the compatibility issue with that. And although the petitioner's agent did mention that he's never seen an analysis like this before, that's understandable. Like I said when I started, I don't know that we've used this particular type of an analysis in Collier County. However, historically that's nice to know, but it's important to lU1derstand that each project is evaluated on its 0\\-11 merit and not necessarily on something else that might have or might not have been done in the past. And I think staff has tried to show you what we've looked at and how we've evaluated it. And I think it's a fair comparison to cite what we have cited and to recommend what we have recommended. And with that, I don't have anything else. I f you have any questions, I'd be happy to address them. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody have any questions? Mr. Schiffer" COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Kay, based on, you know the studies, these were all based on the minimum that was required in the PlJD. MS. DESELEM: Yes, sir. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: So anything above that minimum would cause the FAR to increase. So, for example, the Sleepy Hollow could have 2,400 square foot units in there, which would be an FAR of22 -- .22, right? MS. DESELEM: Yes, but also those lot sizes were considerably larger as well. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: But, you know, I'm just playing with the math. In other words if, you know, you took a larger lot size into what their minimum unit was. But in fact we don't know what they really built, do we? MS. DESELEM: I just did -- and that's what I said, I just did a comparison based on the PUD itself, what was approved. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: So their units-- MS. DESELEM: Which is what we're dealing with now. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: So their units could be .3, could be .4 FAR. MS. DESELEM: Yes, the minimums are what we are approving. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Wolfley? COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Kay, west of, well, let's say 1-75, everything we have is infill. So I don't think infill is bad. 'The only issue with infill is that -- there's a couple of things. I guess you're -- you're FAR is part of it. Another thing is the sale price of the end product. A lot of times when you have a neighborhood or an area that's 10,20, 30 years old with a certain design to it, very diffcult to put a new project in there that is not going to skew off the property values. So I think that the property values have a little bit of weight here as well. I don't think it would match to give your FAR -- I don't think is a fair assessment as an only -- as the only way to do this. So I think the property value probably has something to do with it. So I'm not necessarily in total agreement with what you say. Next I want to get into the vegetation, the native vegetation. MS. DESELEM: 1fT may, Susan Mason is going to address that issue. COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Which one" MS. DESELEM: The issue about the native vegetation. COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Okay. MS. DESELEM: And she'll make a presentation to you and then can respond. COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Great. At your neighborhood information -- you had two meetings. The first meeting, do you remember how many people Page 30 161"~ At.. Decembe~ fg, ~~ were there? MS. DESELEM: I'd have to go back and look at the staff report, I don't recall. COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Ninety" Nine-zero? MS. DESELEM: I know there was a significant amount, because they flowed over outside of the room. COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Oh, okay. And that's when they were going after 75 units in that location? MS. DESELEM: Yes, they were proposing an affordable housing component at much higher density. COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: And that didn't go over very well. MS. DESELEM: That's correct. COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Now they're proposing 20 units. Okay, I just -- and do you know how many people were at the second meeting? MS. DESELEM: I believe there was 25. COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Twenty-five. And that's what I was getting at, is I was wondering what was solved at the first one? Was it the number of density? Was that why there were so many fewer people" Because that sounds like the majority of the neighborhood, the surrounding areas were concerned about 75 affordable housing units. Whereas now it's 20 single-family units. So I just -- again, I don't understand that part about why the square footage ofthe lots. I had another one, but I'm going to have to wait until I find it. I'll wait for the native vegetation. Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Murray? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: You know, it's interesting your comparisons here, especially when your staff recommendation comes down to continuing with 750 square feet. I'mjust surprised that -- I guess that's the result of their arithmetic, right? MS. DESELEM: I'm sorry, I don't follow your question. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Well, in other words, you're advocating 750 square feet. MS. DESELEM: No, I only analyzed what was proposed -- COMMISSIONER MURRAY: That's what I mean -- MS. DESELEM: -- they didn't offer anything different, so -- COMMISSIONER MURRAY: That's what I mean then when I say it was arithmetic. MS. DESELEM: Yes. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Because you did a calculation-- MS. DESELEM: Yes. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: -- absent any other criteria associated with it. And as you may have heard, I'm not happy with a 750 square feet place for a person -- a family to grow up in. You would agree, though, that 1,000 square feet would be better than 750 square feet for a living accommodation, wouldn't you? It would be illogical not to, I think. MS. DESELEM: I think that's a matter of choice for each person. I mean, in some cultures 750 square feet would be a huge home. COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: This is Naples. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: This is-- MS. DESELEM: In my personal estimation, yeah, I would much rather have 1,000 square foot. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Okay. What I'm trying -- maybe I didn't say it as well as I should have. What I'm saying is relative to this location to the adjacent places, 1,000 square feet is a bigger home in general; physical structure has to be bigger. And that means you'll have fewer. And that's one of the factors that I thought was applicable here. I'm not trying to put you on the spot in any way, but I'm just surprised that you were -- your calculation just brought it down to 750 square feet and that would have been acceptable. All of the other posture that you have related here is based on all kinds of criteria from all other locations, and that's a simple arithmetic calculation. I think it doesn't serve you as well. That's all I'm really relating. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Kay, I don't particularly think that the staff doing this kind of analysis and selectively doing it for this project is a good precedent to set. COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: No. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: We are not as a county organization supposed to be dictating marketing. I don't believe this is a really fair way to evaluate solely compatibility. For example, you're going to eliminate affordable housing throughout Collier County if you wanted to use this analysis and every neighborhood wanted to throughout the county. The previous 75 units, could this property have taken or been allowed Page 31 ol~lej 8, 2A6 to have 75 units of affordable housing? MS. DESELEM: We did not evaluate that. It never got to that stage. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Would they quality for 75 units of housing under the density bonuses and things they could have applied for? MS. DESELEM: It appeared to be consistent with the Growth Management Plan as proposed. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, under your analysis, they would have lost that ability, because you couldn't have got more than 50 units on here, based on the square footage you want. And that's if you had no road and no water management and no preserve area. So I don't think your analysis is the way to utilize compatibility in Collier County. We have plenty of examples where that wasn't done before. And I still think this is an avenue we don't want to go in. So that's just a statement, Kay. I disagree wholeheartedly with the way this one was approached. But other than that, I don't have any other questions other than getting into the -- if there wants to be a presentation on the preserve area, that's fine, we can go forward with that, if there's no other questions of staff. Ms. Caron? COMMISSIONER CARON: Yeah, I just wanted to make a comment on Page 3 of 10. And I don't know who wrote the Growth Management Plan consistency, but under Policy 7.2 it says, the county shall encourage internal access or loop roads in an effort to help reduce vehicle congestion on nearby collector and arterial roads and minimize the need for traffic signals. And in response to that it says, the RPUD conceptual master plan depicts an internal cul-de-sac road with the project. All individual lots or tracts within the project will obtain access from that internal road. And I just think that that -- whoever "'TOte that is not reading the policy correctly. Encouraging internal accesses or loop roads is one thing. Having a road to get to your home is a totally different thing. This doesn't get traffic off highways, it doesn't prevent you from going out to the major arterials or collectors in order to get to shopping or whatever. When we talk about creating loop roads and interconnects, it's to prevent people from coming out onto the road. And I just think whoever wrote this is totally misinterpreting the code. And we need to think about those kind of things before we write -- this project obviously has to have a road to get to the houses that are on it. But it has nothing to do with preventing a traffic signal, creating a loop road or an interconnect or anything else. It's just the road to get to the project, which they must have. And by the way, since I'm on that road, what's the length ofthat cul-de-sac? Are we over the 1,000 feet deal? I have no idea. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: No. MS. DESELEM: I don't know right off the top of my head. I could scale it out. Perhaps-- COMMISSIONER CARON: I forgot to ask. MR. YOVANOVICH: We didn't ask for a deviation, so it better not be. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Any other questions of staff before we go into the preserve issue? (N 0 response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay-- COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I have one. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Murray? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Just one question relative to the statement. I just want to know, was it you that wrote the -- on Page 4 of 10, was it you that wrote the statement, in accordance with CCME and the whole -- I know that, I know that. Was it you that wrote that? MS. DESELEM: Wait a minute, what statement on Page 4 of 10') COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Page 4 of lOon the bottom, where it begins in accordance with CCME. Is that your-- MS. DESELEM: This is a staff report. It's a compilation-- COMMISSIONER MURRAY: A compilation. MS. DESELEM: -- but yeah. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: So the information-- MS. DESELEM: My name is on it so I take full responsibility for everything that's in there. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: That's okay. I'm just trying to ascertain ifit was your wording or not. So it's a compilation, so we'll figure out when we hear from Susan. MS. DESELEM: Okay, thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. Ms. Mason? MS. MASON: Good morning. For the record, Susan Mason with Engineering and Environmental Services Department. To explain how staff applied the preservation requirements to this site, we need to kind of go back a little bit to the Page 32 Del~l~~, A~ original SDP that was approved in 1997. That was for a commercial SDP. The applicant at that time had requested clearing and-- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ms. Mason, in order not to forget things that are relevant, because this is an important issue, as you go forward, if you can clarifY something. You just said it was a commercial SDP. What evidence of that can you provide? MS. MASON: The way it was reviewed. The 1.04 acres is 15 percent of the vegetation that was on that site at the time of development. And that was what was reviewed, approved and built. Back in that time period, the Growth Management Plan and LDC did not require that what was required preserve had to be labeled literally preserve. That carne about in -- it was either 2003 or 2004, really to clarity when was something an applicant had simply left uncleared versus something that was a required preserve. And prior to that, people could really label it anything they wanted, from -- sometimes they were really clear with conservation area preserve, other times it was things that were a bit more arbitrary or less clear; recreation areas, open space, all different kinds of things, but it was their required preserve. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Do you know the date of that SDP? MS. MASON: 1997. So this was approved prior to it being -- having specific language that they had to use. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Were you the reviewer ofthat SDP? MS. MASON: No, I was not. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Did you speak to the reviewer of that SDP? MS. MASON: No. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So comments about your assumption of it being reviewed by -- under a commercial basis is based on your belief? MS. MASON: Well, no, it would be because the clearing plan was approved as part of that SDP. If somebody is requesting agricultural clearing, there's a separate either agriculttual clearing permit or ago notification that they provide. And then it's specifically stated that there's no preservation requirement. So that would be the way, in our opinion, that this was applied. And so we came up with the original preserve and -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, that's why -- you have lengthy responses here today. Let me -- Mr. Wolfley, go ahead. COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Is there any way, either can we get the camera to zoom in on that yellow -- the surrounding -- the picture of the actual aerial. Let me use the word aerial as it is called. Either get the camera there or get a-- something. I want to show something there. Because I think you wanted to add a -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Put it under the ELMO, if you could. That might get it there. COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: I think, you know, you're adding words to whether it's a preserve -- that's fine, that's great. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Kady's listening to every word we say. Thank you, Kady. COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Thank you. I think there was a word that you may have left out when you were describing preserves and existing things. I think you left out a word out called a buffer. If you look at this, I think that that site was using that foliage. Whether you call it Florida native or not, I don't think it is. I think it's a buffer to buffer the homes from their operation. And that's what it was there for. And I would like to see someone deny that. Because if you go back in that foliage, I would like you to tell me what native vegetation is in there. MS. MASON: Staff did go out. It's got native vegetation. It's pine flatwoods that's out there. And there's -- actually on here, this is the site plan that was approved in 1997. And you can see along the edge here -- COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Ray might need to get up there and switch it. She's looking for it, but Ray, could you give us the overhead, please. MS. MASON: That area there that's largely in the hatching actually is labeled landscape buffer easement. So that was the required buffer that was on there. And it is very common for people, whenever possible, to have a preserve and a landscape buffer easement overlap. For a lot of reasons. For buffering the neighborhood properties, in addition to fulfilling the requirements, they're able to -- it may sound negative, but like double dip, really. And that's in a good way that there've preserving and -- COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: But this double dip is in not a good way because you're using the word preserve and it's a buffer. It was there for a buffer and you're using it as a preserve and making these people keep it a preserve when it was a buffer. MS. MASON: If! could just -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah, let her finish her presentation before we come to a conclusion. I think ~- though I wanted to make sure your presentation, you need to be as precise and as clear as you can as your sources of why your assumptions are being made so that we understand it. That1s what I was trying to get across-- MS. MASON: Okay, and I'll do the best I can to try to answer it during my presentation. If you still have questions, I'd Page 33 1 ~bA (j, 2008 be happy to answer them afterwards. But we would have required -- or the applicant would have submitted an ago clearing permit application or an ago clearing notification if they wanted to. And the way we -- I kind of looked at this one was sort of a retroactive trying to apply well, we could have requested ago clearing and we didn't at that time but we'd like to now. And basically that's how we applied it. They had preserved 15 percent at the time in 1997, and to take J 5 percent of the required preserve at that time did not fill the requirement that they have a minimum. So -- and we did run this by the planning department, including the Director, Susan Istenes, and Joe Schmitt did agree with our application at that time. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, thank you, Susan. What I was trying to make sure is that we had a -- some statements made about various conditions in the past. I was looking for a factual rebuttal to those. And I mean, that's what I was trying to keep you on track with. MR. KLA TZKOW: I need to clear the record. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Go ahead. MR. KLA TZKOW: Susan, when this site development plan was approved way back when, was there either a GMP requirement or a code requirement that required a 15 percent preserve area be set aside? MS. MASON: Yes, there was, 15 percent minimum. And that is for commercial properties. MR. KLA TZKOW: Deed is not commercial -- MS. MASON: Yes, it was stated on there hy use, 25 -- it's exactly the same as it is today, 25 percent for mixed use-- MR. KLA TZKOW: So what you're saying is that it's your view that this site development plan was a commercial use? MS. MASON: Right, and that-- MR. KLA TZKOW: Because it's a commercial use, they were required to have 15 percent. MS. MASON: Yes, that was how -- MR. KLATZKOW: Ifit was not a commercial use, ifit was an agricultural use, would they be required to have the 15 percent preserve area? MS. MASON: No, they would not. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Are nurseries in agricultural use? MS. MASON: Yes, I believe so. We always kind of coordinate with the attorneys on-- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I've been out to the nursery. MS. MASON: -- the telephone. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: They won't sell retail. This is a wholesale nursery. Is this the typical kind of nursery that is allowed in an agricultural use? MS. MASON: There's all different kinds. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, thank you. Mr. Wolfleyo COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: The state -- well, let me just back up, since I apparently am a purveyor of noxious and other types of plants in the area. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Exotic weeds. COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Exotic weeds. Thank you, Chair. Which is not so. But in any event, nurseries are looked on a little bit differently, especially in the agricultural ends of things. Ag. does not want to label nurseries as ag., because of the property appraiser exemption. Does this property have an ago exemption with the property appraiser currently? MR. YOV ANOVICH: Yes, it does. It currently does. It's had it continuously for -- since '97. COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Well-- MR. YOV ANOVICH: As a nursery. COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Okay. All right. Well, I mean, more recently there has been some issues with that. MR. YOV ANOVlCH: Right. But as oftoday, there is an ago exempt for the nursery. COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Right, okay. I just wanted that acknowledgement made. That's all I needed to know right at this second. Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Before we go to Mr. Murray, just so that everybody listening knows that our jokes with Mr. Wolfley about his exotic plants, is he has gone into an endeavor to promote biofuels through a plant called the Jatropha plant. It's actually a very useful plant. But recently someone at the state decided it may not be a -- it may be an exotic species, so we have to COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: It's only been here for 250 years. That's my issue with native vegetation. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's the occasional comment's about. Page 34 J~e~t4,~o8 Go ahead, Mr. Murray. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Either Susan or Mr. Yovanovich, I have a -- the issue of the exemption. I thought Susan indicated that she didn't observe that or was not made aware of it. You submitted all your docmnentation. Did that include the exemption? MR. YOV ANOVICH: The ago exemption" I mean, we've -- that's never been an issue from staffs perspective, as far as I know, that there's an ago exemption on this property. I think what staff is trying to say -- and frankly, they never provided me a docmnent that said there was a calculation that says this is a commercial project, it's required to retain 15 percent. This is -- if you look at what it says on the document she's saying, it says it's a nursery on ago zoned land and it has to be commercial to quality as the exemption. So I think she's correct that it's a commercial nursery which is an agricultural use and it's exempt. I think she's told you agricultural uses are exempt. I think she's confusing some terms. And it's okay, I mean, it's happened before. But I think they're just confusing some terms. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I guess what I'm trying to get at is I'm looking at an SOP that showed a boundary that was intended -- this was an approved SOP. And what I'm seeing in my interpretation of what Susan's indicating is that because the people who owned and operated those premises decided to leave a lot of trees where they were obliged to keep them, that is now designated as a preserve. And I see in the staff report on that Page 4 of 10 where the use of the word was to remain on-site as preservation area. And I know Susan indicated before that in prior years people had options as to the use of the words. Well, we try very hard here to be definitive. And I would -- I had marked that up in my record quite early when] read this, and I thought that was an evasive term. To me it's either a preserve or it is not. And your SOP, unless you can tell me -- prove to me otherwise, the SDP clearly shows to me that it was never intended to be a preserve. So help me, if you can. MS. MASON: Okay. Just as far as the history goes on developments from this era, they were labeled all different ways, and there was no way staff could require specific more clear language until the LDC required it. But I did want to clarity too what Mr. Yovanovich was saying. We did not evaluate the preserve requirement on this site based on any kind of ago exemption. It was strictly based on the SOP and what was approved as part of that SDP. We did not argue whether or not 1t was a legitimate agricultural -- COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Well, that's what I thought you had said earlier on. Now here's my question to you: So you have various approaches being taken. You have no definitive term that had been established. So ""hat you've decided is therefore it must be a preserve because there's trees on it or there's plants on it. Not because you could have -- I mean, in my mind you could have just as easily have said, gee, looking at that SDP it looks to me like they're entitled to -- you know. the people are entitled to the buffer and we're not going to require that much to be used. Because you're basically closing down the use of the land on an assumption. And that assumption could easily have gone the other way, but you're an advocate for preservation. I'm an advocate for preservation, but I'm also an advocate for equality. MS. MASON: Staff was just trying to apply the code as we thought was reasonable. And then when we did get comments back from the applicant that disagreed with the application, we did try to explain our position to, you know, people higher up from us. And it was a consensus that we were applying the code correctly. And I think this is really a policy decision on how you want to make these things. Just so you know, there are enumerable older projects that are labeled similar to this. And the intent -- and I could go back and, you know, maybe by the time this comes to consent agenda, I can have infonnation or get it to you sooner, in the original comment letters back from the reviewer that would say this is a required preserve and then it was provided. I did not do that extensive of a research. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: It won't do any good by consent, just so you know. We can't change our vote at consent. MS. MASON: Maybe for the Board of County Commissioners to understand more. But I did not look into that kind of information. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Well, but not having all of the information would mean that you didn't go to the full extent to quality it either, in my opinion. Not that I'm taking it personally, because I think you're a nice lady, I'm not ttying to do anything to you. But I address these matters in a blWlt fashion because I think they should be devoid of emotion. The fact is that a decision was made, and in this case, I think perhaps you did not have enough -- it seemed that the tipping point was a very simple tipping point. And that's your prerogative, but frankly, I can't agree with that. MS. MASON: Okay. It just -- part of it too was the fact that the math worked out to be exactly 15 percent. It seemed an odd coincidence. So there was an assumption that we worked under. And we don't investigate everything to the greatest extent possible, due to time limitations, but in the future we'll make sure \~ie have more -- if the comment letters, the original approvals Page 35 Dl~JeJ:,f~cA6 are available, we'll make sure that we have that for you all to include in your evaluation. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: That would be good. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Schiffer, then Ms. Caron. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Ray, could you zoom in on the table that's on that drawing. See if we can -- COMMISSIONER MURRAY: That's small. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Because we tend to show what's required and what's provided on these tables. So do we -- where is that line item on there? Can you find it? MS. MASON: The table does not contain any information about clearing at all on any ofthe sheets. I think there was only five or six sheets on this SOP, and it was silent to anything like that. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: It does show a buffer. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. Because normally this table -- and we've done it long, you know, way back-- would normally show what is required, like it is up above, and what is provided. So if there was a requirement for landscape, it certainly would have been part of this table. MS. MASON: The landscape is included up there. MR. KLA TZKOW: Ifthere's a requirement-- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Or the buffer. MR. KLA TZKOW: -- for a preserve, would it have been on this chart? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I believe so. COMMISSIONER CARON: Right. MR. KLA TZKOW: No, that's the question. MS. MASON: Often the preserve is on there. More often than not. I'd sayan rare exceptions we've not found it, but more often than not it's on there. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Hence the problem here. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ms. Caron? COMMISSIONER CARON: Susan, had you known when you made your evaluation that they had an ago clearing permit, would that have made a difference in your evaluation? MS. MASON: Yes. If they had an agricultural clearing permit, that would have negated the requirement for a preserve. COMMISSIONER CARON: Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, and I guess Kay or Susan then, ifsomeone's going to come in with an SDP, the SDP can be utilized for the clearing as well. lt would save them the process of submitting two separate plans, especially if they know on the SDP more accurately where they're going to put their facilities. So, I mean, not all cases benefit from separately submitting clearing plans versus doing it with the SDP. MS. MASON: The benefit of an agriculture clearing pennit and the reason it's a separate one and required is because there is specific language on there that the applicant acknowledges different things about recreation of preserve ifthey don't keep it in an agricultural use for the 10 or -- at that point or 25 years now. So there are requirements that the applicant needs to acknowledge. lfI'm clearing under ago use, I have to follow one set of rules versus a generic vegetation removal permit. So that's why it's required to be separate. And it's important that they understand -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But you can -- MS. MASON: -- the difference. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- combine the process of clearing in the SDP. MS. MASON: I suppose we could, but we have not at this point. We do a vegetation removal permit as part ofSDP's because that's the standard thing. When it's an agricultural clearing permit it's always been issued separate precisely for those reasons for the applicant's knowledge. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, thank you. Before we go into public speakers, there's a couple of things I'd like to make sure we understand so it might help the public speakers know where we're at here today. But fIrst of all, Richard, does your client have any problem that if they do a product, whatever product they pick, they do just that product, they don't intermix products? MR. YOVANOVICH: Yeah, we -- this is so small, I don't think you'd want to have multiple product types. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So it would be all or one. MR. YOV ANOVICH: Yeah, we'll pick. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right now you have a three-product selection: Single-family detached, single-family attached and townhouses. The argument that townhouses are multi-family is only subject to the way you sell them. You can have a Page 36 16,il A6' 'I December 18, 2008 townhouse four units in a row, it looks like a multi-family building, but because you sell them fee simple with a common wall, all of a sudden it's a townhouse and not multi-family. And that's a little disingenuous in the way it's presented. Would you be able to live with just the single-family product and not going with the townhouse product? MR. YOV ANOVICH: Well, I would -- I understand what you're saying, but let me -- on the multi-family, it's typically looked at unit over unit. And townhomes is basically, you know, you have one unit that can be one or two levels, versus a unit over unit. That's -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But the way it appears to someone driving by-- MR. YOV ANOVICH: I understand. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- you're going to have a box that's a box, period. MR. YOV ANOVICH: I understand that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So I'm ttying to get to some resolution so maybe that all the issues can go away. The townhouse one to me is one that may be problematic in regards to its appearance to the neighborhood. And if you were to eliminate that and stick with just single-family, whether attached or detached, you've got a more -- more product that is more in line with what else is out there. MR. YOV ANOVICH: I don't have the authority at this point to remove that use. But that doesn't stop you from recommending, if that's an issue that, you know, to condition the approval on the removal of that, to which I'll then discuss it with my client to see if we want to object to the removal of that or not. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Let me go through the notes I made, so if anybody's speaking, they know where we're already probably at. Go ahead, Ms. Caron, you had something first? COMMISSIONER CARON: Well, I just wanted to note that I had already asked you to discuss that with your client based on our phone conversation, so -- MR. YOV ANOVICH: And I did. Ms. Caron, I did. I just didn't get a-- COMMISSIONER CARON: Response, okay. MR. YOV ANOVICH: I didn't get a definitive answer. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: We talked about the environmental, so there might be a request to stay with -- to work with your environmental calculation over the others. We've talked about limiting the detached square footage setbacks -- or the single-family setbacks or all product setbacks along Sleepy Hollow to a 25-foot rear sethack, which would be your west and south property lines where they abut that project. If there is a townhouse building, it would be limited to not greater than 200 feet in length in anyone section. You submitted a new table to clarity the standards that were mixed up on the other two tables. We talked about a zoned height of30 feet and an actual height of 40 feet. We talked about limiting the clubhouse and recreation to the east ofthe proposed entry roadway right-of-way. I think it's going to be a driveway, so right-olCway might not be the right term. There's a -- floor area will be 1,000 square feet for any of the buildings or structures. That would be the minimum floor area per unit. And that's most of the issues that we've talked about here. Yes, Mr. Wolfley? COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Was there one more about the height? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I already -- I made that statement. COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: All right, sorry, I was-- MR. YOV ANOVICH: I may have missed it, but there was also the location of the common area? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I said that too. MR. YOV ANOVICH: You did, okay. COMMISSIONER CARON: East. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: East of the roadway. But anyway, just so when the public speaks, those are what we're (sic) been discussing. Some of those may sit well or sit not well with you. And we certainly would like your input on that. So with that, Ray, we'll ask for the public speakers. MR. BELLOWS: Ann Cox. To be lollowed by John Garbo. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You'll need to use the speaker, and both of you will have to be sworn in. I noticed neither one of you stood during the presentation. (Speakers were duly sworn.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And Ms. Cox, if you'd like to go -- either one of the speakers would be fine. Page 37 16'T1IA 6 December 18, 2008 MS. COX: Well, I'll go here, because I want to point to this. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You need to start by just saying your name for the record and then we'll move forward. MS. COX: Yes, I'm Ann Cox. And I purchased all of this property 30 years ago. I own the little cutout up in this -- in that area right there now. I sold the rest of it 10 years ago to Joann Smallwood. And I attended all of these hearings you've been discussing originally for the rezoning when she purchased the property. And it is my recollection that that was supposed to be both a preserve and a buffer. But that's subject to your further examination. I would like to point out that all sides of this property have single-family homes on them now. And therefore, I think the single detached would be more appropriate for the area. There's only one side that has something that is larger density. They have mentioned a buffer to the south and the west of25 feet. I would like to request that that buffer also be on the other side of the property, which is contiguous with my property. I think they've only requested 15 feet or something like that. Also, I had an area of concern which was the flooding problem in that whole area. I have however discussed this with them, and they assure me that their plan for removal of excess water during the rainy season would connect them with the sewer system on Orange Blossom Drive. And if that is implemented then I don't think there would be a problem. Over the period of 30 years there have been at least three occasions when we've had 12-inch rains and the whole thing has flooded. So I want to make sure that they do handle this flooding problem by connecting with the Orange Blossom sewer system. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Well, first of all, the drainage doesn't go into the sewer system, but there is swales and drainage systems that do function for Orange Blossom. I'm sure for the record that's what you probably mean. MS. COX: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And they would have to have a positive outfall, and we can get them to testity to that point after you finish. MS. COX: Okay. Then also right now there's an existing hedge which I myself and my husband planted many years ago between my property and the existing clubhouse. And I would like to have -- ifthey remove this hedge for whatever buildings are put in there or roads or buffers, I would like to have a comparable hedge between my property and whatever they construct there. CHAIRMAN STRAIN : You said an existing clubhouse. You mean the building that's there that used to operate the nursery? MS. COX: Yeah, I meant the offce building, I guess you'd call it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ms. Caron" COMMISSIONER CARON: Do you know what that buffer is? Do you know what the size of that buffer is" MS. COX: Right uow? COMMISSIONER CARON: I mean, what did you put in? Was it a 10-foot wide buffer, a 15,25 feet" MS. COX: There's a ligustnun hedge that's at least eight to 10 feet tall. I'd say eight. COMMISSIONER CARON: I'm not talking about the height, but I'm talking-- MS. COX: I don't know the exact number of feet, no. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ray, could you put the site plan on so we can talk to this lady with the site plan in view. COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Could I ask a quick little question while we're doing that? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, go ahead, Mr. Wolfley. COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: I just want to know, ma'am, you live there, correct? MS. COX: I live there. I have a house on that-- COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: I just wondered if is this was your rooftop there that I'm seeing. MS. COX: Yes, it is. COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Okay, thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: On this plan-- MS. COX: And when we built that, there was nothing anywhere around us but woods. COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: I bet you're going to keep that-- MS. COX: We had to put the road in to our place. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ma'am, on the plan that's on the overhead right now, that roadway they have coming in, or driveway they have coming into the property, between that driveway along that one area and your home, it looks like they already have a IS-foot hedge, and that's where your ligustrum hedge is. MS. COX: Right. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. So the distance between the edge ofthe utility easement on the outside of the roadway and your property line they can't use for anything, so we will talk to them about expanding the buffer there. On the south side, which is where that lake is, you're suggesting that you want a buffer so you don't see the lake? MS. COX: Right now there is a 25-foot buffer surrounding their lake, between that lake and my property. They say they Page 38 16 I f~ ~j A 6 December"'8,2008 are going to extend that all the way out to the road. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Well, right now their proposal is a 25-foot separation to the Sleepy Hollow project, and you're looking at a 25-foot buffer around the south side of your property and on the east side of your property between the road and them. MS. COX: Right along here there's -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. MS. COX: -- now a great big berm. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Ijust wanted to understand what to talk to them about. Appreciate it. MS. COX: It's a large berm actually lipping the lake. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you very much. We'll certainly bring the questions up to the applicant when we get back to them. Next speaker, Ray. MR. BELLOWS: The last speaker is John Garbo. MR. GARBO: Like Greta. She's my aunt. You didn't know that? Oh, yeah. Trust me, if Greta Garbo was my aunt, I would not be standing in front you. I'd be on the south of France. My name is John Garbo. I'm the present of the Orange Blossom/Pine Ridge Community alliance. This is an organization that was formed a little over a year ago and is made up of every single HOA that runs along Orange Blossom Drive. First I'm going to kind of respond to some of the queries I heard. Mr. Wolfley, you had asked about the residents the fIrst time around. I think the count was pretty accurate. There was probably 90 to 100 people. The biggest issue was the density with affordable housing credits. Our organization made contact with developer and members of the commission, and the petitioner reduced it to the 20 units. Our organization is pleased with the 20 units. We feel that is compatible with the neighborhood. The issues of size and everything else, I think that's more of a marketing thing. I kind of noted Sleepy Hollow, which I also live in, their requirement when that project was built was 1,800 square feet minimLlll1. I believe they have increased it either 22 or 2,400, just as an FYI. The issue that really our organization would like to see and we've been talking about it a lot here is a landscape buffer. And primarily the homes that run along the south and the west, which is Mill Run or Sleepy Hollow and Mrs. Cox, there is a lot of vegetation there now. Some of it will probably have to be removed to put in the right drainage and et cetera. Those residents and our organization would like to see that there is a nice landscape buller that goes back in there, regardless of what happens with what is called the preserve and the debate on that. So that's one issue. The other one which was also brought up, whether it's single-family or townhouse or multi-family, that was another big issue with the first proposal and is still today. I can tell you, the majority of the folks that live along that side area would really prefer to see single-family. The biggest issue is if there's a two-story product and ifit's a multi-family product, you basically are going to have people on the second floor looking down into your residence. It was noted that Monterey has Emerald Lakes on its side. I happen to have friends right there. And when they built Monterey, those two-story multi-family units weren't there. And now they are. And what happens is the people on the second floor look straight into the eyes of the people sitting around their pool. So I think the multi-family component would probably he the least desirable. Single-family would be the most desirable. The townhome product, let's assume that it's a two-story product. Chances are on the second floor there's going to be a master bedroom, generally. Probably wouldn't have that same elfect as that multi-family. So that's kind of in the middle of the issue. And the overall height was some ofthe other issues that I know the folks that came to those meetings and have since expressed them to our organization was the height. And I think that's probably an issue which seems like it's going along okay. Cay Lagoon. I know the folks at Cay Lagoon which is on the east have an existing I believe it's eureka, that you know how those things grow, they're very tall, pretty dense, and they're probably along where I understand where they're indicating their amenity package would be. 1 know the folks at Cay Lagoon, because they come to our meetings, would like to see that either stay or be replaced. So the landscape buffers are the biggest issue. We'd like to see -- you know, suggest that they continue to put those in, if the current ones are removed. And I can tell you that the organization is pleased to see the 20 units versus the 75. Thanks. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, thank you. Page 39 16 "'Iii a I.. December 18, 2~~ Okay, I gness we probably need to start talking with the applicant about conditions. Let's -- Richard, if -- and if it's okay with the commissioners, I have a list I can start running down, and then we can add whatever's missing. Landscape buffers. Apparently you have existing buffers. Whether you call them buffers today or whether they're vegetation, it's matured out and is providing a good buffer between the east Cay units and to the west for Mrs. Cox on her property, both along the south and along west of that road entry. And I know we're talking about buffers along the Sleepy Hollow project to the west and to the south as well. Where there's a buffer already in place, it seems people are satisfied with those, Can we get a commitment that would go into a stipulation that where the buffers are already in place, if you have to disturb those for utility lines, drainage lines, whatever else you're doing, that you'll replace with either equal to or greater than the buffer that's in place both in opacity and width? MR. YOV ANOVICH: Well, I mean, the hard part is you're talking about you'll have mature growth versus new growth. I don't know that I can get there immediately. What I would propose, Mr. Strain, is since the code requires between these types of uses -- assuming we don't do the-- the single-family to single-family require a Type A buffer, which is basically a tree every 30 feet. That's all our neighbors had to do for theirs and that's all we were requesting for us. What I would propose we do is we do the Type B plantings so they get the same vegetation they would get as a Type B buffer, within the I O-foot width that a Type A huffer would be. So they'll get the benefit of the plantings of a Type B, which is more than they had to do on their own. So it would be hedge and trees along the south and the west. And I don't know why we couldn't do it all the way around. We could do it all the way around the project. So they would get a Type B buffer within the width ofa Type A buffer, so they get the same vegetation. And we'll do it all the way around the project to try to address that issue. Because I don't know what will get disturbed, what won't get disturbed, and I don't want unreasonable expectations to how quick I've got to get to the same opacity that's there today. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ms. Caron? COMMISSIONER CARON: For the benefit of the public that is here and concerned about those buffers, will you explain to them exactly what getting a Type B buffer in that I O-foot width is going to mean to them? MR. YOV ANOVICH: They would get a tree every 30 feet and they would get a hedge that goes to six feet. Would grow to six feet. Otherwise you don't have to do that when you have -- they didn't have to do any of that on their site. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, so the buffer you replace with is a Type B, as just described-- MR. YOV ANOVICH: Right. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- and the width of a Type A. MR. YOV ANOVICH: Correct. COMMISSIONER CARON: All around the property. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: All around the property. That means the hedge and trees both. MR. YOVANOVICH: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Now, the audience, it may take a little bit of time for that to grow in, but it would grow in as a hedge, and that's the objective. MR. YOV ANOVICH: Right. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Anybody else have any comments on that one? COMMISSIONER CARON: To six feet, though, just so that everybody knows, not to the eight feet that may be there on somebody's property now. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, it's required to go to six, but ifit goes higher, you don't necessarily have to cut it back if you don't want to. MR. YOV ANOVlCH: Yeah, I just don't want to be required to grow it higher. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No, I understand. Ms. Homiak? COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Rich, I thought you were going to ask your client about a wider buffer on the west and south side, if you would agree to a 25-foot -- MR. YOV ANOVICH: No, we're doing the 25-foot setback. We've agreed to the 25-foot setback. And we're going to put the plantings -- COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: But no wider buffer than -- MR. YOV ANOVICH: We're going to do all the plantings you would put in that area anyway. Page 40 161"; A6 tJecembb 18, 2008 COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: The 25 feet. MR. YOV ANOVICH: We're going to do the 25-foot setback, and within that 25-foot setback will be a 10-foot wide Type B buffer. We had originally proposed a 10-foot wide Type A buffer. So what we're saying is we'll do additional plantings within that same area and set the buildings further back than we originally asked for. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay? Okay, let's move on to the others. First of all, whatever product type you pick, it will be all the same product. Do you have any objection to -- MR. YOV ANOVICH: Correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- that" Let's talk about the product types. You were offering three. Two are single-family. The townhouse is a single-- depending on how you sell it, it's fee simple, single-family, but it's more of an attached product. Does anybody have any concerns about the townhouse? Mr. Schiffer" COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And I think, Rich, you've got to be careful. What Mark was saying, it is going to be classified in the building code as multi-family, three units or morc. You're going to get into sprinkler systems, you're going to get into a different level of development that -- MR. YOV ANOVICH: We could commit -- we specifically said townhouse, which would mean it had to be fee simple ownership. So that -- we could commit to single-family detached, single-family attached, which is a two-unit building, and a townhome. Has to be townhome, it can't be -- it would be a townhome concept where you do the fee simple ownership with the buildings not longer than the 200 feet we had talked about. And those would be the three produce types -- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: But I think you're going to find that once you get to three units, even if it's the configuration of a townhome, it's in the building code -- MR. YOV ANOVICH: I understand. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Multi -- essentially treated. I mean, there are some provisions for the townhome that are different. But, you know, you're bringing in sprinkler, you're bringing in a different level. So wouldn't it be easier not to build it? So if you build it, you're going to build the whole thing then, so I guess it doesn't matter. MR. YOV ANOVICH: Right. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay, thanks. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That does give you five to six units, though, per building at the 200-foot length. And that does make it appear as a multi-family-- MR. YOV ANOVICH: I understand. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- large building in a primarily residential area. That still is a little troublesome why you need that. So I'm just -- that's why I'm offering it up for discussion. I guess we can take it up on discussion of the motion when we get to that then. The issue on the environmental to go with the calculation by the applicant, I mean, it's in the urban area, there are no endangered species. I understand there's a discrepancy in the way it was looked at although we've not seen any hard evidence, even if it's offered. I'm still not sure why there's a concern in this area for that, especially with no endangered species. So I'm inclined to agree with the applicant that their calculation works here. Mr. MidneyO COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Yeah, I'm taking a different interpretation. I think that the retention of native vegetation is of benefit to the project and to the aesthetics ofthe neighborhood. And 1 think that the proposed .13 acres of the preserve is too small for a seven-acre PUD. I agree with the staffs interpretation, and also Mrs. Cox, the fonner owner, who said that she remembered that the site plan intended the 1.04 acres as preservation. And I think this is supported by the fact that it is still classified as pine flatwoods, which is a native vegetation. And also the fact that an agricultural clearing permit, which is a separate process, was not obtained. So if you do go with what the applicant is going with, I'll be voting against it. MR. YOV ANOVICH: Mr. Midney, if! might, her comment was she remembered this during the rezone hearing. I think that's what she said. And there was no rezone hearing for this application. It was a site development plan, which was purely an administrative process. And honestly, I believe if your staff had a document that said that they did a calculation to arrive that that was the required native vegetation, they would have produced it to me. And if they had produced it to me, I would have addressed it. It has never been produced to me. Page 41 16 JJIl~ A 6 December 18, 2008 I think they're assuming something which I don't think they can assume based on just the documents that have been presented. I know I didn't get a rebuttal, so I'm just -- if you'll give me the indulgence to respond, as it came up during this part of the discussion. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, this is basically your rebuttal, so-- MR. YOV ANOVICH: Okay, so -- ] mean. I just think -- I believe that the documents they showed you, it speaks for themselves. It says it was native vegetation to be retained. Didn't say preserve. There's a table that lists every requirement. And they've said to you that it's highly unusual not to list the requirements. So ifthere had been a required native vegetation requirement, it would have been in that table, in my opinion, because that's the way it was always done. It didn't make any sense to come through with two separate clearing applications when on the face of the document it said it was for a nursery. It was for an agricultural use. The code is what the code is. Whether you sign a document that says I acknowledge I've got to do this for 10 years or not, they still have the I O-year the limitation. So I think that staff hasn't -- I think it's their burden and I don't think they've met the burden to show that I'm wrong on this. I've asked for it. I'd like to believe that if I were presented with that document that I would have cried uncle, because I'm not going to fight a document that, you know, speaks for itself. So with all due respect, I think -- and this happens throughout the county. And I've been saying this all along, you guys have some requirements that result in these 1 think ridiculously small, quote, preserves. Let me put the green space somewhere else. I mean, I'm doing additional huffering to hopefully address that by doing additional plantings to address the real issue. And I hope that that would be taken into consideration in response to some of the statements that were said regarding the calculation of native vegetation. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: But Rich, even if you assume that all of your reasoning is correct, don't you think 0.13 acres of preserve is very small? I mean, even for the aesthetics of your own project. MR. YOV ANOVICH: You know what, it's a code requirement. I think you're right, I think you should get rid of that code requirement. I think you say that if it's below a certain threshold and there's no native -- there's no listed species using it, maybe you take that. 13 acres and you take that planting and you put it into the buffers. Do some additional plantings. You know, I think that makes sense. But I agree with you. I've been saying that: Why are you making -- like the Naples Church of Christ we had probably had the same similar number, and we kept saying this thing is -- what is it serving? You know, there's better uses for that native vegetation. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: That wasn't exactly my point. My point was more that there should be more native vegetation in a project this size. MR. YOV ANOVICH: It's an infill piece and we worked with the neighbors. I think Mr. Garbo will tell you -- is he still here? He left -- that fIrst meeting when we were asking for affordable housing was not a pleasant meeting, to say it nicely. And I think there were some comments made that J thought were inappropriate. But we met with and talked to residents and we said, you know what, we're not going to fight an uphill battle. Ifwe go down to three units per acre, which is what we can get, will you be happy with that? And we were told yes. And we've gone down to three units per acre. And we've come up with the design standards that will hopefully get us to those three units per acre. And I think that's fair. I think we've been responsive. We're willing to do additional plantings in the buffer. And they've got to work with us to get to the three units per acre. And we're not trying to do anything incompatible with what they have. And it's a small piece. I mean, I would love to say it was a bigger piece, but it's an infill piece. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Could you build your project if you did have the one acre as preserve? MR. YOV ANOVICH: No. Cannot build the project at the 20 units with the (me-acre preserve. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Schiffer, then Mr. Wolfley. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And Paul, one thing, what Rich is going to do, he's going to outline that that's the preserve. That doesn't mean they're going to cut down every tree. I think it is desirable to have good landscaping. The design of their units might preserve some more landscaping than shown. It's just -- Rich isn't agreeing with me, so maybe he is just going to cut down all the trees. But the intent is that a good design would incorporate any kind of landscaping that the site had. So I don't think this plan shows the only trees that will be left on the site. I mean, maybe I'm wrong. Aut he just doesn't want to be legally tied to what to do with the trees. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Wolfley? COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Boy, I sure respect what staff does. They have to go through an awful lot of stuff to give us the information that we get. Page 42 1611' A 6 December 18, 2008 And in saying that, I also want to say through the time I've been on the plarming commission, this time around and before, I have noticed an erosion of rights. And it comes down to where there was a buffer, well, buffers have trees in them. Well, then all of a sudden the buffer becomes a preserve because the preserve has trees in it. And we're setting a precedent. You know, if we said, well, yeah, one acre per seven acres, that's what we're going to have and we're going to call them preserve. Well, we're setting a precedent that is in eve!)' single -- it's like putting that preserve in that commercial site on Yahl Street we did a month or two ago. I was going, this is nuts. What they need is a buffer. And that's what we did. So Ijust don't want to see a precedent set here by calling things something that they were not intended to be. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, we've kind of talked about the environmental issue. Let's move on to the -- some ofthe setbacks. Basically the tables that we got have been reissued. There are a couple of changes to the tables. One is that the single-family attached minimWTI floor area will be 1,000 square feet, and that the -- we're going to have a sub-note on there probably to limit -- if townhouses are allowed, to limit them to not greater than 200-foot in length. And that the single-family townhouses or any units placed along the adjoining Sleepy Hollow project will be set back a minimum of25 feet. And I think those are the only changes to that table. Unless you do it by footnote in regards to the accesso!)' table in which the clubhouse and recreational areas will be limited to east side of the driveway right-of-way, whatever you want to call the road going in on the property. Does anybody have any problem with those comments at this point? Mr. Schiffer? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I mean, so right now, just to make sure, the PUD boundary that's going to be 25 feet, is it eve!)' boundary, or-- MR. YOVANOVICH: It's basically. (Indicating.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And so we would be happy with a building closer like to the street than -- the street boundary? I mean, it would be up against the -- I mean, you could put the side six feet if it's a single-family -- I mean, seven feet from the -- you know, it's the buffers what's regulating it at that point, correct? If I put a unit -- as I come in that road, the first unit -- let's say you start a townhouse project. Am I able to put the side of thattownhouse -- and because the buffer's 10 feet, the setback's six, I could put it 10 feet from Orange Blossom? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No, the PUD boundary on that north side by the road is 15 feet. So you'd have to be the 10-foot buffer plus an additional five feet by the table. Isn't that what the table says? MR. YOV ANOVICH: Are we talking about a front right now, Mr. Schiffer? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No, we're talking about a PUD boundary along the roadway, Orange Blossom. How far back would you be from Orange Blossom with your first building at the worst case scenario? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And it's not a buffer, Mark, it's a setback. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, but there's a buffer on the site plan of 10 feet. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Right. And so what I'm -- I mean, we're building buildings extremely close to property lines. And remember that, that 25 feet, that's the back of a unit. That's you open your back door, there's a patio. I mean, that's really -- you've got a buffer maybe 15 feet away. I mean, are we -- Rich, take the townhouse. What's the closest dimension I can get it to Orange Blossom? MR. YOV ANOVICH: It says PUD boundary, which I guess is Orange Blossom, is IS feet is the closest. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Can't we make all the way -- I mean, can't we make that one 25 also? MR. YOV ANOVICH: Along Orange Blossom? Sure, along Orange Blossom. COMMISSIONER CARON: I thought you made them all 25. MR. YOV ANOVICH: I did not, no. COMMISSIONER CARON: The PUD boundary, that's what YOll said when you-- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: No, that's not claritying. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: One at a time now. MR. YOV ANOVICH: No, what we said was staff -- staft'had asked us for the south and west to go to 25 feet, which we said we can agree with. This is multi-family adjacent to us here, so we wanted to keep the -- what we had requested, since we were adjacent to multi-family. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: So Rich, how about eve!)' boundary but the east0 MR. YOVANOVICH: Fine. Page 43 De!~bL h, 20~86 COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: That includes -- MR. YOV ANOVICH: Go north. COMMISSIONER SCHI FFER: Every boundary but the east. MR. YOV ANOVICH: I know, I just-- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: North, west and south. Go ahead, Ms. -- are you done, Brad? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Yeah, l'lI be done. CHAIRMAN STRAlN: Go ahead, Ms. Caron. COMMISSIONER CARON: But the majority of your eastern boundary is single-family, not multi-family. Only a section in the front towards Orange Blossom. MR. YOV ANOVICH: It's actually ago that's adjacent to us. COMMISSIONER CARON: Well, there's a single-family on there on the over -- you know. MR. YOV ANOVICH: It's RSF? MR. BELLOWS: RSF-l. MR. YOV ANOVICH: RSF- I next to us? COMMISSIONER CARON: Yes, it is. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: But it's -- you know, who knows what the future's going to hold? It's a big lot. COMMISSIONER CARON: I was under the understanding that the PUD boundary setback, all four sides, was going to be 25 feet. I thought that's what you had told me on the phone as well. MR. YOV ANOVICH: No, J said we would agree with staffs 25-foot setback. And I don't think we got into the details of where that is. And staffs was the south and west boundaries. And that's what J intended it when I said that, when I said we can agree with staff on that, because that's what was in the staff report. As far as the depth of the lots, it doesn't really work if! have to do a 25-footer on the east as well. Correct? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Mark, could I talk? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Go ahead, Mr. Schiffer. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Donna, I think the east -- first of all, it does have multi-family. And the way it's oriented, it's parking lot's a multi-family on the upper part. And the bottom part, prob -- those are very large lots. The dimensions we're talking about aren't going to be noticeable to the existing use, and the existing use probably won't be there forever. So I think the eastern property is -- I'm comfortable letting that one go. But thank God we talked about it, because you don't want it up on Orange Blossom. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. But now that brings in another level of discussion, and we're going to break that egg open agam. Accessory uses. If you go to the next table, you'll notice that the PUD boundary for accessory uses is five feet. It's a little impractical if you've got a IS-foot buffer all the way around. So I'm not sure that the five feet serves any purpose, and maybe that ought to be changed as well. MR. YOV ANOVICH: Okay, I'm sorry. Let me -- I'm told that 25 feet tor principal structures around the entire PUD boundary is not a problem. The accessory needs to stay the same. I think -- what do we have with that" It's 10 feet, right? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No, right now-- MR. YOV ANOVICH: I know what the code says, but you're right, you can't put your accessory into the buffer. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. Right now you've got five feet-- MR. YOV ANOVICH: I understand that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- for accessory. MR. YOV ANOVICH: I hear you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So the boundary -- the PUD -- the accessory has to be equivalent to the buffers. MR. YOV ANOVICH: So it needs to be 10 feet. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Or 15. You've got IS-foot buffers and 10-foot butfers both. MR. YOV ANOVICH: Well, it depends -- yeah, you're right. You're right. Ifwe end up with the J 5 feet buffer, we will do -- the accessory has to be 15. Ifwe end up with a 10-foot buffer planted like a Type B, then we'll do 10 feet for the accessory. Principal is always 25. Do I have that right" CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Any comments on that? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Yeah, I have a-- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Go ahead. Mr. Schiffer. Page 44 , A6 laJerler 18, 2008 COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: First of all, there's really no difference in your accessory structures and height and stuff. If you really want to do that, can you limit the height of accessory structures to one story? And get rid of some ofthese -- because you have a requirement that accessory structures could be zero setback. The garage is an accessory structure. So what most people consider part of their unit, you're going to say it's an accessory structure and shove it up close to the road. And that's only a good idea if it's only one story. MR. YOV ANOVICH: Well, Mr. Schiffer, what would you do with a pool cage? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Well, I don't -- I mean -- MR. YOV ANOVICH: I mean, I don't want to-- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Right, but a pool cage can cover up the pool. So you want pool cages within 15 feet of Orange Blossom? That wasn't a good thing to say. MR, YOV ANOVICH: I'm sorry, I hadn't gotten to the Orange Blossom. I was focusing on the rear yard, if you will, of a home where you said you wanted to limit it to just one story. And I'm saying the pool cage could be more than one story, so I don't want to agree to that. If you're saying along Orange Blossom, you don't want anytbing within 25 feet, that's fine. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Well, yeah, I mean-- MR. YOV ANOVICH: If that's the issue, let's just say you could-- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: You could exempt pool cages. I mean, I think there's a big argument, well, how many stories is a pool cage. I mean, it's -- obviously you could enclose two stories, but it's a one-story in most definitions of a story. MR. YOV ANOVICH: And it's too diffcult to deal with that. So if the real issue is you want nothing closer than 25 feet from Orange Blossom, we can agree for Orange Blossom principal and accessory is 25 feet. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: You don't really mention pool cages, but you -- obviously ifthey're allowed in-- MR. YOV ANOVICH: I think that's a standard accessory-- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Right. MR. YOV ANOVICH: -- use to a residential. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: But that is scary. I mean, pool cages 15 feet off these people. What is the rear setback of the units to your west? For everything. Do we know? MR. YOV ANOVICH: For everything? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Yeah. MR. YOV ANOVICH: We have it. We'll pull it. That's the Sleepy Hollow PUD? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Yes. MR. YOV ANOVICII: I don't know for a fact what it is for the accessory. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, let's try to clarity where we're at with the table, though. Right now we're looking at the PUD boundary for accessory uses will match the buffer width, and we're talking about however nothing will be any closer than 25 feet from Orange Blossom, whether it's accessory or principal. Thafs so far what we've done with the accessory use table. The only other thing we're now discussing is the height versus the accessory setback; is that correct? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Right. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And the information -- Heidi, do you have that? MR. YOVANOVICH: We're looking. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You're looking. I think Heidi's doing all the work. While they're looking at that, do we have any problem as a Board with going to a zoned 30 feet and an actual 40 feet height? COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Not a problem. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Well, I do want to discuss -- you guys are just-- MR. YOV ANOVICH: It is 10 feet-- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: We'll go back into it then. Go ahead. MR. YOV ANOVICH: Accessory structures on the bigger lots I believe is 10 feet for Sleepy Hollow. Ten foot for accessory. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, and you're going to be -- Ii" height, or that's setback? MR. YOV ANOVICH: That's setback. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: What's the height? Page 45 16 If 1 December 1 A 608 MR. YOV ANOVICH: It doesn't have -- this is older, it didn't have a number in there for height. It did for principal, which was 30 feet. So I would presume they could go to 30 feet for accessory. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, would you mind limiting your accessory zoned and actual height to one story with the exception of pool cagesO MR. YOV ANOVICH: I'm afraid I might miss something, Mr. Strain, so I'd rather -- since they have 30 feet and we've agreed to go 30 and 40, that, you know, if it's good for them, it should be good for us with the additional buffer that we're committing to. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: So what is the accessory setback on the PUD boundary? MR. YOVANOVICH: Forthemo COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: For you. Now. What did we come-- MR. YOV ANOVICH: We just went with if I have a I O-foot wide buffer, it's IO-foot. If! have a IS-foot wide buffer, it's 15 feet. Depending on what product. Ifwe do the multi-family product it's a required IS-foot Type B buffer. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. I mean, I want to fight the height, but all of -- I'm going to hurt myself here is that 10 feet away from our property line a 35-foot high structure is not comfortable. But go ahead, let's move on, Mark. Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Yeah, we'll have to come to conclusions in discussion. This is -- COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Well, a question on that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- just -- go ahead, Mr. Murray. COMMISSIONER MURRA Y: If that structure were a pool cage, would that be the problem, or-- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Well, I don't think any neighbor wants a pool cage. But if the other neighbors can have it, then why can't these guys have it. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Okay, thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Now let's go back into the height. We had a -- the applicant offered 30 feet for zoned and 40 feet for actual. How does that sit with everybody? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Well -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Schiffero COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: -- it doesn't sit with me. You know, the actual height is tops, chimneys, cupolas and stuff. Ails you're really doing is stripping off the roof structures of a building. Naples has really pretty roof structures. We-- Donna, I know your answer is nobody's doing that, but nobody really has an actual height requirement. That was a definition we put in. V cry few projects actually carry that requirement. And 35 feet has been single-family probably all across the countryside for years. So why that isn't working here, you're going to explain to me. COMMISSIONER CARON: It's been closer to 25 feet with 35 as the actual. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: No, no. COMMISSIONER CARON: And-- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Wait a minute. COMMISSIONER CARON: And beyond that, I think you have to look at this particular infill parcel. This is not all of Sleepy Hollow where you've got plenty of room and you can spread these things out and height isn't an issue. Now you're going to cram onto this one little six-acre plot buildings that are in excess of 40 feet? That doesn't make any sense to the neighborhood. And you certainly ought to know what that neighborhood looks like when you drive down that road. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I do. I drive by that road a lot. COMMISSIONER CARON: Yeah. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: First of all, we never -- there is no requirement of25 feet I've seen for single-family. And the actual dimension is a new dimension that's -- I don't think it's even in the -- so there isn't the 25/35. And again, my only concern, and it's as a concern as an architect, is ails you're doing is flattening roofs down. And Naples has some really pretty buildings with pretty roof structures. To bring them down to a lesser slope to meet a requirement that we're just guessing at here, you know, I mean, I don't get it, so -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Brad, what are you trying to suggest for square -- height and zoned and actual? I think -- well, then, I'll ask Donna and we'll just have to go with discussions -- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: What I think we should do is like all the zoning around it, we should just get rid of actual height off the table and go with the zoned height of35 feet, like conventional zoning for single-family, like the projects I'm sure sUITOlll1ding it all has. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Donna, where's your -- COMMISSIONER CARON: I live fairly close to an area of conventionally zoned homes. And what you run into with Page 46 ~~c!mt; 1~Bo8! this is the exact same problem we're having everywhere, and that's the McMansions and the mega-homes that are on pieces of property that they are not appropriate to. And they overshadow normal one -- single-story homes. And I'm not comfortable with it, so -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. MR. YOV ANOVICH: So what's the-- COMMISSIONER CARON: It's not a matter of roof -- MR. YOVANOVICH: -- number? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, we're going to have to go into discussion on a motion. That's probably the way we're going to have to resolve this. So if your best suggestion is 30 and 40, then we certainly will take that into consideration in discussion. MR. YOV ANOVICH: And I just want to say it again, is that the 30-foot zoned height is what Sleepy Hollow has. So -- and they don't have an actual. So we're suggesting an actual. And I would hope that that would be appropriate. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Well, how about this" And again, I'm not going to vote against it. You're just limiting yourself below what I -- is why don't we just go with an ac -- with a zoned height of 30 feet, match the neighborhood, and get rid of the actual height. The actual's the thing that scares me the most, because that means, you know, people designing chimneys and getting separations, the roofs could have trouble. The actual height -- you know, the zoned height is the midpoint of the roof. So you're only talking about stuff that's way back on the huilding anyway. Unless again it could be a chimney on the wall. So why don't we just go zoned height of30 and drop the actual requirement. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Brad, just so you know, I've been doing architecture review for single-family homes for a project now for 15 years, and we've had homes submitted from 400,000 up to $3 million. The standards are 35 feet. I have never found one, even with the embellishments on the roof, to exceed or even need to exceed that 35 feet. And they've done chimneys, cupola,>, dormers, little bell things, every weird thing you can think of to waste money on it, but I've never seen them get needing past that 35 feet. Now-- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Which is the midpoint of the roof in the zoned requirement. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No, no, I'm talking to the top of the -- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: But you're saying you're not even getting Rich's-- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No, we're not even getting -- so at 40 feet I think that you'll get what you want. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay, whatever. Let it go, let it go. Move 011. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So I'm not sure -- but I know Donna's not in agreement with even 40 feet. But I think it's a better compromise than 45. But I still think you get the embellishments you want and you still give the applicant the zoned height that he needs to build up to two stories ifhe wants to. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Ifhe doesn't mind, I don't mind. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I think that's all of the list that I have. Does anybody have any -- want to bring anything up that was missed? COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: No. COMMISSIONER CARON: No. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: You did have the maximum length of the townhouses? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes, I said that earlier, yes. And I'll reread them all during our discussion, but I want to make sure we at least discussed them with the applicant's input. Mr. Murray? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Yeah, just to be clear, we're still leaving those three options open: Single-family, attached, detached and townhouses; is that the way I understand it? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, on the motion it can be modified. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: It could be modified. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But right now the applicant isn't voluntarily removing-- COMMISSIONER MURRAY: He's not volunteering. Well, I'm going to suggest that he maybe volunteer to help us so that we don't have that arglUTIent going forward. COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: What's the market going to be in two, three, four years? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Wolfley, let's get a response to Mr. Murray's question first. Did you want to have any -- offer anything up? MR. YOV ANOVICH: I don't have the authority to give up townhomes. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Okay, you mentioned that before. I apologize. I forgot. You're right. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Wolfley'> Page 47 ~klr )\,6008 COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: I was just saying, I think we ought to keep the options in there because we don't know what the market's going to be when these things are built. MR. YOV ANOVICH: And honestly, if you -- if you -- I don't think that you having a townhome product of20 units next door to -- with the heights we're talking about -- next door to single-family homes is incompatible. It's in -- look at all the nice subdivisions throughout, or PUD's throughout Collier County, and you see it all the time. It doesn't affect anybody's property value. So I think from a compatibility standpoint, we should have some market flexibility. And it's going to be -- with the height limitations, I would hope that we can have the flexibility to have all three types. COMMISSIONER CARON: The only-- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Vigliotti was next, then Ms. Caron. Go ahead, Bob. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: I agree with Mr. Wolfley, we don't know what the market's going to be in three, four, five years. And when this first went to the neighborhood information meeting, they were worried about, what was it, 75 -- MR. YOV ANOVICH: 75 units. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: -- units. Now we're down to 20. And I can't see a problem with the 20. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ms. Caron? COMMISSIONER CARON: Yeah, my only comment is that these 20 units oftownhomes or whatever they end up being, I mean, it's still a little shoehorn infill situation. And as we just saw during discussions, we don't even know what it's going to look like. Because -- I mean where pool cages are going to be. So I guess we've taken the planned out of planned unit development. But be that as it may, I think that it would be a smart move on our part to take out townhomes for the neighborhood. That's not whafs around here. It's primarily three-quarters of the way around this property and across the street single-family homes. So to do a single-lilmily detached or attached is probably what should be on this piece of property. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Richard, one thing that might help resolve it, would you be willing to limit your townhome length to four units, which is 140 feet, so you get four-unit buildings instead of six-unit buildings? Because that's what you're looking at. And your interior units won't sell anyway, or they're going to have to be a reduced price. So you want to minimize and -- maximize your comer outside units. So from a marketing perspective you'd be farther ahead. Anyway, think about it. Let's take a break so Cherie' can have a little breather here. Because we're not going to take lunch, because we should have tbis done quickly. Can that hold until we get back from break, Brad, or -- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Just on townhouses. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Go ahead. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Just real quickly, your developer's from Massachusetts. While the Florida Building Code is based on the International Building Code, we do have a Florida Attorney General's requirement that three or more units is a multi-family unit, thus it really triggers a lot of the nasty stuff he's not used to up in Boston or Massachusetts. So he might -- we might be doing him a favor to get rid of the townhouses. Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Richard, I know you have to get out of here, but Cherie' needs a break. So we're going to take a IS-minute break -- live-minute? Well, let's just make it 10 minutes and we'll come back at 12: I O. (Recess.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, when we left we were ttying to finish up discussion to go into a motion. I think -- Mr. Schiffer, did you finish with your questions0 COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I'm done, thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ms. Caron, you had yours0 COMMISSIONER CARON: I'm done. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. With that, Richard, do you want a rebuttal? MR. YOV ANOVICH: No, but you asked me a question. You had asked me about the 140-foot-- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes. MR. YOV ANOVICH: -- length. And I'm going to take a chance and agree to that.uCHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. MR. YOV ANOVICH: And hopefully that will he -- I think that's, you know, four-unit buildings is-- Page 48 DJe~bl1k~ CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, that produces a building that could be comparable in width to a single-family house in some regards. So maybe this doesn't appear that had. But I appreciate that, and we'll move on with our discussion. We heard the public, so therefore we'll close the public hearing and we'll entertain a motion. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Motion. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Vigliotti'! COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: I'd like to make a motion to approve. And I think in addition, the only two situations I'm not really clear with is the new 140-foot building, is that what we're agreeing on? And what did we come up with for the height, 30 and 40 feet? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's what they offered. You're the motion maker, so-- COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Okay. No, but that's what we left off, 30, 40 feet-- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: -- is what I'd like to see. And I'd like to see the 140 feet. In addition to just about everything you put down. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, what I'd like to do then is ask for a second to the motion so we can go into-- COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Second. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- re-itemizing the details. Mr. Murray seconded the motion. Now -- and Ms. Caron, did you have something to say before I start? COMMISSIONER CARON: No, no, no, I was just going to -- go ahead. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Well, let's start off with staff recommendations. There are four of them. And we'll get a consensus as we move forward so everybody knows where the motion stands so they can say yea or nay at the end and we're done. Number one is the issue on the native preservation. Do we want to stay with the .15 that the -- COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- petitioner is arguing, or do we want -- the motion maker says yes on the. I 5. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: . I 5. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Does the second accept it? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Petitioner's argument. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Any discussion on that issueo Mr. Midney, we know where you stand. Are you still standing in your same position? COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Yeah, I'm not going to change, because I think I'm right. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. When you actually -- okay. And from the county attorney's perspective, did his dissertation on record previously in regards to that issue -- MR. KLA TZKOW: It's going to be easier if you just state your reason now, Mr. Midney. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, Mr. Midney? COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Well, I'm convinced that that originally was intended to have been intended as preservation. COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Never said that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. And what I'm suggesting here is if you're going to vote no on this motion, the BCC has been very strict in wanting to know why we vote no. So if you're voting no for the reason Mr. Midney stated, and this is your issue, you need to state it so that everybody knows at the BCC level why you voted no. Okay, so right now the motion is to accept the. I 5 acres as the preserve. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Right. COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Are we still talking about the number one or are you just asking the motion maker? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I'm asking the motion maker. Do you have some discussion on one you want to get in? COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Yeah, I do. I dnn't think it should say native vegetation, I think it should be referring more to the buffers on the property. And so I think I'm right. I just have an issue with changing it to buff -- I don't think it was the intention initially because of what was written in both of the documents and the diagram and in the table. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, let's boil it down to the nuts and bolts. Are you going to vote for the motion-- COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Yes, I am. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- for approval? Okay, let's just get into issues that are going to change someone's vote so we Page 49 l~m~l :~2~O~ know what message we're sending fOlWard. So right now, with the exception of Mr. Midney, we're all in favor of dropping item one. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Item two is the analysis of the FAR to come up with a revised square footage as a recommendation from staff. Is that to stay or to go, Mr. Vigliotti, in your motion" COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: It should stay" COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: No. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: No? Where are we" CHAIRMAN STRAIN: We're on number two ofthe staff recommendations. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: I realize that, but I don't remember where we left off. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, what we discussed is that staff came up with what they thought was the right product for the property to be most compatible in the area. Justification of that was a new methodology introduced I think for the fIrst time here. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: No. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: We can go with that as a compatibility standard-- COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: No. COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: No. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, so number two is out. Does anybody have a problem with that? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, we're in agreement there. Number three, they're looking at a setback to 25 foot along the western and southern boundaries. That has been expanded to all the boundaries except for the eastern boundary. Is everybody comlurtable with that? COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Uh-huh. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, so we would have -- we strike staff request number one and we accept the.I 5 acres. We strike request nlUTIber two of staff. Number three we modify to provide 25 feet around all boundaries except for the eastern boundary. And number lour, I could not fIgure out what that means. So maybe stafr can explain. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Why don't we just take it out? COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Strike. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah, let's just strike number four for lack of clarity. MS. DESELEM: Do you want me to -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, if you're going to stand up and tell us what it means, that would be helpful: Otherwise it doesn't stay in. MS. DESELEM: For the record again, Kay Deselem. Number four is basic language that we use in a recommendation, and it just says that you are adopting the pun ordinance and the PUD document. And anything that's incorporated in there is accepted as part of your recommendation. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Kay, but this says furthermore, approval is subject to the conditions of approval that have already been incorporated in the ordinance and adoption. We made a lot of changes here today, so how can that apply? MR. BELLOWS: That's correct. I would just say you're adopting the PUD as amended. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, aren't we doing that by accepting-- MR. BELLOWS: Correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Then let's strike number four. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: As the motion maker, I'd like to strike it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, number four is struck. Anybody have a problem with that? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: It's just for clarity. Okay, back to the other issues that we talked about. They'll be all one type of product. Is that acceptable to the-- COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- motion maker and the second. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Yes, one type. COMMISSIONER MURRA Y: Yep. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody have any problem? (No response.) Page 50 Dl~Jer~8, 2~6 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Number two, we wanted -- well, let's discuss the product. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Okay. Type of product, right? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, the first question was it will all be one type, no matter what it is. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Right. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Now it's the type of product. We have three products introduced: Single-family, single-family attached and townhouses. They've agreed that the townhouse will be limited to 140-foot in width, which is four units per building. With that caveat, does anybody have any needed corrections to those three uses? COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: No. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I'm good with it. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: No, I agree. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: But Mark, question. Do we have the authority to actually eliminate townhouses at this time? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I think we can stipulate anything we want. We just -- they don't have to accept it and they could go on. Just like they could ask for multi-family and we could stipulate we don't agree with that either. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And then at the next level, at the commission, they would tty to bring it back in? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. I would suggest we do that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Do what? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Eliminate townhouses. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The motion maker and the motion accepted the townhouses at 140 feet, if I'm not -- but leaving them in. Is that the motion? COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Mark, I -- Brad, I don't-- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: That's fine, don't worry about it. Go. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, anybody else have any comments about townhouses? COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: No. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, let's move on to basically the new table that was submitted, we would be accepting the new table and then we had the following corrections to the new table: The minimum floor area under table one, which is your residential tract development standards for single-family attached went up from 750 to 1,000 square feet. We would have a restriction that the -- nothing can occur closer than 25 feet, whether it be principal or accessory, to the PUD boundary along Orange Blossom. The maximum zoned height was offered at 30 feet and the maximum actual height was offered at 40 feet by the applicant. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. And on accessory structure table, the PUD boundary limitations there will be changed to match the buffer widths, with the exception of that one along Orange Blossom. And that the maximum zoned and actual heights there would likewise correspondingly change as they were in the first onc. Is that where everybody's at? COMMISSIONER CARON: So in other words, you're talking about single-family detached at 10, single-family attached at 10, and townhouse at 15" CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Whatever the -- yes, I think that's what the site plan culls out for, yes. Does everybody -- does the motion maker -- COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I'm fine. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- and second accept those? COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: I'm fine. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, the other item was that we would restrict the common area clubhouse and recreation facilities to the east side of the driveway road that enters the property. Is that acceptable to the motion and the second') COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Yes. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Yeah. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Murray? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: There's one question about we had no residents being closer that what is it 25 feet to the road, Orange Blossom? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's what I said on -- when we discussed the table. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Okay, I may not have picked up on that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And then the applicant agreed to provide a Type B buffer and a Type A width on all locations Page 51 1611 A6 December 18, 2008 within the property. So that we'd have the hedge and tree combination to help protect Mrs. Cox and the other neighbors in the area. Is everybody in agreement with that? COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Does the motion maker and second agree with that? COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Yes. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: (Nods head affirmatively.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Well, now, we've had a walk-through of the items for the stipulations for the motion. Is there any further discussion on the motion by the planning commission members? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, we'll do this by acknowledgement of voice and hand. All those in favor ofthe motion as stipulated, signity by saying aye. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER Aye. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Aye. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Aye. COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye. COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Aye. COMMISSIONER CARON: Aye. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Any ofthose opposed') COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: (Indicating.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Let me motion (sic) indicate that only -- the motion passed 8- I, Mr. Midney opposing. Okay, with that, we will finish up our public hearings and move on to the next. Thank you. Item #10 OLD BUSINESS CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The next item up is the -- under old business, I think we had to revisit the mileage issue. I had a notation on here. I just want to make sure -- Ray, was there something you had wanted to talk about on that? MR. BELLOWS: Yes, I had Sharon Phillips send you thc mileage form as you requested at the last meeting, and I have another copy of what you should have received. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I don't need it. MR. BELLOWS: That's all. I just wanted to make sure you got it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Thank you, sir. Item#11 NEW BUSINESS CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The other new business item, I just wanted to mention to everybody, and Ray, I'd like to ask you, I found that there's a -- I couldn't wlderstand how some of our Board of County Commission members knew ahead of time what we were discussing at our meetings. But I understood they got a memo that highlights certain controversial projects. And I know one board member had been getting that memo. And I think out of respect for everybody, we all ought to get a copy of those, when and if they're issued. I forgot -- I think they're called a controversial memo or something like that. MR. BELLOWS: Yes, we asked planners who are working on their petitions for the upcoming planning commission meeting if they know of an item that could trigger a lot of Board of County Commissioner interest, whatever the controversial issues are, to try to define what that is, and so commissioners can watch the planning commission for that controversial petition if they -- you know, if it's something that's in their district that they're interested in. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. And t think just so that we know what they've been highlighted to, that would be nice for us to know if we get a call what it's about. MR. BELLOWS: Yeah, there's no problem. I'll make sure you get that in your packet. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Vigliotti? COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: The letter we get advising us of a controversial issue is usually -- is delivered either Page 52 161 ,~: I" December 1~, 2008 today or the day after our meetings for us. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I never got one. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Oh, yeah, I get one all the time. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I never have. I know you were the only-- COMMISSIONER MURRAY: You got a deal. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You were the only one I believe that got them. That's why I'm just saying, if you're going to send them to one, send them to all. MR. BELLOWS: Sure. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Well, you'll get it probably Thursday or Friday. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody else have any-- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Happy holidays. CHAIRMAN STRA IN: Yeah, I was just going to say the same thing. Merry Christmas to everybody and thank you all for a great year and we'll look forward to a challenging 2009. Is there motion to adjourn? COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: So moved. COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: So moved. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Vigliotti. Seconded said by Mr. Wolfley. All in favor? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Aye. COMMISSIONER MURRA Y: Aye. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Aye. COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: Aye. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye. COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Aye. COMMISSIONER CARON: Aye. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody opposed" (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: We are adjourned. I think that's unanimous. ***** There being no further business for the good of the County, the meeting was adjourned by order of the Chair at 12:22 p.m. COL~I'R COUNT7Lf~ING COMMISSION Vt k~ l11~-tL~,-- MARK STRAIN, Chairman These minutes approved by the board onm..._..~ .._..m.. .._ as presented......JL" or as corrected__.__. Page 53 161t1 ~6vl January] 5,2009 ~t.C€.N€.O "'t-.~ \) Ij 1\)00 ~.\c S\onefS Colfl'''''' d 0\ couot'i -' 'Boar LET IT BE REMEMBERED, that the Collier County Planning TRANSCRlPT OF THE MEETING OF THE COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION Naples, Florida Fiala January 15,2009 Halas Henning Coyle Coletta ({Z.~<T1:(.. Commission, in and for the County of Collier, having conducted business herein, met on this date at 8:30 a.m. in REGULAR SESSION in Building "F" of the Govemment Complex, East Naples, Florida, with the following members present: CHAIRMAN: Mark Strain Karen Homiak Donna Reed-Caron Tor Kolflat (Absent) Paul Midney Bob Murray Brad Schi ffer Robert Vigliotti David J. Wolfley ALSO PRESENT: Jeffrey Klatzkow, County Attorney Heidi Ashton-Cicko, Assistant County Attorney Joseph Schmitt, CDES Administrator Ray Bellows, Zoning & Land Development Review Thoma~ Eastman, Real Property Director, CC School Dist. Misc. Carras: Date: Page 1 Item#: ~,Gpies \0 l6ulr IIbff6 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Good morning, everyone. Welcome to the January 15th meeting of the Collier County Planning Commission. If you'll all please rise for Pledge of Allegiance. (Pledge of Allegiance was recited in unison.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. Item #2 ROLL CALL BY SECRETARY Roll call by our secretary, please. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Commissioner Eastman. MR. EASTMAN: Present. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Commissioner Schilfer. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Present. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Commissioner Midney, COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Present. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Commissioner Caron. COMMISSIONER CARON: Here. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Chairman Strain. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Here, COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Commissioner Vigliotti is here. Commissioner Murray. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Here. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Commissioner Wolfley. COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Here, sir. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: And Commissioner Homiak. COMMISSIONER HOMlAK: Here, CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. I'm going to have to be hunched over here. There was a change in the BCC chairmanship last meeting, and they're trying to reconstruct underneath the podium here the new commissioner that sits here, so all the wires are a little shorter. So the speakers may not work right, but we'll bear through it. And the keyboard's sitting on top. So all this stuff's got to get fixed at some point. Item #3 ADDENDA TO THE AGENDA CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Addenda to the agenda today. First of all, Item 9.C, which is the Sembler MPUD on Rattlesnake and 951, if you're here for that item, that item is being continued to February 5th and will not be heard today. And then Item II.A, which was a distribution of the -- and a briefing on the proposed site ordinance. It wasn't going to be an opportunity to really comment on it but just to tell us why it was being redone and preparing us for the actual hearing in the following month, That whole process has been postponed until February lor the briefing and March for the meeting. We'll go over that in one of our February meetings, as far as the dates go. Probably we know those Page 2 16JtlrA ~ 20~9 today. Joe, we did set on dates, didn't we, March? MR. SCHMITT: Yes, those dates are set. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, maybe we could find out and let the commission know what dates those are, if we happen to have them handy. MR. SCHMITT: No, they're not -- I'm looking them up. And it's h 2nd of March is what I thought. But I've got to check it. It's not showing on my calendar right now. MR. KLA TZKOW: March 2nd and possibly March 3rd, MR. SCHMITT: March 2nd and 3rd was the dates -- 8:30, March 2nd. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And it will be in this room. So those on the commission, hopefully we can all make it. March 2nd and March 3rd. First on March 2nd is 8:30, It could be a two-day hearing. But at least that will be the dates we set right now. So unless h anybody have any problem with those that they know ahead of time? COMMISSIONER CARON: When will we get the revisions? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: February 5th we're supposed to get the package and a briefing from Catherine Fabacher on the whole issue. So that's what this was postponed to. Also on -- I want to remind everybody that on Friday, that's tomorrow, we have a CIE and lO-year water supply plan review in this room at I :00, from I :00 to 5:00. And then our carryover for that is Tuesday at 2:00. Now, first of all, does anybody know if they're not going to be here tomorrow at I :OO? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, how about Tuesday? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Good, because the Tuesday is the day we actually got to take the vote, I believe, because the advertisement was a little mixed up, and it looks like we can't vote until Tuesday. So even if we finish with it tomorrow, we will have to reconvene on Tuesday just long enough to take a vote. That will be interesting. I'd like to remind everybody on January 28th and on January 30th starting at 8:30 in the morning, both days, we have the two-day meeting for the rural land stewardship area committee report. It isn't the transmittal, it isn't the adoption, it's purely commenting on the committee's report. That's a little bit different animal than a transmittal hearing in which we review data and analysis. This is mostly what the committee has come to gather for their report, which we probably got yesterday. At least mine came yesterday or last night. MR. SCHMITT: They were distributed yesterday. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So the rest of the month, that's the schedule for the rest of January, I hope -- anybody know that they cannot make it on the 28th and 30th? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And by the way, for the record, Mr. Kolflat contacted me, he has some issues he had to resolve today, so he wasn't able to be here, He most likely will not be here tomorrow either. Now, approval of the minutes. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Mark? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes, ma'am. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: We have the 26th on here for the t100dplain ordinance. Is that on or CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Oh, I'm sorry. Good point. No, that's been continued indefinitely -- or it won't be that date, let's put it that way. It wasn't h the committee is reconvening. There's been new Page 3 Ja1ae F"'" A 6 information they're digesting. They're going to come back with a whole new proposal -- I shouldn't say a whole new, but with some modifications to what they've already proposed. So they haven't set a date yet but we'll get another date to be set for that in the future. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So the 26th is off. Item #5 APPROVAL OF MINUTES -- NOVEMBER 20, 2008, REGULAR MEETING; DECEMBER 4, 2008, REGULAR MEETING; DECEMBER 9, 2008, HORIZON STUDY MEETING CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, that leaves us with approval of minutes. And the first set of minutes is November 20th, 2008 regular meeting. Does anybody have any clarifications, corrections? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: If not, is there a motion to recommend approval? To approve, I'm sorry, COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: So moved. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Wolfley. Seconded by? COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: I'll second, COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Second. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Vigliotti. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Oh, did you already say second? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Go ahead. Did you want to vote or you have some comment? COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Oh, I seconded it. I didn't hear him say. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, All those in favor of the motion, signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Aye, COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Aye. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Aye. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Aye. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Aye. COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Aye. COMMISSIONER CARON: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye, Anybody opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion carries 8-0. The December 4th minutes, Now, these are different. I know it's hard to improve on perfection, and Cherie' does an absolute fabulous job, but unfortunately on the December 4th there were two small errors that we need to talk about. And she's -- I prepared her early for this so she wouldn't faint, have a heart attack. Page 51 of those minutes, about two-thirds of the way down the page, it says well, this was acknowledged in testimony, it's developed policy, so that's inconsistent with CCME Policy 12,2.7. The word developed policy, it should be developed property. And that was the word change that needs to be there. And this was in the stipulations to the motion. On Page 52, about a third of the way down, the comment was that traffic is going to be increased on Danford Street, either by quantity of votes or by way of getting in and out of the parking lot. The word Page 4 IJ8?115A269 ! votes needs to be changed to boats. So Cherie' was -- almost as always, your stuff has been perfect, but a couple of small changes there, Anybody else have any comments on that December 4th meeting? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Is there a motion to approve? COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: So moved. COMMISSIONER CARON: Motion to approve. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Vigliotti, seconded by Ms. Caron. All those in favor, signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Aye. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Aye. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Aye. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Aye. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Aye. COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Aye. COMMISSIONER CARON: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye, Anybody opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion carries 8-0. The last one is the December 9th meeting on the Horizon study meeting. Does anybody have any changes? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: If not, is there a motion to approve? COMMISSIONER CARON: Motion to approve. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: So moved. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ms. Caron this time, Mr. Vigliotti second. All those in favor, signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Aye. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Aye. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Aye. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Aye. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Aye. COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Aye. COMMISSIONER CARON: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye. Anybody opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion carries 8-0. Item #6 BCC REPORT - RECAPS - DECEMBER 2, 2008, REGULAR MEETING CHAIRMAN STRAIN: BCC recaps, December 2nd. Ray? Page 5 16_"~ January 15, 2~9 MR. BELLOWS: Yes, on January 13th, the Board of County Commissioners heard two petitions, A variance for -- the Oster variance, which was a 14- foot rear yard encroachment for a screen enclosure. And they also heard the conditional use for the Naples Baptist Church. Both were approved on the swnmary agenda. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you, sir. Item #7 CHAIRMAN'S REPORT CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, Chairman's Report. There's a couple of items I want to mention. First of all, everybody in the audience who wishes to speak here today, please fill out a speaker slip. They're out in the hall. They're a little small piece of rectangular paper. Turn it in to Ray over here, And then when you get up to speak, you'll have to identifY yourself, we're going to swear you in, just as we get into the subject. And I'll ask that everybody try to keep their comments to about five minutes. We're not hard and fast on that rule, but that makes it fair for everyone, As far as the process for today, this has been continued -- I'm talking about the Heavenly PUD. The Heavenly PUD has been continued back and forth I think four, this may be the fifth time, and it started back I think in June oflast year. Just recently, and this Planning Commission and staff as well, received quite a bit of strike-throughs, underlines and changes to the document, I think it was Monday or Tuesday of this week. And it was the first time staff had seen those that I was aware of, especially all staffs departments. The extent of the changes was the first time I had seen them too. I had talked with the applicant and I had met with the civic association's attorney many times and some members of that association, This last round it was my understanding there'd be a few minor changes that we normally can make at a meeting like this, mainly a reduction in height or an acceptance of an elevation. I was surprised when I saw the changes because there were a lot more than just that. And yesterday I called the applicant up and told them, I told their attorney that this was more than what he had expressed to me in the earlier meeting. And of course his comment was that they're trying to respond to the neighborhood. I also called up Mr. Pires, who represents some of the folks in the neighborhood, explained to him what I'm explaining to you all now, with the comment that we may not resolve this today. One of the things that was important to do today is get this to a point where everybody has got -- knows where it's going, has all the issues on record and we can work out an acceptable document so it isn't continued and continued and continued, because that takes all of our time up. I don't mean this board, but you as citizens have to show up each time it's scheduled and try to make arrangements to be here. And so to try to bring this to a head, even though the changes were extensive, even though the county staff cannot comment on those changes in full, they need time to review them. Ifthe changes stay as extensive as they are, most likely this will have to come back for another meeting to finalize it. But at least today the objective would be to hear everybody's concerns, get the parties to listen, and hopefully come out of this with a resolution direction that works and then come to a final document. I wanted to kind of brief everybody on that process before we get going so that this is going to be more of a working process to get to a resolution today, and hopefully we will. Okay, with that in mind, I'd like to go through the consent agenda items. Page 6 1 6 I"" n ~ 'tanum; +5, 20t9 Item #8A PETITION: V A-2008-AR-13601, OKEECHOBEE INN, LTD CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The first one is Petition V A-2008-AR-13601, the Okeechobee Inn, Limited. And it's the access to State Road 29, just north of Lake Trafford Road. Staffs provided us with the resolution. Are there any correction, changes, or comments? (No response,) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And if not, we need a motion. Anybody? COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: So moved, COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Second. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion to recommend approval? COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Seconded by Commissioner Wolfley. Any further discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: All in favor, signifY by saying aye. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Aye. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Aye. COMMISSIONER MlDNEY: Aye. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Aye. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Aye. COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Aye. COMMISSIONER CARON: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye. Anybody opposed? (N 0 response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion carries 8-0. Item #8B PETITION: CU-2008-AR-13639, CORPORATION OF THE PRESIDING BISHOP OF THE CHURCH OF JESUS CHRIST OF LA TTER-DA Y SAINTS CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The second petition is CU-2008-AR-13639, Corporation of Presiding Bishop of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints in Golden Gate. Ms. Caron? COMMISSIONER CARON: Yes, does Commissioner Wolfley actually have to fill out the conditional use petition? COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Had to bring that -- had to be the first one too, didn't it? COMMISSIONER CARON: I just didn't know if we were legally sufficient if you didn't check in the boxes. COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: I'll do that, yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: We want to make sure you can do it after the fact. Page 7 16 LJLarA 6 2009 COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Well, I meant to. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, you just used invisible ink, we know. Mr. Klatzkow, what had occurred, the findings of fact for the conditional use petition have check boxes in which we're supposed to check four different positions and sign our name to it. Mr. Wolfley got the part about signing the name, but he didn't get the part about checking the boxes. COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Hey, come on, I'm first timer. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Is that something he can do after the fact or is it just well enough -- is the record clear enough to leave it well enough alone? MR. KLA TZKOW: Oh, he can do it after the fact, because he was here. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Yes. MR. KLA TZKOW: So that's fine, CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. So would you mind sometime today twn a corrected copy in to the court reporter -- COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: I will. I'm really happy you brought that up too. I'm just thrilled, COMMISSIONER CARON: Sorry. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I didn't bring it up, MR. KLATZKOW: You just can't change your mind, that's all. COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: There you go again. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, other than that comment, if there's no others, is there a motion to recommend approval for that petition? MR. VIGLIOTTI: So moved. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Vigliotti. Scconded by? COMMISSIONER CARON: Sccond. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ms. Caron. Discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: All in favor, signifY by saying aye. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Ayc. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Aye. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Aye. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Aye. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Aye, COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Ayc. COMMISSIONER CARON: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye. Anybody opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion carries 8-0. Item #8C PETITION: RZ-2008-AR-I2930, BA YVIEW PARK BOAT LAUNCH, COLLIER COUNTY COASTAL ZONE MANAGEMENT CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The next item is Petition RZ-2008-AR-12930, Collier County Page 8 lQJJ,'6~1 Coastal Zone Management for the Bayview Park boat launch. Any corrections, comments for the record on that one? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, hearing none, is there a motion to recommend approval? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Wait, can we recommend approval on something we denied? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: We're recommending approval of the petition that's been presented to us in the staff report, That's what we're recommending approval, the staff's presentation of it. MR. SCHMITT: You're recommending approval of your motion to forward as a recommendation for denial. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Okay. CHAlRMAN STRAIN: Is there a-- MR. SCHMITT: We make that clear. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: So moved. CHAlRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Vigliotti made the motion, Is there a second? COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: I'll second it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ms. Homiak made the second. All in favor, signifY by saying aye. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Aye. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Aye. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Aye. COMMISSIONER MURRA Y: Aye. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Aye. COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Aye. COMMISSIONER CARON: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye, Anybody opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion carries 8-0. Item #8D - Discussed & continued to later in the meeting PETITION: PUDZ-2007-AR-12026, SA V ANNAH PLACE RPUD CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Last one is Petition PUDZ-2007-AR-12026 Steven J. Lockwood, Trustee, for SLJ Realty Trust, the Savannah Place RPUD. Ms. Caron? COMMISSIONER CARON: Yeah, I had a couple questions on this one. Under permitted principal uses, B says single-family attached dwelling units. Do we need to say n the discussion at the meeting was that these would be duplexes. Do we have to say duplexes in here or is that implicitly understood? MS. DESELEM: I'm sorry, I -- for the record. Kay Deselem, I'm sorry, I didn't exactly follow your question. You're on Page I of 7 of -- COMMISSIONER CARON: I am on I of7, under principal uses, B, as in boy. And it says single-family attached dwelling units. And the discussion had been for -- about duplexes, Do we need to say duplexes or -- because right now it could be a fourplex or a sixplex or whatever, as long as they -- MS. DESELEM: What this was to clarifY -- I don't know that I still understand your question -- but what this was to clarifY was that they couldn't intermingle the types of uses they had gotten approval of. Page 9 Jan!a~ 15,\6 i They got approval of single-family attached, single-family detached and townhouses. They had to pick one COMMISSIONER CARON: And Kay, the discussion at the meeting was that those single-family attached Wlits were duplexes. So I just want to know whether we need to say that. MS. WILLIAMS: I could try and clarifY. For the record, Heidi Williams with Grady Minor. (Speakers were duly swom.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And Richard raised his hand and said I do, just in case. MS. WILLIAMS: The single-family attached unit is different from the duplex Wlit in how the Wlderlying ownership is derived. They would appear as a duplex Wlit because they would be two side-by-side dwelling Wlits. But the single-family attached designation means they would each have an underlying plot. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Deed. MS. WILLIAMS: Fee simple ownership -- COMMISSIONER CARON: Does that allow you then to also build a fourplex or a sixplex that way? MS, WILLIAMS: I believe the development standards table would control. And if you look at the side setbacks, there's zero or six feet, and -- for that particular unit type for sides. And our master plan also has an indication of what the single-family attached lot layout would look like. So I do not believe that the duplex units would be pennitted. And Rich is reminding me that the Land Development Code also has a definition of single-Camily -- COMMISSIONER CARON: That's fine. And I had two other things. On Page 3 of7, under the townhouse designation, why is there no front yard or rear yard setback? MS. WILLIAMS: Townhomes are a little bit of a blend of fee simple designation and multi-family designation. That was not included because staff felt that would be covered by site development plan. The front yards and -- the front side and rear yards would be controlled by the PUD boundary setbacks rather -- and building separation, rather than any platted 101 lines. Because if you plat this -- if you plat a townhome, the footprint of the lot matches the footprint of the unit. COMMISSIONER CARON: Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Explain that a little bit more. The unit has a building footprint. The lot will generally go deeper or shallow -- or deeper in both front and rear than the footprint of the building would. So it doesn't seem to fit the statement you just said. MS. WILLIAMS: That actually is correct, Mr. Strain. The townhome process is a little bit of a hybrid between platting and -- for lots and site development plan for multi-family, So the development standards are a bit of a blend, We think that the PUD perimeter setbacks and the building separation setbacks would provide the development standards that create the community that we've discussed through the public hearing process so far. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Under any circumstance what is the -- Wlder the -- any circumstance, what is the minimum rear setback that a townhouse would have? MS. WILLIAMS: The accessory structures would be covered Wlder Table 1.1 from the perimeter of the PUD, And so those would be on the -- they'd be 25 feet from Orange Blossom Drive and 20 feet from any other boundary, And for the principal structure it would be 25 feet from any bOWldary except for the east side where it would be a minimum of IS feet. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: What you're saying is, there will be no -- there could be no occasion on this PUD where the townhouse would be not up against a perimeter boundary, Page 10 1 6 I; 1 h L --:ranmiry~5~~9 f MS. WILLIAMS: That's correct. The perimeter boundary setback would control in any event CHAJRMAN STRAIN: As far as the front goes, how is n what is the -- what restriction regulates the front setback and what would be that minimum regulation and worst case scenario as we might look at it? MS. WILLIAMS: Again, the front yard from the unit, there'd be a few things that controL There'd be a setback from the PUD boundary. We're not turning buildings so that they're facing the exterior of the site, but there's also a stipulation that the garage door has to be 23 feet from the edge of pavement or sidewalk. And so there are several different factors that would controL CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, why don't we just say that then? Why don't we say under front, see note one. I see that. And for the rest of them, it says 20 leet, 20 feet. Where it says townhouses, why don't you say 20 feet or 23 feet, if that's what your intcntions are. Do you intend to go less than 20 feet with a townhouse? MS, WILLIAMS: I don't believe so. But because I'm not an engineer, I'm not exactly sure where the lines always faIL CHA]RMAN STRAIN: Well, see a townhouse is a residential structure, just as single-family attached and detached are. And if the intent of this PUD is to regulate setbacks at 20 leet for the others, I'm sure that the intent of this board would have been to assume that that was for the townhouse as welL Although this is the first time that I think wc may have seen it. And the same for the rear. ]f you've got rear setbacks of] 5 leet for the other two, why wouldn't you have a rear setback as a minimum on those? ] don't understand why you couldn't do that. MS. W]LLIAMS: ] don't think that we have an issue with that. CHA]RMAN STRAIN: As lar as the side setback goes, you have not applicable. How would you address side setbacks to townhouses in groups of jive as you show here? What would be the minimum side setback? MS, W]LLIAMS:] believe the minimum would have to be zero, because if they're attached that would be a zero feet. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: To the building? MS. W]LLlAMS: Between the units there would be zero feet. CHA]RMAN STRAIN: Between the buildings? MS. WILLIAMS: Between the buildings we have a minimum distance between structures listed as ]5 feet. CHAJRMAN STRAIN: Okay. So no matter how many units you put in this townhouse, you still would be 15 feet minimum. MS. WILLIAMS: Between structures, right. CHA]RMAN STRAIN: Right. Well,] really think that as a correction on this consent agenda we ought to put in a minimum lor a tront and a rear, if there's no objection by the County Attorney to see that happen now, MR. KLATZKOW: I'd welcome it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Is there any problem -- go ahead. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Let me ask a question. Heidi, as shown on the visualizer, there is a property line for the townhouse. If you did put a setback, it would be an additional setback from that inner lot. In other words, what you're saying is that based on the drawing on the screen the townhouse could fill that whole square that's shown as townhouse. MS. WILLIAMS: At this point it would -- that is the unit outline. So that particular image would have to be revised to show more long and narrow lots with additional setbacks. Page 11 J1QJl'~A6 Traditionally, say that that diagram shows the whole property and then the units are within that. So that diagram would no longer be accurate with these new designations. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: The point I'm making is that what you want to do is be able to outline the unit itself and say that is the ownership of that unit, that is essentially its lot line. If you do add a setback, you would start measuring from that new line. MS. WILLIAMS: We would have to change the way that we measured the lot for a townhome unit. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Right. One thing too, Mark, something you said earlier, I kind of agree. Normally a townhome does have backyard, essentially not the footprint of the unit, and does have a front yard, essentially not the footprint of the unit. So -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, to go back to your original question, if this townhome had a side setback of seven and a half feet, then the distance between the structures would be 15 feet. But in case you had a scenario where you're building a townhome and you want to -- you could hug it up to the property line. One townhome could be zero right on the property line, then the next one could be 15 feet over, under just -- if we left it like it is with the minimum distance between structures. MS. WILLIAMS: I think in any event the PUD boundary setback, the most restrictive setback will apply. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Do you have any objection to retaining a seven-and-a half-foot setback on the sides of these buildings? MS. WILLIAMS: I think we need to make sure that the way it's phrased indicates that any middle units would still be allowed to have zero setback on both sides. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Where it says side for townhouses, you could put 7.5 feet for building, And then you know it's for the building and not for the unit. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Well. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Go ahead. Brad. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: The problem with that is that that would then put the area between the buildings in ownership of the two townhouses on each side. I think what they would rather do is have that be common area, thus have a zcro on both sides, even though it's the end. I mean, to me it's clear from a design standpoint that there's nothing limiting the length of the building. But once the building stops, the next building starts, it's 15 feet away. And that -- MS. WILLIAMS: That would be n COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: -- should be common area. MS, WILLIAMS: That would be the most --I have seen it both ways. That would be the most restrictive development standard in that instance, the building separation being 15 feet. Whether we had a zero or a seven-and-a-half, it would -- the minimmn separation would still remain at 15 feet. And I've seen plats for townhomes done both ways, where the end unit does have a side yard area. I've also seen it where the townhomes are completely surrounded by common area. It may seem that they have a front yard and they have a backyard, but if you look at the actual property ownership, it's surrounded by common area, But again, there are probably many ways to do that. And if it's the pleasure of the planning commission to have a front and a rear yard, we can adjust to that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I think as a minimum -- COMMISSIONER CARON: That certainly was my concern was the front and the rear, not the side, because the structure setback was stated. Page 12 L6'L,~~ CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Does any -- Mr. Schiffer? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Heidi, wouldn't that -- essentially you get the same building. You would just -- when you plat this thing, you would have, for example, the distance from a property line, you may have the ownership dotted out into that distance from the property line. So in other words I actually think the way it's worded kind of works. I can't see how you could abuse it because it's going to give you the same product at the end. MS. WILLIAMS: I agree with your statement that whether we change the development standards as we were discussing or if we leave them alone, the end result -- the only difference will be the paper underlining the development orders. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, is there any reason, though, why for sake of clarity on a document that will probably be pulled up and reviewed every time a permit is requested, that instead ofN/A, which who knows what new person may be reviewing this at the counter in the county, they may see N/ A as not really meaning anything and could get mixed up by it, why don't we just, if you don't have any objection to it and this board doesn't have a problem, why don't we just put numbers in the two, front and rear. Mr. Schiffer? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: The only down side I see, Heidi, is if there is ownership of the land front and back of the townhouse that's not common property at that point, and then thus what kind of maintenance and all that becomes different. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah, but how they set their building isn't the way they have to sell the property. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: But if I owned a townhouse, essentially I could go into that area that you're creating. The way it is now it wouldn't be there. Now you're saying let's make it 20 feet in the back or something. I could go in there and do whatever I want because I own it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: What if the reference wasn't there and they were able to -- I'm trying to see how to protect the neighborhood, especially the project behind them that was so concerned about the closeness of these buildings to their properties. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: They're going to -- the worst case, they're going to put the building right on the perimeter setback. They're going to do that anyway. They have that option, no matter what we do here. So all's we're doing here is putting the ownership of the land and the front and back of the unit in the ownership of the unit or in common property. That's all. That's all we're achieving. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Physically, geometry, closeness to property lines they're not doing anything. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The only difference -- the only thing I was concerned about, Brad, is it's certainly understandable that if new people get hired when the county picks up steam again and they pick up these old documents and go to read them and they don't see a setback for front and rear there, some people may not pick up the other issues on here that would provide for that setback to be protected. So if we list it and it's no different than the others, I'm not sure who's at harm by it. It just makes it clearer. MS. WILLIAMS: Mr. Strain, could I make a suggestion that instead of having N/A, we could write another footnote that expresses the PUD boundary setbacks control in those cases. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That would be -- yeah, that would work, that clarification. As long as there's something. N/ A to a lot of people means there is none. And I would hate to see this -- MS. WILLIAMS: So for the front setback and the rear setback, we would add a new footnote that says the PUD perimeter minimum setbacks apply. And we would do that in the principal structure table, as Page 13 16nJu'~t5A2~9 well as -- actually, I guess it's not an issue in the accessory structure. There are numbers in there. So we would add that footnote to both the front and the rear. And then the side we would have zero or 7.5? COMMISSIONER CARON: How does that help the front yard? I mean, I see how the perimeter helps the rear yard. MS. WILLIAMS: Right. I think we can also --I mean, we have note one. We can add -- we have note one referred to front yard already, which refers to the 23-foot setback for the driveway-- COMMISSIONER CARON: Okay, so you'll say 23-- MS. WILLIAMS: -- from the edge of pavement or sidewalk. We can also add it's from perimeter, just in case there's some kind of layout issues. And -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So front, under townhouses, instead ofN/A, you're going to put parenthetical see note two. And note two is going to say PUD perimeter, minimum setbacks apply. MS. WILLIAMS: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right? Mr. Schiffer? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I don't really like that, because if again we're designing this for a staff member that's probably not too swift, so I would look at that and I could say well, that means that the perimeter setback that you've established, you have to put on each individual townhouse lot. I think the thing -- let's go to footnote two. Instead ofN/ A but -- and then state there that no buildings are allowed within the perimeter setback. And then that might protect us from that errant staff member better. Because once you establish a setback, it will now come from the outline of the townhouse property line. When they say not applicable what they're saying is that townhouses, you don't have to worry about setbacks, because we're going to put the ownership of the property line, the lot line underneath the building. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The setback is going to be measured from the building. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: To the closest property line. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. Now, ifit's the perimeter boundary of the PUD, that's where it's measured to. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. So why is that bad? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: But if it's not the perimeter -- let's go back on the front. The rear makes sense. Let's go to the front setback h CHAIRMAN STRAIN: We're just on the -- the footnote. Let's just stay --let's stay with the rear first. The footnote that we're talking about is a new note two that said PUD perimeter, minimum setbacks shall apply. And you have a problem with that? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Right. And here's why I -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. I think we're trying to understand what your problem is, Brad. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: The problem is that there's a boundary line that's the perimeter of the project. And we know that we've established the setback off of that. Within that, a subset of that is another boundary line that is the perimeter of this townhouse. Now, it could be, you know, interpreted that you should add that distance within that boundary line also. The definition of setback, it's mea,urcd to the property line. So -- and again, we're designing this for somebody who's not here today. Is that -- I mean, Kay and Ray, your stafl, would somebody ever -- I mean, I would rather you state something that no buildings are allowed within the perimeter setbacks, and that would mean that there's no way you could design a situation that you're trying to prevent. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ijust don't understand where your thought process is on this, Brad. Page 14 16JtnjrY11A ~o~ COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: There's two setbacks here. One is within the perimeter boundary of the unit itself. And then -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Wait a minute. In the unit is what the setback's to. The unit is the building. So how do you get another -- how do you set back itself from itself? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Look at this thing on the screen. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I am. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: The inner squares, the inner lot lines, those are property lines, right, Heidi? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No, those are building -- MS. WILLIAMS: They are one and the same when it comes to townhomes in most cases. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But they're of the footprint of where the building's going to go. MS. WILLIAMS: The way we originally drew it, they were the footprint of the building, a generic footprint of a building where -- in which the lot was the same. So I can understand what you are saying. If the lot is the same as the building and we create a square lot line, and then now we're saying this note is a setback from that new created lot line, it could be confusing. But I think given the nature of this type of development, hopefully a staff person would be familiar with how the townhome process worked and would understand the intention. We could, between now and the Board of County Commissioners, make sure it's clarified. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: The reason you put N/ A is because it doesn't matter in a townhouse, because you're defining the unit with the 101 line. If you add a number in there, then from that lot line you're now going to have to increase that lot line to take that number in. So essentially you are providing setback from that. MS. WILLIAMS: Very technically, the setbacks would be zero from our lot lines. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Exactly right. MS. WILLIAMS: But the building has a setback from the PUD perimeter. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: If you -- go ahead, Ms. Caron? COMMISSIONER CARON: Go ahead. But I mean, I just want to ask, you've got a layout here, but that's not anything final or set in stone. MS. WILLIAMS: No. it's -- COMMISSIONER CARON: So you could increase the size of this structure from the outer line to the outer line in the front and back and then there'd be no setback. MS. WILLIAMS: I can understand that concern. But again, the first note we were talking about, the PUD boundary setbacks can't be -- they also must be met. The list h it's not a pick and choose. Every setback in the list must be met. So the building itself has to be set back from the PUD perimeter. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Go ahead, Brad. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: What you've done, Donna, whcn you do that, is you've takcn what they probably would want to kcep as common arca and made it the ownership of that townhouse unit. COMMISSIONER CARON: I haven't done it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, wait a minute. When you do a townhouse, you're saying that thc dottcd line bccomcs the propcrty linc of the person who buys the townhouse for ownership. And what Brad's saying is that by putting in a notc that there's a setback to that propcrty line, it could be construed as to the property line of that townhouse owncrship. Is that a fair statemcnt? MS. WILLIAMS: I think so, ycs. CHAlRMAN STRAIN: Okay. So now you've created -- now if you changed the townhouse and made it smaller, you still would change that dotted line. That means no matter whcre you put that dotted Page 15 16J~rJJ AJ)t)09 line, if you were to interpret this code as we'rc suggesting that it change, that thc setback is from that dotted line, it would bc impossible for you to build anything, becausc you'd kecp increasing your self-imposed setback to a point you couldn't build a building. So how practical is it to takc that kind of an avcnue for anybody? MS. WILLIAMS: Well, I think that's the confusion. Because ifwc'rc creating a lot line to match the building footprint, there should not bc a setback from thc building footprint. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: There couldn't be; otherwise you couldn't build a building, you'd keep squeezing the building smaller and smaller and smaller because you'd keep changing the linc to coincide the townhousc salable point to the building point. MS. WILLIAMS: That's thc exact reason we had N/A in thcrc, bccause it-- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But that's the exact reason why it doesn't make a differcnce. No one -- you couldn't get -- it's an impractical conclusion. You couldn't get there. You couldn't build a building, you couldn't submit a projcct showing that scenario. I don't know how you would. Kay, is there -- or Ray or somebody. Wc'vc had townhomcs in othcr projects. I've always remcmbered thcm having setbacks in them. Havc we cvcr passcd a dcvelopment standards tablc that didn't havc setbacks for townhomes that you know of? MR. BELLOWS: That is a correct statement. We have setbacks. And I think they have them herc. But I think it's just writtcn in a way that's a littlc morc confusing. I think if we just say thc townhomc structure which comprises the individual lots making up the units shall be sct back t11C minimum PUD boundary distance, and what's that, 15 feet in thc front? And we can make it from any tract or PUD boundary line. I think that clarifics it in my mind. CHAlRMAN STRAIN: Wcll, I'm not comfortablc, and I'm glad Ms. Caron pointcd this out. And some of us may not be with the language that it is right now, it's rathcr confusing. And I think it necds to be cleared up. It's not thc first time this product was invented in Collier County. So howcver we've done it in lhe past where it's been fairly clear, why don't we takc a look at that. Mr. Y ovanovich, you're the mastcr at doing things, so -- MR. YOVANOVICH: You know I always likc to make it crystal clear so thcrc's no argument in the future. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ycah, likc rctain flcxibility, hnl1? COMMISSIONER CARON: While retaining maximum flcxibility, I might add. MR. YOVANOVICH: And I drew some lines on this exhibit basically I think consistent with you -- and what I've always thought the way it was done for townhomcs is you did in fact creatc a lot that goes from the front that borders the street to the rear that borders usually thc cdgc of the development. So what I would suggest is we just put that exhibit there that wc would have the typical front setbacks from that and wc would have zero from the sides and then wc would also have to keep thc minimum of 15 betwccn buildings. And I lhink -- and we can take care of the common area issue through the master association documents. We can just -- we can have every yard, whether they own it or not, have maintenance through the mastcr association. And I think in my mind that simplifies it, and 1 don't think it hurts the development. And that's my suggestion, and -- instead of having this floating priority line like you were talking, that could be interpreted to squeeze itself to zero at some point if we don't do it thc way I'm suggesting. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Klatzkow? MR. KLA TZKOW: This is a common type product. We've done this in thc past. My suggestion would be staff gets with the applicant here and just gets this clarificd so this now reads like anyone of the numerous oncs we'vc done in the past, and then come back later at this meeting. Page 16 161nL4 6, ~09 MR. SCHMITT: I would agree. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Richard, that can be done today. Wc can schcdule you at thc end of this meeting. MR. YOV ANOVICH: That's fine. As long as it's done today. I don't want to lose our board date because we have to do anothcr consent agenda. Which is finc, Mr. Strain, I'm just saying wc'rc okay with that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, the priority is to make sure it's clear so we don't havc a neighborhood that is inundated by something it didn't expect in the future. So let's gct that resolved today. We'll continue this item to the last item on today's agenda. Docs anybody on this board have any problem with that? (No rcsponse.) CHAlRMAN STRAIN: Okay, we'll just -- COMMISSIONER CARON: And I have one other thing beforc wc go. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Go ahcad. COMMISSIONER CARON: On Page 4 of 7, undcr the prcscrve tract development standards, it says no development standards arc required since no structures are anticipated. It should be no structurcs arc allowed. Because it says carlier in hcre that you cannot put structures in the prcscrvc. So whilc Mr. Y ovanovich may likc ultimatc flexibility, it's really not allowed in here. And so -- MR. YOV ANOVICH: I bclievc -- I thought I said I like -- COMMISSIONER CARON: So we can anticipate whatever wc want, but it's not allowed. That's all I'vc got. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, this one will come back and wc'll add it to 10.A, old busincss. Actually, IO.A.D. So wc'll handlc it at that point towards the end of the mceting. With that, we'll cnd our consent agenda items and wc'll movc into our advcrtised public hearings. Item #9A PETITION: PUDZ-2007-AR-12097, THE COVENANT PRESBYTERIAN CHURCH OF NAPLES. INC. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: First petition up today is PUDZ-2007-AR-] 2097, the Covenant Presbytcrian Church in Naplcs at 6926 Trail Boulevard. All those wishing to testifY on bchalf of this petition, please rise to be sworn in by the court reporter. (Speakers were duly sworn.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I'd likc to remind those wishing to speak to pleasc fill out a spcakcr slip and provide it to Ray ovcr herc on my left, your right. Disclosurcs on the part of Planning Commission? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I do, Mark. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Schiffer? COMMISSIONER CARON: Yes, I went to thc Pine Ridgc Civic Association December 7th mceting -- or December 12th mceting, 2007. Sometime in December. The Fcbruary 13th, which I believe was the second NIM, I was at that mceting. I'vc talkcd to various neighbors, but essentially Al Jones, Sally Parker and Georgia Hill. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, any others? Mr. Vigliotti, then Mr. Murray, then Mr. Wolflcy. Page 17 16JJm1.Jl~2do9 COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: I had spoke to Mr. Y ovanovich, I had spoke to Tony Pires in his officc. I spoke to one member from the association, I don't rcmcmber his namc. And my son is employcd there as an outside contractor on a part -time basis doing thc audio work. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Murray? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Ycs, I had conversation with Mr. Pires and two of the civic association members, and a vcry brief conversation in general terms with Mr. Y ovanovich. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Wolfley? COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: I too spoke with Mr. Yovanovich. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Ms. Caron, then Ms. Homiak. COMMISSIONER CARON: Yes, I've spokcn to Mr. Yovanovich, I've spokcn to Mr. Pires, and to members ofthc civic association. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ms. Homiak? COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: I had a conversation with Mr. Y ovanovich. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Paul, don't you want to say anything? COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: No. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. I've had convcrsations with Mr. Yovanovich, I've also had conversation with Mr. Pires. And with Mr. Pires, I also at thc time mct with George Buonocorc and Sally Barker. Those were numerous instances and numcrous mcetings, as well as thc ones with Mr. Y ovanovich. Also, I've talked to represcntatives ofthc Covcnant Presbyterian Church, Ms. Heathcr Moll, Kip Scofield, and our infamous Cherie'. So with that, we will movc into the public hearing. MR. YOV ANOVICH: Good morning. For the record, Rich Y ovanovich, on behalf of the pctitioncr and two property owners, Covcnant Presbyterian Church and Florida Community Bank. With me today are John Hunter and Bill Potter, they're reprcsentatives of Covenant Presbyterian Church; Wayne Arnold and Mike Delate from Grady Minor Associates. the professional planner and profcssional enginecr reprcsenting thc project; Rob Price with TR Transportation, who did the traffIc analysis. Andy Solis (phonetic) and Susan Hansen are herc on bchalf of Florida Community Bank. I'll be making the bulk of the prcscntation, and any qucstions that I can't answcr, anybody on the -- that Ijust listed can jump in and help me answer any of the questions. I do -- Mr. Strain had mcntioned that we did provide to the county and ultimately to each of the Planning Commissioners a strikc-through and underline version of the PUD. The strike-through and undcrlinc version is to the Octobcr 14th document you have in your packct. So we tried to make sure we were all working from the samc documcnt in discussing changcs that wc'vc becn working with the association, as well as members ofthc community since one of the few continuances that have occurred. I have extra copies if any of the Planning Commissioners don't havc a copy ofthc strike-through and underline. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Schiffcr? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Just for clarity, is that the thing that was e-maiIed -- MR. YOV ANOVICH: By mc -- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: -- couple days ago? MR. YOV ANOVICH: -- yes. COMMISSIONER CARON: I don't have a hard copy of that. MR. YOV ANOVICH: Does anybody else need a hard copy? Three of them, four? The cxtras can be for anybody in the community who needs it. It's nice to finally be here to discuss the projcct. Therc werc some continuances through the way, and frankly I think that worked to cvcrybody's bcncfit to have those continuances, because it gavc us more Page 18 16 l~~ A600p time to meet with the association, as wcll as members of the community, to explain and further clarity what we're requesting. On the visualizcr is an aerial ofthe existing propcrty. The propcrty is approximately 16 acres. It is located on the east side of U.S. 41 between Pine Ridge Road and Vanderbilt Beach Road. It's on the outskirts of the Pine Ridge community. Thc Pine Ridge community surrounds it. There are two tracts, and I'll explain those in more detail when we gct to the master plan. There are two tracts. Onc is a 14-acrc tract owned by Covenant Prcsbyterian Church and onc's an approximately two-acre tract owncd by Florida Community Bank at this point. I'm going to put thc master plan up next. And one notable change. You'll see in this master plan compared to what's in your packet is in thc centcr portion of thc devclopmcnt. Your packet has three buildings locatcd in this area. We've reduced that to two buildings. And that will corrcspond to some changes that we made to the square footagc and thc conditional usc portion of the PUD. Wc can go page by pagc. I'm going to give you a general overview and then wc can go through page by page on the PUD and I'll explain thc changcs. And hopefully, although thcy appcar numcrous, you'll see that they're really clarifications and reductions from what you have in front of you and -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Before you go too far, during thc proccss of walking through the PUD -- is Mr. Pires herc? Y ou'rc so short. I sometimcs don't see you, Tony. The rcason I asked is, Richard, whcn wc gct to thc point we're walking through thc PUD, it's my undcrstanding that most if not all thcsc changcs arc thc rcsult of interactions with Mr. Pircs and somc mcmbers of the neighborhood. MR. YOV ANOVICH: Corrcct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And so [certainly wanted to make sure he was here so we can get his commcnts whcn hc comes up and discusses this. Thank you, Tony. MR. PIRES: I'm the samc height as Rich, a littlc bit tallcr. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Go ahead. MR. YOV ANOVICH: Good thing we're both securc in our physical stature. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I think thc term is vertically challenged. MR. YOV ANOVICH: Oh, you know, it depcnds, it dcpends. It's casier to gct clothcs in our height. Thc rcquest for the total project is for 100,000 squarc fcet of church and church-related uses. And that's for both parccls cumulatively. The rcqucst is for 1,200 seats, again, for both parcels. And for a maximum of 220 preschool, kindergarten through third grade child day care and adult day carc uses. Again, cumulatively for the PUD. And I'll go through that. That's further broken down. Thcrc was some confusion. Does that mcan we can havc 220 of each of those categories? And no, that's a total. So if we brcak down, we havc 350 prc-K students, we would have 170 left for those other categorics. So if there's any confusion thcrc it's thc total of220 therc. Again, there's two tracts as idcntified on the PUD mastcr plan. Tract A is the Covcnant Presbyterian tract and Tract B is the Florida Community Bank tract. Wc havc broken down those numbers into allocations to each tract. Tract A, the larger tract, would get 80,000 squarc teet of church and church-related accessory uses. We would get 1,000 seats, and we would get 160 ofthc individuals [mentioned regarding preschool, K and day care students. Tract B would get 20,000 squarc fcct, 200 seats and 500 individuals. Now, we have further agreed to phase those numbers in. And the phasing really applies to Tract A. Docsn't really apply to Tract B. So on Tract A we would be allowed a maximum of780 scats right now and a maximum of 60 Page 19 1 kn!!~ 1 /!.2~9 ; individuals in those categories right now. Tract B would havc their 50 individuals and their 200 seats. To go bcyond the numbers that Ijust said, thc 780 and 60, wc would do an additional traffic study to determine two things: One, would wc necd to extend a turn lane on U.S. 41 to accommodate the additional uses. And through thc various mectings we've had with Tony and his clients -- we're Tony and Rich today, right, Tony? MR. PIRES: Today. MR. YOV ANOVICH: Okay. n wc had with them is wc had committed at the neighborhood information meeting, the second one, the one that I attcnded, first one I attended, that wc would do an additional study to measure thc impacts of this project internally to Pinc Ridgc. We had made somc assumptions in our tratlic study that] 0 percent of the trips would be coming through Pine Ridgc to get to the church. The community was not comfortable with that assumption, so we said we would do another study when we got bcyond thc 780 on our sitc and the 200 seats on Tract B and the 60 students on our site and 50 students on Tract B to measurc the internal impacts. Ifthcrc were grcater numbcrs than our traffic study anticipated, wc would have to addrcss appropriate traffic measures to address that impact. So that's whcre that phasing in, if you will, of the permittcd numbers camc about. Now, Mr. Pires and his client havc raised an issuc in thcir lettcr that thcy would likc us to start doing those internal traffic counts immediatcly, and thcy would likc us to do thosc traffic counts at Goodlettc-Frank Road and Centcr Strcct, and Goodlcttc-Frank Road and Carica. Wc again would prefcr -- wc think that the appropriatc time to do it is whcn we get to thc thresholds we had agrced to. And wc think the appropriate location n and I should go back to the acrial real quickly. We think the appropriate location lor thc study would bc at this interscction, which is Myrtle and Wcst, and this intersection, which is Wcst and Ridgc. And our -- you know, it's our belief that if people are coming in off of Carica and Center on Goodlette-Frank Road, wc don't really know where they're going. We don't know if they're necessarily corning to the activities on this church parcel. We do believc that if we measure thc trai1ic impacts or increases at these two intersections, we do know who's coming and using thc church or the school. So we think that that's thc bettcr location to do thc additional traffic count studics. We committed to doing those additional traffic count studies and we think that's thc bcttcr location. It gives a more accurate mcasure ofthc impact of the church and/or school day care and thc likc. So that is -- in Mr. Pircs' lettcr that you reccived, therc's very few things that wc continue to not see eye-to-eye on. That's one of them. And I'll highlight as I go through thc othcr two that we don't agree with. Mr. Strain" CHAIRMAN STRAIN : Yeah, if -- for thosc of us who are not familiar with thc mazc of roads within Pine Ridge, they tend to gct confusing, which is why I never take them. So I'm surc thc neighborhood likcs that. Could you show us from Goodlette Road to here the road system on some kind of a little bit broader map so wc can scc what you're trying to talk about as far as how the two entrances on Goodlette would impact this, versus the two intersections you're talking about? MR. YOV ANOVICH: I don't have handy an aerial that's all of Pine Ridge. Does someone else havc an acrial I can put on the -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN : Tony usually has details of everything. So hc's coming up with something Page 20 1 6 Ilk., A" I d.. ~ahuary 'tis, 2009 now. MR. YOV ANOVICH: Let me -- I'm going to have to, because this is so big. Let me work you from Carica, which is on the northcrn portion of Pine Ridgc. Then I'll go down to Ccnter, which is theoretically in the center, but I think a little south. Hcre's thc Carica, Carica Road, Goodlettc-Frank Road intersection. And obviously in the ycllow is the church. If you're coming off of Goodlette-Frank Road, you would take Carica around and continuc to West, takc a right on West, follow West around, and then you would gct to the Wcst/Myrtle intersection -- I'm sorry, thc WestlRidge intersection to get to the property. This is Ridge. Now, I guess theoretically somcone could come in Carica and eithcr takc Sand Pine to Trail Boulevard or Banyan to Trail Boulcvard and avoid that intersection. That's not the most direct route if you're going to bc coming in off of Goodlcttc-Frank Road but, you know, we would -- we don't think that that's going to be an issuc from the counts. Now, if you're coming in offofCentcr, you'rc going to comc in offCcntcr and you're cither going to go all thc way through n CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Wait a minute, where is Center? MR. YOV ANOVICH: This is -- I'm sorry, here's Ccnter. You're either -- and I gucss the only time you would rcally use Center is if you'rc alrcady on Pine Ridge Road. The most direct route is to continue on to U.S. 41, take U.S. 41 up, and you gct to Myrtle and you would turn onto the property. So I gucss -- I'm not rcally sure whcn you would use Center Street. I mean, Tony's done his little Google map, and I think on his Google map you come on Center ifyou'rc coming ofT of Orange Blossom. But we think we've accommodated that through our anticipation of 10 pcrccnt of our off-site to come through. But if you're coming through Ccnter, you would either -- you would probably take a right onto Ridge and then follow Ridge all thc way up to this interscction with thc propcrty, which is again Ridge and W cst. I gucss you could continue on to W cst itself, takc a -- this is West right hcre, it says West Strcet. You can't take a right there') Okay, so thcn you would probably take Ridge. You're right, Ccnter's now blockcd. I forgot that you can't cut all the way through. So you would go Ridge, which is a direct route. and we would catch that count at that count station. I just don't know how if you're taking Center you would avoid the count. Because I don't think you'rc going to come in Ccntcr, take a Icft on Ridgc, head further south and then take Trail Boulcvard or U.S. 41 up to the sitc. So we think that where wc're proposing the counts will in fact catch thosc pcople who are coming off of Goodlctte-Frank Road and not using either Vanderbilt Beach Road to U.S. 41 or not using Pinc Ridge Road to U.S. 41 or Trail Boulevard. So that's why we bclicve that thc locations that we're proposing in the PUD document will give an accurate count and take carc of the community's concern as to the location. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well. thank you. I think that a more ofa whole overlook picture like this helps all of us understand it better. I know there will be more questions as wc get into the traffic issue, but that gets us on thc right page. Thank you. MR. YOV ANOVICH: As you could sce -- I live in Pine Ridge, and it's confusing evcn to mc as to some of the strcets to do the cut-through. I forgot that Center Street had been blocked off so -- it's easier-- and I live on Myrtlc actually, so I have a straight shot, so it would make some sense. So again, we talkcd about thc phasing that we were going to do and the traffic study rclatcd to that Page 21 lQn~ 1~~09 phasing to increase thc numbers. We've also -- going back to the mastcr plan, we have also agreed that at -- there was concern about traffic lights -- I'm sorry, car lights after dusk on the neighbors. We agreed that on the Myrtle Road entrance to thc project that at dusk we would close that entrance so you would not have a traffic light issue. On the Ridge entrance, that's the entrance for Florida Community Bank's parcel, so wc couldn't also agree to close that, but we did agree that should Covenant Presbyterian Church ever acquirc Tract B, then the same restriction would apply regarding the c10surc at dusk to address the headlight issue. The buffer that we've agreed to with thc community, I have an exhibit for that. The original proposal was to have a 1 2-foot hedge and trecs that basically coincided with the water managemcnt facilities for Tract A, which would have cssentially had the 12-foot hedge stop here. Wc'vc agreed that the 12-foot hcdgc would run the entire length of Covenant Presbyterian's propcrty, which would be from here on Wcst, and thcn it would continue on Myrtle until we got to the cntrance off of Myrtle. And thcn we would havc in the orange -- or red; it looks orange to me n would be a six-foot hedge. And then along on thc blue we would have a threc-loot hedge. And as your staff report indicatcs, those exceed the Land Development Code requirements as far as the hedge height and materials. And also width. The width of thc buffer is b'Tcatcr than required in the Land Development Codc. Wc have also agreed to plant n the Land Dcvclopment Code requires trees betwccn 10 and 12 fcct at planting. We've agreed planting at ]4 fect. And we'll go through that whcn wc go over thc pagc by page. So we havc -- wc have been very sensitive to thc impact on thc community by providing additional buffcrs for the proposcd projcct. And I think at this timc, and I don't know how you want to do this, Mr. Strain, there are three issues that Mr. Pires -- or Tony raised in his letter that we don't agree with regarding additional n regarding his comments to thc PUD. Thc first onc -- well, this isn't one ofthe threc, but we do bclieve that thc PUD process is the better process, considering this property and thc two owncrship issucs and the lake issues and ccrtainty in thc future for both the currcnt property owner and the community. So we think the PUD process is a good process to addrcss everything that's needed to implement Covenant Prcsbytcrian's plans for their propcrty as well as for Florida Community Bank's proccss. That being aside, gctting into the specific commcnts to the documcnt itself, there are three things that we havc not agreed to. One I already talked about, which is the timing and location of the traffic counts. The second issue that wc have not ab'Tccd to is on Tract B, therc was a requcst that thcre bc no outdoor music. That's acccptable. The requirement to stop indoor music at 9:00 p.m. didn't make scnsc to us, becausc the windows and doors are going to be closcd. Plus wc did agree to hours of worship that they requested, and thc hours of worship would extend till 10:30 p.m. And I don't know, I haven't becn in a church service that didn't include music in it. And if it's acceptable to worship till 10:30, it would makc sensc that it would bc acceptable to have music along with that worship. And plus the fact that it's -- wc have to closc thc doors and windows, I don't see music as an issue. So we cannot agree to stopping music at 9:00 p.m., indoor music at 9:00 p.m. And then the final issue that we don't agrcc to, and if you necd greatcr dctail in thc explanation of this one from our enginecr, Mike Delatc, wc can do that. They'rc requesting that wc do an analysis of all wclls within a radius of 2,000 feet of the lake. And wc don't belicve that that's nccessary, because what we'rc essentially going to do, the existing lake is -- part of it's going to be filled in and we're going to dig another portion of it. But as wc're phasing in the digging, it's not like thcrc's going to be a complete fill-in and then a re-digging of a lake. You're basically going to be filling in a portion of the lake and expanding it Page 22 161a !Jt..J January'1~0~9 to other areas on the property. And Mr. Delate assures me that from a potable water well perspective, it's a non-issue. And I bclievc Mr. Pires requested that we provide copics of any of the pennit applications wc nccd to makc to do that digging to him in advance. I think he wants them 30 days in advance of our submitting that application. I don't think we have an objection to that. We've already agrecd to providc them the water management permits application sets in advancc, so it's not an issue for us to providc copics of those applications in advance. So that highlights the project, the buffers, and then I'll take you page by page through the PUD document. Becausc there were further revisions to the project that will -- that clarified and put ccrtainty as to what will or will not occur on thc property. And if that -- I don't know if you want -- if you want Tony up here at the same timc, or you just want me to go by myself. I don't want to get into a point-counterpoint, but whatever is casicst for thc Commission -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I was going to talk to the County Attorney about that in a minute, but Ms. Caron had a question. So go ahead, Ms. Caron. COMMISSIONER CARON: Ycah,just a couplc of things. I think you first necd to, beforc we get into anything furthcr, discuss the whole situation with the conditional use versus thc PUD. There are somc people that arc vcry conccrncd that this should bc going forward as a conditional use, as all other churches in Collier County, vcrsus a PUD. So I'd likc to have you address that. MR. YOV ANOVICH: Wcll, I would point out to the Planning Commission that not all churchcs have gone through as a conditional usc. Most reccntly I did, with Mr. Arnold. thc Naplcs Church of Christ, and that was a PUD that we most rcccntly did. And I'm sure therc's othcrs, thcy're just not coming to my mind immediately. First Baptist Church is a PUD. And thosc are two that I know right away. But most recently, thc Naplcs Church of Christ was probably in the last two or threc months, maybe a little longer bccause of the holiday season. So PUD's havc bccn utilizcd for churchcs. And from our pcrspective -- the problem with going through thc conditional use process right now is a conditional usc is only good for I bclievc a year or two. Threc ycars now? Okay, three years. For Covenant, you can see there are two buildings on their property right now. Thcir fundraising efforts have raised enough moncy for the first building. And thc second building is -- they'rc also trying to raise money for that. Through the conditional use process, if wc don't finish both buildings within that three-year pcriod, we lose the approval and havc to go back to square onc. With the PUD proccss, we havc -- you havc a sunsctting proccss that's involved for a PUD, and that would give the church an appropriate amount of time to raise money to do the sccond building. And what we did, and you'll scc as we go through thc strike-through and underlinc, thc conccrn -- they said, well. how long is this going to takc? Wcll. right now the church is planning on the first two buildings, and that's their fundraising cfforts. And that's why the conditional use for the next 20,000 square feet has bcen eliminated from the PUD and it will require a PUD amendment. And that's why that third building has been taken off of the master plan. Bccause we've said to them, this is really what we want in the forcsecablc future and that's why wc nccd the PUD, because no guarantees we're going to be donc in that threc-year period. And then if you go through the conditional usc process, there's a whole host of probable variances that you would necd to do to thc currcnt codc to implement thc conditional use. So now you've got multiple documents you'vc got to look at instcad oflooking at one PUD document to know what the rules of thc game are for the project. Page 23 1611r A/.. ~ nnuary ~, 2009 And it's a better way to coordinate the efforts bctween Tract B and Tract A than to havc two separate conditional uses. So thc PUD process has been used on other churches, and we believe through the changes that we've made to the document provide the assurances to the community of what we want and havc not gone to -- gone too far out into the futurc for, you know, who knows what it will be. And provides those interim steps of if wc want to go beyond the 80,000 squarc fcet on Covenant Presbyterian Church, it's a full-blown public proccss hearing meeting all thc rczonc critcria. And frankly, thcrc are more critcria you havc to mcet under a PUD rezone than you have to meet under a conditional usc. So I think the rcview process is more strenuous on a PUD rezonc that it is through the conditional use, because under the conditional use thcre's thc assumption that it's an allowcd usc in that zoning district under certain criteria. So their focus is a lot more narrow on a conditional use than it is through the PUD process. And we've provided through the PUD I think the samc Icvcl of certainty that you would get for a conditional use, at least certainly to Tract A. COMMISSIONER CARON: Thank you. I just thought it was very important for you to explain that to the community and havc it bc on thc rccord. MR. YOV ANOVICH: Okay, thank you. COMMISSIONER CARON: Sccondly, I think it would be important to havc your engineer up hcrc. I know that thc community is vcry conccrncd about the water j ssucs. So perhaps to have him givc some sort of explanation would be a hclpful-- MR. YOV ANOVICH: Do you want to do that now? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: What I'd like to do, Donna, is I'd like to first of all ask procedurally for the County Attorncy -- if I could ask Tony Pires to be at that podium. And as Richard goes through the changes to the PUD, at least get an acknowlcdgmcnt from Tony Pires as a represcntativc of thc -- of some of thc people herc, that this is something coinciding with what they had w,mtcd. Is that a discourse we can have here with any -- MR. KLATZKOW: That's likc the old Point-Counterpoint. I think that would bc a vcry good way to do this. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. And if. Mr. Pires, you don't mind coming up, I would likc you to acknowledgc who and what you reprcscnt. Could you use this other table so you and Richard aren't slugging it out at one other one. MR. PIRES: That would be a draw if we slug it out. MR. YOV ANOVICH: Although he is my height, he is significantly older than I am. I don't that it would be nccessary. But hc is wiry. MR. PIRES: And with agc sometimcs comes wisdom. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, therc is two mics there. so maybc if you both use thc mics, that works. I know there are water managemcnt issues. As we get to them in this document, if Ms. Caron doesn't mind, we'll bring them up in order. I want to gct thc document workcd out, at least to some acknowledgment between the two of you. And Tony, for the record, can you tcll us who you rcpresent here today? You'll need -- thcre's a hand mic. there if one of you wants to use that. It's up to you. MR. PIRES: Can you hear me with this one or the hand rnic? Thank you, Mr. Strain and members of the Planning Commission. And recognizing the sort of a littlc bit different procedure that we might bc utilizing, I'd still like to make somc introductory comment, if that's acceptable to the Chairman and the Commission -- Page 24 16JIj lA60~ CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Certainly-- MR. PIRES: -- to get some items on the record. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Richard did, you should too. Go ahead. MR. PIRES: Thank you vcry kindly. My namc is Tony Pircs, the law firm of Woodward, Pires and Lombardo. And I represent the Pine Ridge Civic Association. And today you will hear from myself on behalf of the association, as well as some officers and board mcmbers of the association and a large members of the Pine Ridge community. And I think by the show of hands of those who were sworn, you'll see there's an cxtensive presence reprcsentation by the Pine Ridge folks today. I don't know if they all want to stand so the Planning Commission can sec how many folks from Pine Ridge are here interested in this issue. CHAlRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. MR. PIRES: Again, [think it's important, because this itcm has bcen continued for a number of times and they've persevered. I appreciate the Commission, the staff, Richard's client and Richard's efforts as wcll as the persistence and perscverance of the Pinc Ridgc community. In looking, as we all know, in the Comprehensive Plan, the Future Land Use Element requires that all new dcvelopment must bc compatiblc with and complcmcntary to cxisting surrounding land use or surrounding land uses. And I think also a statcmcnt was madc wc nccd to protect thc rights of the neighbors from uncxpected activities. I think that's also an important considcration. cspccially dealing with churchcs, whcre churches nowadays havc expandcd thcir role bcyond what was traditionally thought to be the role of a church. In our discussions with staff and with Rich and his client -- if I can call you Rich and sometimcs Mr. Yovanovich? MR. YOV ANOVICH: Whatevcr. MR. PIRES: Okay, thank you. The issue, for example, of the Goodlette farmers' market at North Naples, the United Methodist Church, has come up because that's bccome sort of n it looks likc a commercial cntcrprise in a church property. And they agreed to spccific prohibitions against those type of activitics in the PUD. As we go through it you'll sec that. But that's one of the issues of concern to the Pine Ridge community is the Icvel of certainty as to what will be on that site. They know what's there today. They know what has been there historically. There has been church uses, small day carc. And thc day care, pre-K, adult day care utilization is proposed to bc substantially, significantly 6'Teater than what is thcrc today. So wc have a lot ofthc concerns flow from what will be thc end result of those intcnsification of uses. And we heard about models. You will hear about models, traffic models, hydrogeologic rnodels. Wall Street's heard about models because the models thcy used to forecast all thesc financial returns have crashed or met reality. And reality is harsher than what the models forccast. So that gets back into -- lead into some of my discussion, dcsires for various traffic studies to show what really is happening on thc ground. I think it's important, and this application also statcd, and again, getting back to the reason for this application, in that thc Page 7, paragraph scven to Page 2 of 2 of the application, it says the primary purpose of the rezoning is to memorialize existing land use which was based on and consistcnt with the intent of the subdivision plat and associatcd governing documcnt. Page 25 16'4ry As60~9 So what's there today? Also, another purpose is to provide for the orderly, continued and future usc of the I3 lots in this particular area. And again, gcts back into the significant intensification of use by doubling the square footage, almost, and increasing the size of the day carc, pre-care from what it currently is. And then what can be achieved or what can bc done to make sure that this project as proposed is compatible with and complemcntary to. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Tony, before you go too far, normally on these hearings the applicant makes his statement, thcn we walk through thc PUD, wc get thc staff and then we go into tcstimony. You would have come in in the testimony phasc. What I wantcd to do now was to cooperatively move forward with both you and thc applicant to see if the changcs in thc PUD as a bcginning point were in conformance with what thc pcople you represent were thinking. at least on that part of it. so that we can get past the documcnt. Thcn we would havc our qucstions on thc document. Thcn your rcbuttal to their either overall project or the remaining issues you have opposition to would comc at thc cnd of their full presentation, which actually I asked you to participate in by doing a count -- point-countcrpoint argumcnt in regards to the PUD. I understand you're trying to explain things now, but I've got to ask that you limit it to the framework in which wc're about to approach, and that is a discussion to the changes to the PUD. And I understand your gencral objcctions to gcncral things, but if you don't mind trying to narrow it to that. Becausc at 10:00, by the way, we will takc a brcak. Wc'll probably takc a brcak now bcfore we get into the PUD. So the next few minutes if you could wrap up, wc'll take a brcak, come back, and then I'd like to get right into the PUD. Go ahead, Mr. WoIf1cy. COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Oncc again, my monitor is not working. Could we clue the A V people to -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: For those IT people watching us, Mr. Wolflcy broke his monitor again. Could someone come in and hclp him fix it? COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Why is cverybody always picking on me? MR. PIRES: Mr. Strain, I apprcciatc that. And I apologize, what I was trying to do is n so the Planning Commission can understand the basis for some of the comments that I made on behalf of the Pinc Ridge Civic Association and some of the conccrns as wc go through the point sort of counterpoint, so it's not just in a vacuum. So there's a basis or predicatc for those concerns. CHAlRMAN STRAIN: That's finc. MR. PIRES: I appreciate that. And once again, the issue about complementary to, it's not defined in thc Land Development Code, it's not defined in thc Comprehensive Plan. There's one case in thc Statc of Florida that talks about when a dcvclopmcnt is dcvclopmcnt is complementary to. And thcy wcnt to Webstcr's Third New International Dictionary, it dcfines complementary as of relating to or suggestive of complementing, completing or perfecting. Complemcnt is defined as something that fills up or completes, that fills out and makes perfcct. And what we have, we havc -- as Rich mentioned before, we have a surrounding residential long-cstablishcd, low intcnsity, single-family residential community around this use and that could be greatly impacted by the proposed intensification of uses. And that's why we are -- if the Planning Commission is inclined to make any recommendation of approval, wc believc there needs to bc sufficient and adequate safeguards for thc rcsidents within Pine Ridge and thc property owners with Pine Ridgc. Page 26 16 pararyNo2op9 And with that, we'll do the point -counterpoint. If I can just reserve some opportunity perhaps at a latcr point to get into some other issues. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Pires, I thought that after we normally get donc with our standard procedure, which wc'll revert back to whcn we finish this point-counterpoint, then you're a registered speaker, I would assumc, and you'd come up and make your normal presentation at that time. And J.D., as a member of staff, sincc there is an issue about the changes and the impacts that may entail, and staff may or may not have rcvicwcd those for those, as we get through each one, if you don't mind, we're gctting to another speakcr and Ict us ask you if that is something that staff needs to reevaluate the PUD for so that we know then whether or not we can either accept it today or it should be continued on the basis of that particular point. And thcn how many of those when they add up will basically dctermine how this meeting ends today. MR. YOV ANOVICH: Wc all three can fit at the same, if it will make it easier. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: He's taller than the other two, so I didn't want to show a disadvantage to that -- MR. YOV ANOVICH: I was not going to cvcn try to argue. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Wcll, however. Ijust want to make surc that wc gct thc input as we move forward, so we're not rc-doing it four or five times today. It's going to take long enough to get through this a~ it is. So wc nced to spend the time on it. MR. YOV ANOVICH: Mr. Strain, before you take thc break, can I just make two quick commcnts and then we'll get into the PUD? One, I wantcd to -- since Tony's audience is here, I wanted to make sure that I introducc thc Minister, Bob Pettcrson, and the members of the church that have also come out here to show their support for their petition. And ifthcy could just quickly stand up and let you know that it's important to them and they've come. Now, I have not asked any of them to sign up and spcak. I can, if you feel like that's necessary. But I think that Mr. Hunter and mysclf and the rest of the tcam can adequately do that. But I just wanted the audicnce to be acknowledged, because they are here and this is very important to thcm, and I wanted their voice to be heard. just through that proccss. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Counter, point-counterpoint again. MR. YOV ANOVICH: And then on the second point about the complementary, and then I'll -- wc'll gct into it as Mr. Pires brought up. The decd restrictions for thc Pine Ridge community havc always identified these properties as church rclated propcrties. And that gocs back to the Sixties. So -- well, not always. Therc was an amendment in thc Sixties to -- there was an amendment to add these properties as church parccls. And -- good point. So as far as I know, most of the people in this room bought pursuant to the amended deed rcstrictions that idcntificd these properties as church properties. So I would say frorn a -- from was it intended that churches bc on this propcrty, I would say the answcr to that is yes. Then the question bccomcs you get into the focus of is what we're proposing appropriate. But as far as completing the plan, I would say having churchcs on this property does in fact complete the plan. And then I think we should gct into the spccifics of what wc're proposing, is it appropriate on thc property. With that we can get into the dctails, as you said after our break. That's all I wanted to say briefly. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: With that, we will take a break. We'll come back at 10:05 and we'll resume by going into thc changcs to thc PUD. (Rccess.) Page 27 1 golD" 1 ~ioo9 'I CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Everybody, if you'll plcase be seated. For the bencfit of the audience, we're going to walk through the changes or recommended changcs to the PUD. They may not be something evcryonc in this audicnce wants. We're just going to make an attempt to get through the document first. Everybody will still have time to speak and say what they want to say about the conditions and discussions that we have hcrc. I'vc got to ask, though, that if as thc discussions go forward, plcase don't interrupt the speakers. Everybody will get timc to speak on their 0".11. And we just need to hear this out and get done with it, then wc'll start with the next process. So with that, I gucss we'll be starting with Page 2 of22 on the new edition. And Mr. Pircs, it's the one datcd January 9th, 2009. I want to makc surc you have the same copy. Thc Planning Commission, County Attorney, staff and Richard, evcrybody have the same copy? (No response.) CHAlRMAN STRAIN: Okay. MR. YOV ANOVICH: I hope I have the right onc, since I provided it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, but thcrc's bccn -- you never know anymore. MR. YOV ANOVICH: I undcrstand. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Richard, I think what I'd like to do is focus on the cross-outs, the undcrlincs, and each onc, for cxample, A.l , it says the word housc was crosscd out and rcplaced by the word a house, and thc "s" aftcr houses was crossed out. [ want to gct concurrcncc on that and go forward. And then we'll just do cach one like that. And if you want to walk us through, since it's your document, then -- MR. YOV ANOVICH: I'll do that. And again, we'll start with the very first one as you pointed out. And the reason for that was is thcy wanted to make sure there was going to bc one worship center on the propcrty, on Tract A. And they also requested thc same change to Tract B, which we have no objection to making that change to Tract B, to have just one house of worship on each tract. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Bcfore you go forward. I know this is a small little point, one letter taken off, but I want to makc sure that we don't get caught up into somcthing we didn't expcct. Does staff see any concerns from their rcview in regards to that one Jetter takcn off and that change being made? MR. MOSS: Believe it or not, yes. That's just not somcthing that wc typically do. If they want to restrict the permittcd uscs to one house of worship, then that's a stipulation that should be included in Exhibit H which, by the way, wasn't attached to this document. It was in your original staffrcport that I prcpared for you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No, that's your conditions, is it not, Exhibit -- MR. MOSS: I'm sorry? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Isn't Exhibit H your conditions? MR. MOSS: That's my conditions of approval. And if they do want to restrict it to just one housc of worship, that's where it should be includcd. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, if it's a condition of your approval, wouldn't it bc bctter to be included in the PUD itself? MR. MOSS: Wcll, if they want to put it, make a developer commitment, they can do that also. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Why couldn't wc undcr principal use just say, if it works, one house of worship? Then you're covered. And ifthcy agrec to it we'rc done with it and you don't need a condition. MR. MOSS: It's not something we normally do. But if Ray says it's not problematic, then of coursc I don't have a problem with it cithcr. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I'd rather kecp it simple as we possibly can. Page 28 ~a~u!~ 5,4c6J Would there be any objections from either the attorneys? Mr. Pires, do you have any if it were to say one house of worship? Does that -- do you havc a problcm with that? MR. PIRES: Don't have an objection. We just have, once again, a preface to this. On behalf of the civic association, we still -- you know, our core objection to proceeding in the PUD format and -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: We understand-- MR. PIRES: -- request a dcnial. But if you are going to recommend anything other than denial, there are various issues that we need to havc addressed. I think it's clcarer to have one housc of worship in the document itself as opposcd to on a separatc exhibit. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. And I think we acknowledge, so you haven't got to repeat it cvcry time, you have a standing objection to the process. MR. PIRES: And to any rccommendation of approval, yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. MR. PIRES: Thank you. CHAJRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Yovanovich, do you? Do you have any problem with the verbiage being changed to one house of worship? MR. YOV ANOVICH: No. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. MR. MOSS: And just for thc sake ofconsistcncy, in A whcrc it says principal uses, I would rccommcnd that we delcte thc "s" offofuses and just havc principal use. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Any objcction from the other two? MR. PIRES: No, sir. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Richard? MR. YOV ANOVICH: I'm okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I'm sorry, this is going to be painful today, but I don't know any othcr way to get through this documcnt rather than makc sure you all are in agrcement -- MR. YOV ANOVICH: I was a littlc shocked that that first one was n I didn't expcct that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: If that onc wasn't simplc, the othcrs-- MR. YOV ANOVICH: Andy, I may not have told you the truth. The next change is to B, number four. And the purpose ofthat changc was to make sure that it -- only students and individuals could come basically from Tract B to Tract A and not from Tract A to Tract 8. They wanted to make sure that if thcre is a school or a day care, that thc maximum school and day care on Tract B would be 50. And it could be more on Tract A. And the way that was worded with reallocated, wc could have shifted some of the individuals from Tract A to Tract B. CHAlRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Pires, are you in agrecmcnt? MR. PIRES: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And staff? Nodding hcads. She can't write that down. MR. MOSS: Yes. For the record, John-David Moss. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. MR. YOV ANOVICH: Thc next one, and this has come up in other hearings, is we have deleted all of the conditional uses from the document. That was something that in other petitions that you'vc seen, you prefcrred that there be an aIllendment to the PUD if you're going to change anything in thc PUD document. So that's what that does. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, 8.5 has some changes. Page 29 16J,irrA62009 MR. YOV ANOVICH: Oh, that was the -- I'm sorry, that was the one that Mr. Pires talked about in his introductory comments. We clarified thc accessory uses and the one concern that -- with the North Naples United Mcthodist Church. That's intended to make sure we don't do a farmer's market or something similar to that and call it a church outreach program, thus an accessory usc. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Pires? MR. PIRES: Yes, with thc one objcction or cavcat that I've also rcquested in our letter, and I don't think it's been addressed, is that the petitioner should dctail the proposed accessory uses and structures customarily associated with thc permittcd principal uses to provide the Pine Ridge community a level of comfort as to certainty of uses to fully comprchcnd and gauge the PUD's impact. Right now I know it's been utilizcd in a lot of other areas, the phrase customarily associated. But again, trying to protect the community against unanticipated conscqucnccs or unanticipated futurc quotc, unquote customarily associated uses. Again, the farmer's markct. Some pcople may say it is a customarily associated use for the church. There arc threc churches in Collier County now doing that. And so I think -- I'd like to have a list from them exactly what they want as accessory uses so we can gauge thc impact. CHA1RMAN STRAIN: Do you know what uscs you don't want to scc? Just out of -- is there a-- MR. PIRES: We've gone lhrough that bascd upon -- I don't want to gct into all thc past history of this document whcn it was in the -- with thc whole issue about the possible fitness center and the parking garagc. We've cleared a lot of that issue up. I don't want to go through all that. But the concern is what is customarily associated, you know, what happcns five years from now that was not anticipated as being a church, customarily associated church. Rich mentioned from thc decd rcstriction perspective, it's a church parcel. It says church parcel and atliliatcd uses. And the neighborhood anticipates it bcing a church and thcy understand they have community gathcring functions, social fimctions of a small scalc for various community organizations to meet. But again, if] hadn't scen or ifwc hadn't secn the issue about the farmer's market and all the full wcbsite for that and the vendor application forms for that, that would have been something that they could arguably have said a year from now is customarily associated with the church, and we wouldn't have thought about prohibiting it. So I'd likc to put the onus on thcm. thcy're asking for the rezoning, to say what they really want to do there and limit it solely to that. MR. YOV ANOVICH: Well, and right now, lct's not forgct, thcre's a church allowed on this property. Actually thcre's three churchcs that have historically been there. So you're going to havc that issue regardlcss, whether this PUD gets approvcd or not, what is a customary accessory use for a church. We've tried to dcfinc it. My concern is if we put an exhaustive list in there and we miss something, then all of a sudden I've got to comc through and I'vc got to amend the PUD. For instancc, let's give an examplc. And I don't mean to -- wc allow associations, community associations to use our facilities for community mcctings frce of chargc. Someonc could argue that that's -- if I didn't put that use there and something similar comes along, you can't do that. Boy Scouts meet there, Girl Scouts meet at churches. I just think that the church, as propcrly operatcd, they're not going to do anything different. The one issue that camc up, which was the farmer's market, we quickly said hcy, we'll put that in there, that's not what we're doing for outrcach. I just don't know how to write the list to where it's so encompassing and know I didn't miss something that somcone would say, you know, clcarly that's a customary church use. Page 30 And it's a church already. I mean, we have that issue regardless. MR. PIRES: I think the difficulty from the Pine Ridge perspective is you have existing square footage for approximately 58,000 squarc fcct. You have an existing day care opcration maybc 10 or 15 -- I'rnjust guessing, wc don't know the cxact numbcr, operation. Thcy are asking for substantial intensification of the uses beyond which has historically been there. And so when that happens, the potcntial for intensification of accessory uses not yet known is a matter of concern to the Pine Ridge community, my client. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, and the way we'rc going to move forward is to take your input on both, get staffs input.l'll ask the panel injust a minutc ifthcy have any questions. We'll movc forward, becausc we've still got public speakcrs we want to hcar about. In the end these issues can come back and be revisited if we feel necessary, and rccommend changes at that point. First of all -- go ahcad, Mr. Y ovanovich? MR. YOV ANOVICH: I had -- and I guess I had talkcd to Commissioner Caron on this section too, so if! can -- she had suggested somc revisions to the document, and I'm hesitant to do that right now, only bccause we were talking about what has bcen discussed with Tony and his clients. Is this thc appropriate time for me to n CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Absolutely. Richard, if we don't get everything on the table today, you guys -- this will nevcr gct rcsolvcd, and thc public's going to come back here for meeting after meeting after meeting. So let's just finish it. MR. YOV ANOVICH: Okay, I just didn't want to confuse the process. Under principal usc, one house of worship, we discusscd putting in parcnthcses at the end of that, sec Exhibit F, Tract A, commitment numbcr six. And that's thc commitmcnt that says wc only get 780 right now. Because therc was that confusion. So thcre was -- just wantcd to have that tie to a later commitment in the document so therc would be no ambiguity about the 1,000 and 780. So wc would suggcst putting that in. I hand wrote it, but you can't read my handwriting if I put it up 16Jjln'flry 15,2009 1fJ. A6 ! there. The next thing under acccssory uses -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Before you go too far, let's gct thc cxact language down, make sure there's no objections and movc on. What's the exact language you're proposing? MR. YOV ANOVICH: It would say see Exhibit F, Tract A, commitment number six. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Tony, any problcms with that? MR. PIRES: No, sir. Mr. Strain, if I may for thc rccord, before I forget, I provided a letter bye-mail and I think by U.S. Mail to all the planning commissioners outlining thc objections. I just provide one for the record and provide it to the court reporter to make it part of thc rccord. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's finc. MR. YOV ANOVICH: And maybe this helps a little bit, under accessory uses number two, we put -- it says social/mccting and it says activity center. Perhaps we should change that word to fcllowship center so we don't somehow use the word -- activity centers as we all know -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Before we go to the ncxt change, I thought you wcre going to still be talking about A. I. You gave us the languagc, Tony's acknowledged it. Does staff have any problcms with it? MR. MOSS: No. CHAlRMAN STRAIN: I'm sorry, Rich, I want concurrence on thc record from cvery party, so that whcnever we gct to a conclusion, wc can at least say this is why we've done it the way we did it. MR. YOV ANOVICH: I thought J.D. had, so my mistake. Page 3 1 1 GtJdY lA &09 Numbcr two, undcr Item B, accessory uses, change the word activity center to fellowship center, because that's usually what churches have. And I think that's probably terminology we're all a little bit more comfortable with with the church. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Tony? MR. PIRES: Subjcct to not confcrring with my clicnt, it secms to be rcasonable. It secms to narrow it down. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: J.D.? MR. MOSS: No problem. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. MR. YOV ANOVICH: Now n CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Let's go back to the accessory usc structurc customarily associated with a permitted principal use, thc changcs there. Tony's exprcssed thcir conccrns, you'vc exprcsscd yours. J.D., where does staff stand with that added statement? MR. MOSS: This is with -- I'm sorry? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: 8.5, the added undcrlined scntcnce. MR. MOSS: Oh, everything's fine, cxcept there's a lot of unnecessary capitalization. But substantively ycs, staff has no problcm with it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. And at that point I'll turn to this commission, as I probably should havc with each previous one, although I didn't think they may have raised any questions. But I'll ask you all, is there any comments that you havc on 8.5? Ms. Caron? COMMISSIONER CARON: Y cah, sincc therc's an issue here of trying to figure out what these accessory uses are going to be, I'm not surc, but arcn't you sort of covcred in two, in B.2? I mcan, what you want for the rcst of it with perhaps the addition of, I don't know, bccause you're going to have kindergarten school, I mcan, is this where we have to put the, you know, you're allowed to have a tot lot or whatevcr they call thcm these days in there? But I mcan, basically if it's not being used by the church for a church servicc, it's being used by other groups including probably some church groups, you know, choirs and whatcver, for meetings. It's a meeting hall that you need, it's a fellowship hall, it's a mceting hall is rcally the acccssory that you want other than perhaps a playground for thc kids. I don't know, I'm just trying to help and movc it along. MR. YOV ANOVICH: Can we table that one and Ict me -- COMMISSIONER CARON: Sure. MR. YOV ANOVICH: -- think about that? That may -- I hadn't thought about that as a potential solution, so I -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Well, I mean, makc notes of this and wc'll kcep -- we're going to be on this for awhile, so we can come back to it. The next thing on that page, Richard, is your cross-out of conditional uses. MR. YOV ANOVICH: Right. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Tony, do you have any problems with that? MR. PIRES: No, sir. We apprcciatc thcir considcration of that; they listcned to the community on that onc. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: J.D.? MR. MOSS: No, staff is happy about that too. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody on the Planning Commission? (No response.) Page 32 IJQltJ,ls,At6J .f CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, next page, 3? Temporary uses. Such n in the underlined section, such uses shall not begin until the property owner applies for a building permit lor the first new permanent building. And then there's some addition of time framc in there and a cross-out. Any objections from Tony? MR. PIRES: No, sir. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Richard, you won't havc any because you wrote it. J.D.? MR. PIRES: You nevcr know. Rich has becn known to look at his work in the past. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Second guess his work. MR. PIRES: Yes. MR. MOSS: It looks fine. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Anybody on the Planning Commission? (No rcsponse.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Page 4? This is Tract B. Who said ah? MR. YOV ANOVICH: I did. I wanted it put up here bccausc this is -- Ijust hand wrote the changes we previously discusscd so it would bc, again, onc house of worship. I forgot to cross out the "s". And then change activity to fellowship. And thcn it would be essentially consistent with Tract A. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And the rest of that page are the samc changcs wc just talkcd about on thc prevIous page. B.5 is one that's going to come back for a littlc discussion latcr. Anybody on the Planning Commission havc any problems? (No response.) CHAlRMAN STRAIN: J.D., I'm assuming you wouldn't have any with this either? MR. MOSS: (Shaking head, no.) CHAIRMAN STRAlN: And Tony, you're okay with thc rcst of that page? MR. PIRES: Which page is that, Page 2? CHAlRMAN STRAIN: Pagc 4. MR. PIRES: Pagc 4? We are making that corrcction? MR. YOV ANOVICH: Yeah, we're making the one housc and changc fellowship and bc consistent with what we just did for A. MR. PIRES: That works. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. So cverybody's on the same page on Page 4. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: I havc a question. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Vigliotti? COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Where are we on number five with the different uses for the future? MR. YOV ANOVICH: Wc'll come back -- we need to think about what Commissioner Caron said regarding maybe just relying on item numbcr two. We just necd to givc some thought to that. CHAlRMAN STRAIN: As the day goes on, they'll come back. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Okay, thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Page 5 is Exhibit B. It's table one for Tract A, development standards. First cross-out is the rcdcvelopmcnt program in thc CFPUD is based on a 25-year build-out. That's been struck. Any problems with it, Tony? MR. PIRES: No, sir. Page 33 J~Orf 112~'6 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: J.D.? MR. MOSS: No, sir. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And Richard, I'm not going to ask you if you have any problcms, bccause you'rc the onc that wrote this, so I'm assuming you're okay with your 0\\11 writing. Does thc Planning Commission have any concerns with that? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Get into the table itself, minimum yards. And the change was from right-of-way with additional words, says line abutting the property. Anybody have any concerns? Tony? MR. PIRES: No, that was our suggestion. We appreciate that. Because before it secmcd to be something that wouldn't work. But that works. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. J.D.? MR. MOSS: No, sir. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The side yard for the principal uscs has been changed from the -- it uscd to say the greater of 15 feet or halfthc zoncd building height, now it just says 30 feet. Anybody have any problcms with that from Tony's perspective? MR. PIRES: No, sir. And for clarification, that's between tracts. I bclicvc that's -- the side yard just to tracts only. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Is that staff's understanding? MR. MOSS: Ycs. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. MR. PIRES: Not the pcrimcters, becausc that's takcn carc of elscwhcrc. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Staffs okay with that? MR. MOSS: Yes. It would probably be helpful to have that indented so it's clcar to the person who's going to be reading this down the road. MR. YOV ANOVICH: You'll gct a clean one. MR. MOSS: Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Which indented, the word side? MR. MOSS: The word sidc, yeah. I think that's what makes it confusing. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Thcrc's two othcr changcs. Maximum zoned height, thc 50 is struck to 35. The maximum actual hcight, the 70 is struck to 50. As far as thosc two go n and Mr. Schiffcr, I'll get you injust a minute -- Tony, you have any problems with those? MR. PIRES: No, sir. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The reductions I wouldn't think you would have. J.D.? MR. MOSS: Absolutely. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And J.D., if you see stuff here that requires more time lor staff to review than we're going to afTord today, make sure you tcll us. MR. MOSS: Okay. Well, my one concern is that Susan Istcnes, the director, is going to want to review the final document, which she normally does. And obviously not being hcre today, she's not going to have the opportunity to do that. So I would bc reluctant to bless anything that she hasn't had a chance to revicw hcrself. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ray, can you assist so that -- my concern is, staff can review it no matter what wc do here today, because it's still got to come back in some form or other in another meeting, whether it's a full-blown meeting or whether it's consent. So thcre's going to bc plenty of time to rcview it. But what I'm trying to find out is if there's somcthing that's triggered by thc changcs today, if staff Page 34 16 lJaLa~ 6, it09 feels they absolutely need analysis time on this, not a review time, but analysis to see the impact, that's what I'm looking for. MR. BELLOWS: Correct. We'll let you know. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. And Mr. Schiffer, you had some -- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Ycah, I think on height. And I guess go to your Exhibit G, that's probably the best place to look. I'm really confused as to what the height of this building is going to be. We have a -- I know what zoned height is. I know what actual height is. But we have a new thing we're inventing now that has an cxtcnsion abovc actual height. What is the intcnt there? MR. YOV ANOVICH: Actually, that's not new. it's somcthing we did for thc Naples Church of Christ. It's for the cupola steeplc that's abovc actual. Because we didn't want -- and onc of the issues was, is if we wcnt to an actual hcight for that, the actual height of the building could be 80 fect, as we're requesting. Wc wanted to make it clear that it was just that small portion of the building, the cupola stecplc that could go what wc're asking for, the additional 30 fcet above the 50 fcet actual height. That's so -- and we did thc sanle, similar typc language in Naplcs Church of Christ so that we couldn't have a building itsclfthat could achicvc an 80-foot height. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: We're specific that it was the stecplc and I gucss thc cupola. MR. YOVANOVICH: Yes. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Could you changc one thing in footnote two? You have non-habitable. Habitablc is a rcsidcntial. Could you changc that to occupyablc (sic), which would n MR. YOV ANOVICH: Mr. Schiffer, which onc is that onc? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Number two in thc first line. It says non-habitablc. If you changc that word to occupyable, I'd feel a littlc bit bcttcr. MR. YOV ANOVICH: Okay. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And then thc issue on the mezzanines. Mezzanines aren't counted as storics. So essentially if we do go two stories and we're cxcluding mezzanines, which csscntially would be excluded anyway bccause thcy wouldn't be considercd a story, you could rcally have four levels in somc of this stuff. So here's what I'm trying to picture. Could we -- in that sanctuary, arc we looking at something that could havc multiple mezzanines within that, and you'd start considering them story and mezzanine? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And Mr. Pircs, we're going to gct to the next page where Mr. Schiffer is recommending thesc pages. We'll ask you about those when we get therc. MR. PIRES: Thank you. MR. YOV ANOVICH: Mr. Schiffer,just to make sure I understand the terminology, is basically a mczzanine essentially a balcony? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Correct. MR. YOV ANOVICH: Okay. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Open to thc floor below -- MR. YOV ANOVICH: I understand. And I think that we would be comfortable having just one balcony within the worship ccnter -- worship portion ofthc building. So I think we'rc okay with it. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. And the way you'd get around it is I could start considering it n it doesn't have to be a mczzanine, a balcony. I could start saying it's a story, so I could go above the first rnezzanine and say that's a story and there's a mezzanine above that. MR. YOV ANOVICH: But I still have 35 fcet is my cap on zoncd. We brought the height down to@the same single-family zoncd height in Pine Ridge, so that's -- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: You're kind of trapped in that. Page 35 January 15,2009 MR. YOV ANOVICH: -- we tried to -- 16 '1 A 6 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So the 35 --Ict's go back to Page 5 then. Thirty-five and the 50 fcet work for all parties? Is that where we're still at? Mr. Pires? MR. PIRES: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Y ovanovich -- J.D., 35, 50 feet work? MR. MOSS: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: What about the reference to cxisting and then slash the word expanded added. Everybody comfortable with that? Mr. Pires? MR. PIRES: Ycs. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: J.D.? MR. MOSS: Ycs. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Go ahead, Mr. Schiffcr. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Let me just go back on what Rich said. Just a thought. Rich, do you have any problem on footnote three to add only one mezzaninclbaIcony within thc worship service area? Because we design churchcs with multiple mezzanines, and that's kind of a -- I know that the height's an issue, but thcre's probably a way around that, so -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Question, lhough, Brad. Ifthc hcight restriction is 35 feet. who cares what wc do with -- if thcy put 100 mczzanines on the inside, it docsn't rcally matter. Why are we concerned about that if we've got the cxtcrior, which seems to bc the concern that thc community is going to see, why do we want to penalizc thcm on the interior? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And thc 35 fcet is thc midpoint of the roof, so you're right. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Let's finish up on that pagc. Undcr minimum square footage, the words conditional use if approved and 20,000 square fcct have been struck. Mr. Pires, I'm assuming you would have no problcm with that? MR. PIRES: Page 5? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Page 5, yes, sir. MR. PIRES: No objection, that's corrcct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. And J.D.? MR. MOSS: None. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Now we'll go to Page 6, and that's thc footnotes to Page 5. Brad has mentioncd a changc on number two. There already is a changc on number two. The maximum actual hcight may be exceeded by up to, and it used to be 20, now it's 30 feet. Mr. Pires? MR. PIRES: Twenty feet, please. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: J.D.? MR. MOSS: That's good. MR. YOV ANOVICH: Whoa, whoa, whoa. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No, no, I know what -- you're agrecing to 20 feet. They have 30 in herc. Does the staff have a concern either way? MR. MOSS: No, staff was okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: With either onc? MR. PIRES: And I objcct. MR. MOSS: With cither one. MR. PIRES: And my letter indicates our objcction to that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Page 36 January IS, 2009 MR. PIRES: We'd likc to kcep it at 20 feet. 16 I l'.~ A 6 1 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: We're going to note your objections. We'll ask commcnts now but there may be more commcnts aftcr public speakcrs. Any commcnts from the Planning Commission on that issue? (No responsc.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ray? MR. BELLOWS: In rcgards to numbcr two, thc last undcrlincd sentcnce doesn't seem to make sense. The maximum combined squarc footagc of such building clements shall be 2,000 squarc feet. What are you measuring there? COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: 4,000. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: 4,000 squarc fcct. MR. BELLOWS: 4,000. But how is that to be measured? MR. YOV ANOVICH: That's thc cupola. MR. BELLOWS: Squarc feet, or volume? It's -- is that applied to a cross too, or-- MR. PIRES: I think Exhibit G, thcre's a graphic in the bottom part of Exhibit G. MR. BELLOWS: Maybe my recommendation would be or it is that Exhibit G show all the typical MR. YOV ANOVICH: You want mc to put thc 4,000 square foot there? MR. BELLOWS: Yeah. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Could you repcat what you guys just talkcd about, bccause I didn't pick up the response to your issue, Ray. MR. BELLOWS: Onc ofthc things that would bc hclpful, ifthc elevations showcd cxactly what that 4,000 square feet applied to. MR. YOV ANOVICH: So Ijust hand wrote an arrow on Exhibit G. So we'll put the refercncc to the 4,000 square feet there. And we'll make it including the cross and all that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: When we get to Exhibit G, wc'rc going to rcvisit this and we'll acknowledge it at that time. MR. YOV ANOVICH: That's what I think Ray just said. MR. BELLOWS: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Before we go too far, the word non-habitable bcing changed to occupyable, that was Mr. Schiffer's recommcnded change. Tony, do you have any problems? MR. PIRES: Would be non-occupyable? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The word non-habitable would be occupyable. COMMISSIONER CARON: Non-occupyable. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Non-occupyable, yeah. MR. PIRES: Non-occupyable I thought. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah, non-occupyable. MR. PIRES: No objections, that's fine. I understand. CHAlRMAN STRAIN: Richard? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: The reason is they're saying they don't want to put bedrooms up there. I'm saying you don't want to put an office building either. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Any problem, Richard? MR. YOV ANOVICH: No, sir. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: J.D.? MR. MOSS: No. Page 37 January IS, 2009 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Ms. Caron? 16 I t'1 i A L , COMMISSIONER CARON: I just n wc're Icaving out a discussion for later ofth~O versuHO feet -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes. COMMISSIONER CARON: -- on that maximum height? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No, wc'rc not leaving it out. Mr. Pires is objecting to it. Mr. Y ovanovich says it needs to stay in. Staff doesn't care. If you want to comment on it now or wait till after public speakers, that's your prerogative. COMMISSIONER CARON: No, I actually was just surprised that Mr. Schiffer didn't want to comment on it, bccause he was concerned about the overall hcight. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, Mr. Schiffer usually pushes for higher things, so I'd bc surprised if he wanted it lowcr. So n COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Ijust don't want anybody living in it, that's all. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Vigliotti? COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Ifwc want to bring it up for discussion now and resolve it or do we want to Ict it sit till later? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Personally, I don't want to resolve anything until wc hcar thc public. But if you want to commcnt on it, you're more than welcome to now. If you want to havc it resolved in your -- from your perspective, go right ahead. But myself, I'm going to wait until I hear what thc public's got to say about the height bcfore I get too far into that. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: That's fine, I'll also wait for the public. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: With that, we'll move on to numbcr four. Thc language that was addcd provided that in no event shall the square footage of all structures within the boundarics of the CFPUD cxcecd 100,000 square feet. Mr. Pires, any objection? MR. PIRES: No. sir. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: J.D., any comments from staff? MR. MOSS: No. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody on thc Planning Commission? (No responsc.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Number eight, wc had two cross-outs, listed side setback nlistcd setback is for -- and the word all was added, the word habitable was struck, the words conditional use were struck. Any objections from Mr. Pires? MR. PIRES: No, sir. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: J.D.? MR. MOSS: No. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The last one was an addition sentencc. The sentence that was added, thc child day care, pre-K kindergarten school use shall be located a minimum of200 feet from the West Strect, Ridge Drive, Myrtle Road. Anybody have -- Mr. Pires, do you have any problems with that? MR. PIRES: No, sir. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: J.D.? MR. MOSS: No, sir. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody on the Planning Commission? (No response.) Page 38 16arur 15Jl2~91 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Next page is 7. Lot of stuff on this page. Let's start up on top with the buffers. The perimcter was struck and it now says all perimeter. Tony~ MR. PIRES: No, sir, no objection. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: J.D.? MR. MOSS: No, sir. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Numbcr two has an extensive change. I'm not evcn going to read it. l'lllet you guys decide if there's any concerns. Mr. Pires? MR. PIRES: No objcction. In fact, I appreciate Rich's client inserting language that was provided by one of the residents ofPinc Ridgc who is a landscapc architcct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. J.D.? MR. MOSS: No problcm. CHAlRMAN STRAIN: Planning Commission? (No rcsponse.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No comments. Number four, parcnthetical A, and there's a series of parentheticals added. Talks about the hedges. Is thcrc any -- let's take the first paragraph, we have a strike-through and then additions of a hedge row and more dcfinition to that to that hedgc row. Mr. Pires, do you havc any problem with that first paragraph of 4.A? MR. PIRES: Ycs. Page 2 of my Icttcr in paragraph four, I rcfcrenccd Page 7 of22, which is the page wc'rc at right now, in paragraph four. We'rc requesting that the first -- if this is to bc approved, the first three lines should rcad, the hcdgc component ofthc continuous perimcter LDC Type D landscape buffer abutting West Strcet and Myrtle Road, parcntheses, cxtending to the driveway on Myrtle Road, you know. shall be installed. And then go on with those various hcights. This is so we havc -- thcy havc a more limitcd area as to wherc they propose to have this particular hcight of this buffer. And we want to have a longer. grcater section of it. MR. YOV ANOVICH: Tony, to makc it casy for you, we don't have any problems with your paragraph four. Wc'll clean all that up. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So paragraph four that is going to bc inscrted herc, who's got it? MR. YOV ANOVICH: He wants the words minimums in certain places and under -- we're okay with doing all of that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No, let's take 4.A. We're still on 4.A. Hc's rccommended a change for 4.A. Thc changc would comc after the word West Street, and it would say, and Myrtle Street, parenthetical, extending to the drivc cntry on Myrtle Road, I think that's what it says. And then you would continue with the word and at that point. Is that correct, Mr. Pires? MR. PIRES: The primary change -- once again, it would read, the first three lincs, as opposed to what's there now, would say thc hedge component ofthc continuous perimeter LDC Type landscape buffer abutting Wcst Strcet and Myrtle Road. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. MR. PIRES: Parentheses, extending to the driveway on Myrtle Road shall be installed with the minimum height of five feet. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, gotcha. Mr. Y ovanovich, any objections? MR. YOV ANOVICH: No. I didn't scc what was differcnt from what we had proposed, so we'rc Page 39 1 ~ I' 1 A t.. ! ta'nuary 1 ~tdo9 okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: J.D.~ MR. MOSS: No, sir. MR. PIRES: Only because it was -- you were saying-- MR. YOV ANOVICH: I hear -- I mean, it was the intcnt. So I'm okay. I've always told you. CHAlRMAN STRAIN: Now, Planning Commission. Mr. Wolflcy? COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: I just want to note that I'm going to discuss that whcn we get to the 9:00 -- thc 10:30 noise thing. So I just want to throw that in, I'll be talking about that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I'm sorry, thc 10:30 noisc thing? COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: The music aftcr -- was it changed from 10:30 to 9:00? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: We're on 4.A. COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: I understand. But I'm just saying I'm going to bring this hedge up later. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You're going to bring the hedge up when we discuss the noise? COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Yes. MR. YOV ANOVICH: Mr. Wolfley, their music issue doesn't even apply to Tract A, and that's what we're talking about right now. Tract B will bc -- COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Maybe I just should have said nothing and bring it up later. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Just so you know, the Planning Commission is going to have all the time to keep commenting, so you don't havc to wait -- you don't have to reservc timc, David. We'll certainly want your input. COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: And I will chcck off cvcrything that I agrce with in the future. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I havc a conccrn with thc last scntence: with the approval of the Pine Ridgc Architectural Review Board, a suitable spccics with the ability to rcmain uniform in a changing insolation environment may be substituted. That is not the typical clcmcnt that we sec in PUD's. If you want to bctwccn now and the time this comes back havc a private agreement for that, and you're going to have other -- I have other conccrns with language that's been added that is way too spccific, plus it necds to be consistent -- we need to be consistcnt with code. To those things that arc beyond code, you guys can have privatc agrecments. I'm not sure that we nced to have in a PUD enforccment actions to any privatc organization, whether it be the Pine Ridgc Architectural Review Board or any. So I'm a little concerncd about that, Tony, and I'd like your thoughts on it. Because that's a stumbling block for me. We havc historically not put the county in a position with having to enforce things through private entities, privatc groups. And I would rathcr not start messing that process up in this PUD. MR. PIRES: Perhaps -- and once again, and I'll consult with my client -- perhaps thc concept could bc similar to what's being proposed or agrecd upon as to any permits to South Florida Watcr Management and/or dewatering that a minimum of 30 days prior to any submittal to Collicr County of any landscape plan or any plan involving landscaping, that it will be provided to the Pine Ridge Architectural Review Board. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I think if you worked that in a private agreement and you guys all sign that beforc the next vote, and part your approval is based on that, that's fine. But I don't think it's appropriate in a public document to defer review to a privatc civic entity of any kind and then expect the public to have to enforcc that provision. I think -- I don't see thc nced -- I don't sec how that should bc possible from a public standpoint. Page 40 1~~a115N~91 MR. PIRES: Once again, I think the conccpt of providing noticc in a copy of the plans at least 30 days before submitting it to the county docsn't put them in a veto position vis-a-vis the county, but puts them on noticc the application is pending so there can bc a point of entry for the Architectural Rcview Board if they wish to intercede on behalf of -- in the county proceedings. That's what wc're trying to achicve in a lot of respects -- MR. YOV ANOVICH: Mr. Strain, can I respond real quickly to that? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Then we have board members who want to spcak as well. Go ahead. MR. YOVANOVICH: We actually saw this language as bcncficial to the church and to the association, bccause right now we've agrecd to the certain spccics ofhedgc material. And what we're saying is they -- we wercn't -- if something else better comes along and is also consistent with thc LDC, and we talk to them first, we could change it. Otherwise, I have to come and amend thc PUD to change the type of plant material. And this actually I thought provided flcxibility to the propcrty owncr to do other materials that are allowed in thc LDC, should something clsc come along, and providc Tony and his clicnt the flexibility to do that. Bccause right now I'd have to amcnd thc PUD, because we have been trying to be so spccific to addrcss a lot of the concerns ofthe community. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Go ahead, Heidi. MS. ASHTON-CICKO: Rich, I think what Mr. Strain was trying to tell you is that the prefcrence is that the languagc in the PUD more closely track our LDC and what's permitted, and that any privatc agreements as to what can go in there and whether it goes through an architectural review committec, the county would prefcr that that go in eithcr an agrcemcnt between thc parties or somc sort of dced rcstriction against thc land. And this isn't the only area where it's a little bit more restrictive than what the county would prefer. And as you go through thc rcst of the itcms, thosc other areas would bc idcntificd. But that's what I think Mr. Strain was trying to tell you, which also reflects the staffs view as well as the County Attorney's MR. YOV ANOVICH: I understand. But I didn't hear any objcctions from staff or the Planning Commission regarding the idcntification of thc plant matcrials. It was the process that we would follow to changc thc plant material. And what we're suggesting is the -- we put all this in there bccausc, you know, the community has bcen craving certainty. And we'rc trying to givc thcm as much as we possibly can, all the way down to the types of hcdge matcrial. So we've said we'll pick from this laundry list, but if something else comcs along that's also consistent with the LDC, wc would likc to go to them first, and if they veto it, they veto it. But if they say it makes scnse, thcn we'd come to staff. Otherwise I've got to amend the PUD. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Vigliotti? COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: What I don't like is the words with the approval of Pine Ridge. How about in coordination with, so that you still keep your shrubs and then you get to coordinate with them, but you don't necessarily nced their approval? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Vigliotti, the point is that we should not in a public document be bringing in private organizations for recommcndations, whether they are considerations, approval or contrary to or anything. This is a public document that has to bc handlcd in the cycs of the public with the codes we put in placc, not what a private group wants to do. I'm in favor of the Pinc Ridge Civic Association's things they want to do. But we can't n if we Page 41 1 <6u1rfJ!' 5, ~(j allow this for them, thcn every homeowners association, civic group in Collicr County will want to be in on the PUD for approval and rccommendations. And I think that's a horrible precedent for this county to bc setting. Mr. Murray? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Well, I was going to try and enter into it. I agrec with you. I understand. And that came to my mind as well. But I was looking for a middlc ground, and I started saying with thc approval -- and hold off now for a second -- with the approval of the Pinc Ridgc Architectural Rcvicw Board and consistent with thc LDC. But maybe thc language nccds to be suitablc species consistcnt with the LDC and subject -- not subjcct, and with -- ncvcr mind, I'm not going to go there. Let's get that out of thcrc. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Just take it out. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Go ahead, Ms. Homiak. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: These properties, cven though they're designated for churches now, they can be uscd -- are they still not part of an association? The Pinc Ridgc association? The Pine Ridge Civic Association, becausc they're in that property area? MR. PIRES: It's a voluntary association if! -- my rccollection. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But you do have deed rcstrictions, do you not, Mr. Pires? MR. PIRES: That's correct. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: So wouldn't that be where this comes in? MR. PIRES: Oncc again, I understand what Mr. Strain and the Commission membcrs arc saying, but therc are examples of PUD's, for example, if I rccall n I'm paraphra~ing from thc Pclican Marsh PUD. Thcrc's a provision in thcrc with rcgards to -- cxample, [think golf course structurcs or evcn the maintenancc facility that talks about the landscaping shall be in accordance with the Pelican Marsh design review standards. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Tony, nobody on this panel was here when that was approved. And I can assure you, had thcy bccn, there would havc bcen questions raised. So, I mcan, it's fine you bring up the old projccts, but the old projects are the rnistakes in this county. And that's what we're trying to corrcct. MR. PIRES: Once again, an altcrnative might bc ifthc Planning Commission is not inclined to have language that indicates the approval of the Architcctural Review Board, later on you'll see in here we have provisions with regards to gctting notice in advance of permit applications. And the importance of that is, do you havc a viable point of entry into certain permit applications with othcr entities and/or the county, it's nicc to know not to havc to on a weekly basis monitor and find out what is going on. And I think that's n so possibly -- and I haven't talkcd to my clicnts, the way to address this is that prior to submitting any plans to the county for any changcs to the landscape material, that they will submit those or provide notice of the proposcd change to the Architcctural Review Board, like 30 days in advance. That way they can look at them. I think that's an appropriate governmental function. Heidi may disagree, but I think that's appropriate. It's merely a notice issue. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I will be objecting to that when we get to it too, Mr. Pircs. Ms. Caron? COMMISSIONER CARON: Mr. Y ovanovich, do your clicnts -- since you've agreed to all of these changes anyway, do your clients have any problem with setting up a separate document that says we agree to notity the Pine Ridge Association of these things? MR. YOV ANOVICH: No, again -- Page 42 IJ6#llsk69 COMMISSIONER CARON: So you can set up a private documcnt with the association. MR. YOV ANOVICH: Yes. But that doesn't answer the question -- this is the zoning document. These arc the rules of the game for this parcel of property. Wc've identified one, two, three -- I think that's right. It may bc thrce or four typcs ofhedgc material. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No, shc's saying we drop all the underline, we drop it. And then it all becomes subjcct to your agreemcnt with them. And then they could come and object to things in front of this board and the BCC and anybody else in the future, because you won't work out an agreement with them. And thcn comcs the methodology instcad of putting in a zoning documcnt. COMMISSIONER CARON: Just go and type a separate agreemcnt that has exactly these things in detail, you know, the ones that I know are going to come up -- MR. PIRES: And I think part ofthe input by the person in thc community, the landscape architect that suggested these particular types of material, was because the concern about making surc it's compatible with and complementary to these intensification of uscs with the Pine Ridge community, that this specific type ofvcgetation was onc that hc in his profcssional opinion thought was appropriate. And so it puts Rich in a dilemma because we havc somcone who's saying okay, this is one way to buffer the intensification ofusc, and we'll agree to that, but gee, if we gct caught in a pickle because of othcr circumstances, how do we modity that without having to come back to change the PUD. MR. YOV ANOVICH: I personally would prcfer, if! can't n I'd rather have to just live with thcsc materials then and not havc thc language in there. Becausc you know what's going to happen, Mr. Strain. We'll have an agrecmcnt amongst ourselves about what's going to happcn. If something isn't enforced because of that, Tony's going to comc to thc county and thc county's going to say that's a privatc dced rcstriction, that's not part of our rcsponsibility to enforce this. I know it's unusual, but I think you can distinguish PUD from PUD to say hey, this is an unusual circumstancc, it's a church in an existing neighborhood, and they'vc reachcd an agrecmcnt on the appropriate plant materials that should bc in thc zoning document so that the govcrnmcnt can cnforcc it instead of having to go through a privatc lawsuit. That's what we're thinking. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Murray? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Have we established in fact that the church and all of its properties are subject to the Pine Ridge Association? MR. PIRES: There are deed restrictions that encumber it. But it's a voluntary association. The Architcctural Rcview Board, the review is mandatory. I don't reprcscnt thc Architcctural Review Board, that's a separate entity that was cstablishcd by the original developcr ovcr 50 ycars ago. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I wantcd to ask, if! could, just point to point, bccause I'm trying to get to that where we can get rid of this, if we can. Ifthcy are subject to that association, must they not respcct the rulcs of the association? And ifthey must respect the rules ofthc association and thcrc arc penaltics associatcd ifthcy don't, is not the Architectural Rcvicw Board part of that association and thcrcfore has somc authority to establish what criteria it wants? MR. PIRES: My understanding is the Architectural Review Board is not part of the association. It's a separate entity established by the original developcr and appointed by the original developer. And I could be corrected by a mcmbcr of it, Mr. Schneider, who is here today, fi.)rmer -- one of thc county cnginecrs in the past, and/or Sally Barker. And so oncc again thcy'rc scparate entities. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: If that bcing thc case, thcn who are the architectural review board people? Who do they rcprcsent? MR. PIRES: Mr. Schneider can probably bcst address that. He's rcgistcred to spcak. I don't know if Page 43 16 inlarylll 6l0~ COMMISSIONER MURRAY: It scems that-- MR. PIRES: -- now or-- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I'm just curious n COMMISSIONER MURRAY: It secms that sincc they arc out of the association, what authority, what rights would they have? And I guess I do want to know the answcr to that question. MR. PIRES: The Architectural Review Board's roles and responsibilitics arc outlined in the covenants, and Mr. Schneider can best addrcss that. Oncc again, I'm not the attorney for the architcctural review committce or review board. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I would rather we move forward with this document and we'll just leave these outstanding issues to be addresscd by thc public and us whcn wc gct into it. Ray? MR. BELLOWS: For the rccord, Ray Bellows. It's my opinion that the language in here does require review by our landscape architect, and I would request that this item be allowed to have stall' review it and comment on it. And so we might have to come back to you on this at a later date. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. MR. MOSS: And if they would like to possibly substitute thc spccies that they have listed here. It seems like a good option maybc to just say, or some other suitable spccics as approved by the county landscape architect. And thcn we can let the county landscape architect, who is a liccnscd profcssionallandscape architect, decide what would be the most appropriate species for this location. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Then I think what we arc probably saying is that A, one, two, thrcc, four, and I would think fivc, six, scven, cight, would all bc subjcct to thc county staff revicw at this point, because they all are morc specific than our codc rcquircs. They are vcry speci fie as to plantings and bubblers and things like that. And so I think that's all going to be deferred until we gct back from your analysis and review. Let me finish one thing with Mr. Y ovanovich first. Richard, you said somcthing carlier, which is cxactly my point, although you were trying to usc it to your benefit, and that's that the Pine Ridgc Architcctural Review Board or any others who arc trying to cnforce thcse things wouldn't be the ones to have the cost to enforcc thcm now, they could just call the county up and say you enforce them. That's exactly why thc taxpayers should not be in that position. This document should reflect what the taxpayers necd for zoning issucs. If that board or any privatc organization needs more than what the taxpayers necd for zoning issues, that would create a position whcre wc've got to enforce something that's going to be costly. It should be left to that board to do it as it is now rathcr than put it on the backs of the taxpayers. And that's why I'm so adamant against having private cntitics enter into these agreements in a PUD. I think it's wrong. Not just for the people in Pine Ridge's group, but every group in the county. As taxpayers, we'rc not paying for thosc individual fights, that's up to the neighborhoods to do that. So I'm going to stay prctty hard on that issuc through this whole thing. So with that -- go ahead, Mr. Vigliotti? COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: This is a question for J.D. and Rich also. Would you have a problem removing all the restrictions from the hcdgc row down to the end of 8.A? All the special -- MR. YOV ANOVICH: The answer to that is as far as what type of plant material. If you want to say the Land Development Code needs to address that, we've obviously agrced to limit what we can choosc Page 44 16JH1ry45Rod9 from the Land Development Code, and we're still willing to do that. But I think you've got to kcep -- and maybe thc bubblcr stuff, the stuff that's clearly covered in the Land Development Code, thc answer is if you want to do that, that's finc. But the othcr stuff: as far as planting of the heights of the hedges necds to stay in, bccausc thcsc are in addition to the Land Dcvclopment Codc, so that's got to stay in. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: That's fine. MR. YOV ANOVICH: That's got to stay. MR. MOSS: I would say even remove six and seven, not just all of eight. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Honestly, I marked this page up, and the wholc fivc, six, seven and eight, this is not the document whcrc you get into that kind of spccificity. What kind of sod is there, what kind of bubblers, profcssionally maintaincd. Does that mean thc guy can't go out and cut his own grass? Is evcry housc in there professionally maintained? I mean, Ijust think this is going to an extreme in a zoning document. I don't blamc the neighborhood for wanting it, and I don't n and I certainly empathize with the right to have some kind of control. The government is the wrong way, the wrong institution to use that personalizcd ncighborhood control for on itcms that aren't owned by thc government. So I'm real conccrned about that wholc section A. And that's my take on it. I know that staff now has to go back and review it. Why don't we as an encompassing itcm, all of Scction A, which starts on Pagc 7, go to Page 8, ifthcrc's any other expression of concerns by the Planning Commission that would likc to be madc now, plcasc lct me know. Mr. Midney? COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Ycah, I agrec that it seems much too specific and we should just go by the county standards. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Mr. Vigliotti? COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Just a quick statement. It scems as though the association would like to rcwrite thc LDC. And wc havc a good amendment, we should stick with it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Murray? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Y cah, just rccmphasizing my view. It's the samc as yours, Mr. Chair. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you, sir. With that, I think there's cnough direction given for that one. Staff does their revicw, and Mr. Pires and Mr. Y ovanovich, you might want to takc that into considcration when this comes back to us. We'll certainly listen to public speakers, but that's kind of whcrc this issuc is going today on that number eight. Mr. Yovanovich? MR. YOV ANOVICH: Well, I mean if it's going to be the Planning Commission's recommendation that this language come out and we deal with it through a separate agreement, thcre's no reason for staff to review it and to delay the hearing -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's fine. If you guys necd to get your heads together-- MR. YOV ANOVICH: I'm not saying we're going to agrce, I'm just saying it doesn't makc sense if you're going to dircct that this comc out of thc document -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I think we by consensus already directed that. MR. YOV ANOVICH: -- then there's no rcason to delay a public hearing for staff to rcview language you say shouldn't be thcre in the first placc. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I think that's the consensus so far, but we still have to hear from the community. And if there's any changes after that, wc'll go forward accordingly. Mr. Pires? Page 45 16Jul15,~~ MR. PIRES: Just for point of clarification, I understand what the discussion has been with regards to, I'll call paragraphs five, six, seven and cight, and Pages 7 and 8 of Page 22, but -- and the discussion at the tail cnd of Paragraph 4.A, but is the discussion that all of A will bc discussed and bcing removed, including thc 4.A, B, C, D? Because 4.D provides for enl1anced typc of buffering, 4.C provides for intcnse type of buffering without naming the typc ofvegctation, as well as 4.D. And that gets into the whole issuc about compatibility. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No, I don't have any -- I don't think we havc -- in the past we have regularly modified buffers to create a bctter compatibility scenario between uscs. 4.B, C and D, or 4.A for thc front part of it and B, C, and D do nothing more than that. And had this been left that way, the objcction may not have bcen so encompassing. And I would suggest that those points, thc hcdges, the intensity of thc hedges, are acccptable in most projects to be modified. We're not saying that. It's the specificity ofthc material, thc bubblers, the sod types, the maintenance, those are not itcms that arc normally in a zoning document. MR. PIRES: Ijust wantcd clarification becausc it secmed like all of it was going out as opposcd to just those areas that they articulated a concern about private covcnants, as well as detail of material. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Bcforc wc move on to Page 8, does anybody have any qucstions left on Page 7? MR. MOSS: I do. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Go ahead, J.D. MR. MOSS: Lct's sce, number 4.B, it should bcgin with thc word along rathcr than add. It makes it sound as though thc hedgc is just at thc intcrscction. So along Wcst Street, and same with C, along Ridge Drive. And then D is just an LDC requirement. Therc's no need for that to bc in this document. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I would suggcst, if that's n MR. MOSS: Trail Boulcvard, planted 24 inches and maintaincd at 36 inchcs. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Docs it hurt? MR. YOV ANOVICH: It doesn't havc to be maintaincd at 36, I think it has to bc maintained at two, correct? MR. MOSS: No, it's 36. MR. YOV ANOVICH: You havc to maintain it at 36'1 MR. MOSS: Ycs. MR. YOV ANOVICH: Thcn if that's the LDC, then that's finc. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Wcll, when you come back with your analysis on what's left, if that doesn't need to be in, thcn they should take it out. MR. MOSS: Okay, I'll let you know. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Pires, from the word along on B and C and the possibly removal of Item D, do you have any concerns? MR. PIRES: As far as along in B and C, I did suggcst that, I havc no objection. As far as keeping D, I'd like to kecp that in therc, because ifthe LDC changes or lowers it. I mean, that's why I suggested thc words minimum be added before each of the listed hcights. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, I don't havc a problern with it-- MR. MOSS: So would you like me to leavc it in then in that case n CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That just enl1anccs the-- MR. MOSS: Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- that part of it. It's not a matcrial change. MR. PIRES: Thank you. Page 46 lr6ul41 1\ ~9 j CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, wc'll move on to Page 8. First change on that page is Itern E. There's a strike-through for which does not meet county standards for lake cross sections associated with slopes and littoral zones. Mr. Pires, do you have any problems with that? MR. PIRES: No, sir. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: J.D.? MR. MOSS: No, sir. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, anybody from Planning Commission? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Next paragraph, quite a few strikc-throughs and a ncw scntence addcd. Arc thcrc any comments? Mr. Pires? MR. PIRES: Ifwe can go back. Mr. Strain, my correspondcncc -- and I don't think Rich had any objcction to it. In the first full paragraph of E that wc just went through, if we can add a third sort of category. In other words, as far as what type of capacity would be required. That the project shall providc the greater of the capacity -- grcatcr of one, the capacity rcquircd by water managcment design standards for a three-day, 25-year storm cvent. Two, the capacity of the existing lake. And thcn we added or thrce, the capacity required by water managcmcnt dcsign standards at thc time that developmcnt order approval is sought. Because if we have changed standards grcatcr than what's one or two, we'd likc to have whatever the greatest is. So wc would add three categories. And the third one would be thc capacity required by water management design standards at the time that dcvelopment ordcr approval is sought. And the last sentcnce, capacity may bc mct in part, with dry watcr management arcas will be retained. And I think Rich was comfortablc with that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I think you'd havc to do that anyway just to get your South Florida permit. MR. YOV ANOVICH: We wcrc comfortable with adding that. I guess what Tony is saying, he didn't want me to be able to arguc that this PUD exempted me from future capacity regulations. MR. PIRES: Yeah, because say for example South Florida was to delcgatc it back to the county for water management, and it met three-day or capacity of the lake and thcrc were some othcr criteria that was -- some other water management designs. We want the greater of it. MR. YOV ANOVICH: Our enginecrs have looked at that and they're cornfortable with Tony's reVISIOn. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. J.D.? MR. MOSS: The county engineer is okay with that as well. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: W c're on the first paragraph of E, water managcment. So basically the strike-through is acceptable and thc proposed language addition by Mr. Pircs is acceptable. What about the Planning Commission? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Good. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. The second paragraph, wc have a completc cross-out and thcn a rcwritc. Mr. Pires, comments on that, any? I know the words Estates after Pine Ridge you suggest striking because it isn't Pine Ridge Estates. MR. PIRES: Onc thing that -- I'm not surc this is the appropriate time to makc the comment. The Page 47 IJ6f1,lsA2&9 language as added and struck through is appropriate. The discussion with regards to any impact on possible potable drinking watcr wells in the Pine Ridge community. If you recall, Pine Ridge is on residential development and the community is on-- they're on individual potable wells. And wc're trying to cnsure n and the issuc was raised about making sure that the excavation activities and the fill activities associatcd with, I'll call it locating thc lakc, as it's discussed, do not advcrsely affect thosc wells. And my suggested language -- we had some discussion, Rich did initially in the beginning. We suggested that before that occurs, rclocation of the lake occurs, there should be a detailed study assessing the impacts of proposed activities on thc potablc drinking wclls in Pine Ridge within a 2,000-foot radius. So Rich may want to have somc testimony as to that. I think that's what he indicatcd. MR. YOV ANOVICH: I think we said we would -- we objcct to that. And Mike Dclate's here and can explain the process of what's going to occur with this rclocation of the lakc. And wc certainly don't have any objections to providing you noticc of any pcrmit application wc make related to the rclocation of the lake. MR. PIRES: Including any dewatering permits? MR. YOV ANOVICH: Yeah. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: As Ms. Caron had indicated earlicr, this might be a convenicnt time for your water managcmcnt cxpcrt to come up and explain to us the possibility or the not possibility of thc activitics in this lakc affecting nearby wells. MR. DELATE: Good morning. For the rccord, I'm Mike Delate from Grady Minor Enginecrs. I know there's a numbcr of conccrns, some ofthcm are vague and some are specific, as to the effects ofthis proposed development on adjacent water users and wells in this instance. If! might address just somc of them, as I understand the general conccrn out there. First was the possiblc effect of dcwatcring activitics during what wc call the relocation or reshaping of the lake on-site. Thc process for this reconstructing the lakc or rcconfiguring it would be to start the cxcavation in the, would be the southcast corncr of the propcrty and creating a coffcrdam in the existing lake. Then the dewatering activities would commence in the new portion of the lake. Thc way the Water Managemcnt District rcquircs dewatcring activities to occur is obviously through -- after a permit is issued is that a trench is normally dug or created around the proposcd dewatering area, and this dewatered -- or this water that's come from thc excavation would be pumpcd into that trench. That would create a surface mound of water that sccps down through the soils, and in this case the quite sandy soils of Pine Ridge, creating a mound cJTect ofwatcr in that arca. What it does is then limits the effects of the dewatering beyond that mound. In other words, off-site. So as the dewatering activities occur in the newly excavated area, watcr Icvels would go down within that, but a mounded arca of water would be crcated around the excavation; in this case between thc road and the proposed lake. Then the soil is cxcavated from the new lake arca, will be trucked ovcr to the old lake area, put into the -- and dumped into there probably with thc water bcing in placc, because there would bc a cofferdam present. Any sediments at the bottom of the existing lake would then be entrapped or encased in that new soil material going into that lake. So this process will continue. I cstimate probably two wecks they could have that lake finished. The new lake then will be completed, the dewatering activities would stop and the existing -- or the new lake, the water levels would return to their natural condition. As part of the pcrmitting proccss through the Water Managcment District, you have to show that Page 48 IJ6tf~15" ~re) you have no instantaneous, or excuse mc, limited instantaneous drawdown effcct on adjacent water users, in this case the wells nearby, the individual wclls. And that instantancous drawdown is only a tenth of a foot that you can have an effect. So it's quite stringent. The Water Managernent District revicw process is quite stringent when there's a legal user likc this nearby. Those wells in that arca are old. Probably most of thc residents don't know where their wells are on-site. They have a general idea, and they probably don't havc any idea on the depth. So during the permitting of this, the revicw, the Water Management District and the hydrological engineer will assume a worst casc scenario, which would be watcr table wclls, not wells that would be going below the confining layer. So that's -- thc modeling tcchnique then would be based on having all water tablc wells probably located on some -- on the lots that are nearby, we'd have to get a general idea where thosc wells are located, and then the computer model would take that into effect and show that there's no instantaneous one-tenth of a foot drawdown cfTcct on those wells. So I understand thc residents' concern on that, and I think the rules set out by the Water Managcment District are quite stringent in that effect. And thc requirement that that application be provided to the owners bcforchand is reasonable from the owners' perspective. The other concern that thcy had was the effect of having a lakc that closc to the wells, after the lake is constructed and any possible pollutant sources entering those wells. There is no statutorial requirement for separation from individual potable water wells and water quality treatment arcas or lakes in this effcct. There is a statutorial requircment of 300 fect for public water wells. But the assumption there is you'rc pumping hundrcds of thousands of gallons a day vcrsus maybe hundrcds of gallons a day, so you have a rnuch greater drawdown on those wells with a potcntial to pull some water from the lakes towards those wells. In this casc with such a minimal pumping from those individual lakes, therc's no statutorial requiremcnt, because it's considcrcd that the potcntial is very minimal. From a practical perspective, wells only havc to have a 75-foot separation to septic systems, which are present in the Pine Ridge area. And that's considered a much greater pollutant source. In this case we're going to be separated at least a minimum of 1 00 feet. It's probably much greater than that from any possible wclllocation, existing wcll. So the potential impact to legal -- excuse me, existing wclls off-site is very minimal, if non-existent. I think those were the two primary issucs. I'm not surc if there are any others, but I'd be glad to address them. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Havc you done your modeling? MR. DELATE: No, no modeling has been done. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Have you done your soil testing? MR. DELATE: Wc have a gencral soil test and wc haven't done any borings yet. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Whcn you do your modeling, the pcrmeability of that soil testing will decide how fast thc pumpage, or what rate the pumpagc would necd to come out in order to determine if there's any impact on the drawdowns. MR. DELATE: Absolutely. And the permit would limit the types of pumps that you could use out therc for dewatering. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: In rcverse, couldn't you also detcrmine how much pumpage would have to come out of any individual well to actually have drawn water of a substantial nature from the excavation location to the nearest well? Page 49 16Jln1ry 14, Q6' MR. DELATE: Yes, it would be a different process and a different model, but the same thing could be performed. That hasn't becn requestcd by thc owner. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I know. I'm just saying, all that modcling is -- South Florida could rcquest it. South Florida is going to demand some of it when you submit your permit. MR. DELATE: Well, thcy would require it for thc dewatcring, the wouldn't require it for thc lake cxcavation. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Mr. Murray? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: No, you got into the area I wantcd to get into, thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Midney? COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: These are not potable watcr wells, are thcy? Aren't these just for landscaping? MR. DELATE: No, there's potable water wclls in thcrc. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Any questions on stormwater at this time to Mr. Dclatc? Ms. Caron, you're satisfied? COMMISSIONER CARON: (Nods head affinnatively.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Thank you, sir. Now, with that, Tony, the added language in the bottom, and with thc exception of striking the word Estates after the words Pinc Ridge, do you havc any problems with that? In the first -- actually, the second paragraph at this time. MR. PIRES: The second to last paragraph at thc bottom of Page 8'1 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes. MR. PIRES: Striking Estates? No, sir. And ifwc could add language with rcgards to comparable to what's on the next page, that thc association or the individual property owners will receive notification 30 days in advance of any application for dewatering pcrmits or lake cxcavation pcrmits. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, we're not to the next page yet. Let's just talk about the second to last paragraph and that last sentence that was undcrlined and addcd. Do you have any problem with it once the word Estates is struck? MR. PIRES: No, sir. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: J.D., does the staff have any problems with it? I see he's shaking his head no, Cheric'. For the record, that shake was a no. Okay, I have -- the next paragraph, do you havc any problems with that, Tony? MR. PIRES: No, sir. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: J.D.? MR. MOSS: No, sir. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I have one question. If thc first one says that the surfacc water management system, including adjacent roadway swales to the north, basically it's saying you can't -- your surfacc water runoff and dischargc can't bc dirccted to the roadside swalcs or to the existing water management system to the north, cast or south. The surfacc water management system in the last paragraph shall be zero discharge or discharge shall be routed to the wcst or existing or new facilities on Trail Boulevard. Now, I'm vaguely familiar with some of the routing ofthc stormwater that used to go under U.S. 41 and go through some outfalls in Pelican Bay. But I'm wondering if you're going to have zero discharge and you're not going to have to worry about discharge into any adjacent swales, but the swalcs along Trail Boulevard, does anybody know where they end up discharging to, if that's what you're going to discharge into? Page SO It..f l' ( 'i~~,~ MR. DELATE: I have a little exhibit for that. Maybe you could zoom in on thc church in this low area. In csscnce, thc discharge from Trail Boulevard, therc's a couple oflarge sizcd pipes that go undcr U.S. 41 that discharge to Pelican Bay. There's a little swampy area right adjacent to 41 as you drive south from thc church. And that flows into the lake system of Pelican Bay and then out to the sprcader swale in the Gulf of Mexico. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So your outfall is continuous then. That's what I was trying to find out. Thank you. Any other questions? (No rcsponse.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Pires, do you have any problem thcn with that last paragraph? I think you said no. MR. PIRES: That's correct, no objection. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: J.D., any problems with the staff? MR. MOSS: No, sir. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Everybody's in agreement on that one. Page 9, third paragraph on that page, there's a strike-through and add-on. Mr. Pires, any problems? MR. PIRES: Page 9, third paragraph, no, sir. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: J.D.? MR. MOSS: No, sir. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Before we go too far down that page, the first thrce paragraphs, any comments from the Planning Commission? Ms. Caron? COMMISSIONER CARON: Yeah, and I had mcntioned this to Mr. Y ovanovich. On paragraph one where it talks about Tract B being integrated into the master water management system if and when it's redevelopcd. Right now Tract B I believc is part of the master systcm. Thcy use Cardinal Lake like cverybody else does. So I don't know that they can wait for rcdevelopment, since this is just a bank-owned piecc of property. It could sit there for anothcr 10 years without having water management here. If you change and move that lake, you're moving it further to the south and away from Tract B. And maybe 1 don't understand this, but -- MR. YOV ANOVICH: And I know we talked. I -- the light went onjust a few minutcs ago as to why I remember we put this language in here. This language is in here -- the answer to the question you asked me is yes, we're going to allow the existing facilities on Tract B to flow into the ncw facilities on Tract A. The reason this was in hcre was to make it clear that when Tract A redcvcloped, it didn't have to provide its own water management system, that they would be relying on what's on Tract A. So that's what that language is therc to accommodate and make sure that, you know, Tract A is basically getting a two-acre developable site and their water management would be taken carc of through Tract A. That's what that languagc is for. And yes, the answer to your question was yes, we're accommodating what's there in the new system. COMMISSIONER CARON: Okay. So as you start to rcdo Tract A and rcdo that watcr management system, it will ncvcr disrupt Tract B. MR. YOV ANOVICH: It will not cut off -- corrcct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And along the same lines in that same paragraph, since Tract B is reliant upon Tract A, the parking lots, thc structures, the runoff from those will bc funneled, I imagine, into catch Page 51 IJ~lr~15,2009 1 basins; they'll be turned into underground RCP that will take it to a lake with a head wall. A 6 The routing of that RCP and the placement of that head wall will be on Tract A's property, because that's where thc lakc is. At what point, J.D., will staff insist -- or will staff necd language in this PUD to insist that cross easements be developed and maintained in order for Tract B to havc perpetual easements to get in and maintain their outfalls into Tract A, ifneedcd? MR. CHRZANOWSKI: Good morning, Stan Chrzanowski with cngineering rcview. That would happen at the SDP process. CHAlRMAN STRAIN: Okay. And we're assured that it docsn't need to be in the document, you guys will make sure that's done during that process. MR. CHRZANOWSKI: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you, sir. You're going to ask him to spell his name, arcn't you? THE COURT REPORTER: Were you sworn in? MR. CHRZANOWSKI: Yes, ma'am, I was. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you, Stan. Ms. Caron, anybody else have any other questions on the first three paragraphs? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, Tony, we'rc into the fourth paragraph at this point, and it's a brand ncw onc. MR. PIRES: The one that starts at West Street roadside swale? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's the onc. You have any objections to that language? MR. PIRES: No, sir. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: J.D., is there any problems from staff perspective? MR. MOSS: No, sir. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Now, this wouldn't apply if you havc zero dischargc? MR. YOV ANOVICH: I'm sorry? MR. MOSS: The fourth paragraph. MR. PIRES: I think that's going to takc placc anyway. The redesign of the West Street roadside swale? I think that's going to occur regardless. So that can take it into the site, I bclieve. And Rich can correct me. MR. YOV ANOVICH: Yeah, we'rc taking thc roadside swales in whethcr we discharge or wc don't discharge. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Next paragraph is an cntirely added paragraph. It's all underlined. I understand, Mr. Pircs, your concern. Again, this isn't an issue where the county should be put in a position to monitor whethcr or not a landowncr notifies a private organization. You can rcgister with South Florida, you can have this agreement that you will apparently be working out. I suggcst that this belongs in that agreement as wcll. That's just my commcnt. Anybody else on the Planning Commission have any comment on it? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I agrcc with you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ray, I notice you nodding your head, yes. I would suggest you all add that to your site agreement so that it stays with thc parties it's intended to stay with and not drag the taxpayers into it. The rest of that page doesn't have any changes. Any there any other questions on Pagc 9'1 Mr. Schiffer? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: What do you think the intent on F is for the flat roof? And Ray, I Page 52 Janua;~lo't A guess I'll start that by -- is this going to bc subjcct to the architectural standards -- CHAlRMAN STRAIN: It's just to get you to a~k a question, that's what it was all about. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Well, it workcd. First of all, therc is no flat roofs in a pcrfect world. But what is thc intent to do, to avoid large parapets or something? Because theoretically right now you could build a 50-foot wall being the perimeter ofthc building. MR. YOV ANOVICH: I'm going to takc a stab at this. This is thc example that Tony always gives mc about what he doesn't want to see happen. MR. PIRES: Or what the community doesn't. MR. YOV ANOVICH: And I agree with him, and I agrcc with the community. There's a church, and I don't want to name thc namc of the church, but on Ben Hill -- Ben Hill Griffin, right? MR. PIRES: That's correct. MR. YOV ANOVICH: Up by the Florida Gulf Coast University that has basically a flat roof and doesn't look -- it looks kind oflike an office building, a very commercial type building and not what I've come to regard churches would look like. And this is to make sure that that doesn't happcn on this piece of propcrty on A or B, because the same requirement or prohibition is on both tracts, so we don't end up with the church I'm describing within the Pine Ridge community, bccause it would be out of character with the Pine Ridge community. MR. PIRES: I'll name the church if you don't want to. MR. YOV ANOVICH: You can. I just-- MR. PIRES: It's the Summit Church. It's on Treeline just south of San Carlos Firc District. A building -- the gray and black building that looks like an office building. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: But Tony, I don't think this would do that. Becausc theoretically you could build a wall around the perimetcr of the church 50 fcet high. So I think if you do want to do somcthing like that -- wcll, first of all, let me ask Ray. Ray, docs this go through the architectural standards? MR. BELLOWS: You mcan a church? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Ycs. MR. BELLOWS: Based on its location, yes, it would. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Then Tony, why don't you try to limit parapet heights and then put in a minimum slopc? Thcrc's no roof that's flat anyway, so somebody that's going to play with the words is going to -- we don't have them yet. MR. YOV ANOVICH: We're hoping that the massing document that's Exhibit G that applies to this property, to Tract A, addresses that, Commissioner Schiffcr. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But you don't want a contradiction in your PUD document. So Brad's absolutely right. And if your Exhibit G docs what you'rc trying to accomplish through F, they should coincide in thcir language. And you don't want a contradiction in their same documcnt. I suggest when this comes back that somehow you reword F so that it meets the intent of what you're trying to do in G. MR. PIRES: That's a good suggestion. J think also if we could makc surc we havc language in the document, following up with what Ray said, that this does havc to go through the architectural review standards, because it's not stated in here clearly. And I don't know if we've had that discussion. But J think it's important to put in the PUD that this will be subject to the county's architectural review standards and review. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I think a way to get thc roof you want is limit the parapet hcight Page 53 leu~4!1'5, fr5 1 and limit an eave height. In other words, start the wall where you want to get the slope and just prevent somebody putting a very largc parapet on that. MR. PIRES: Appreciate thc suggestion, thank you. CHAlRMAN STRAIN: I think that is probably okay with thc applicant, I mean, limiting parapet height -- getting to that intent. But [ wonder if there's any question based on Richard's facial cxpressions in regards to the architectural review standards component that was suggcstcd being added. Do you belicve you're not subject to those? Because let's get it on the table now. MR. YOV ANOVICH: No, I'm not saying anything. What I'm saying is 1 thought we havc historically said that the law is what the law is. So if thc LDC requires us to go through the county's architectural standard review, thcn we'll go through thc county's architcctural standard review. If the LDC docsn't requirc that, then we won't. I don't know the answcr to that, but bascd upon the commcnts we'rc becn hearing throughout is you don't want to duplicate what's in the Land Development Code in thc PUD document. That's the only reason I'm reacting the way I'm rcacting. It is what it is. I don't know the answcr. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: We're gctting into one item of architectural revicw, and that's flat roofs. And flat roofs are not -- thcy're not good-looking, but they are allowablc in diffcrcnt portions of the code. All wc're saying herc is I think that all you originally said is you'rc not going to have flat roofs. MR. YOV ANOVICH: Right. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Wc're saying dcfine it better-- MR. YOV ANOVICH: No, I'm okay with that -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: At thc samc time, if we say that you're coming under the architectural standards of the county and you alrcady do, what's thc conccrn? MR. YOV ANOVICH: I don't know if] don't and I don't know if! do. And ifthc LDC changes at some point in the future that says it's not necessary for churchcs to go through this rcview proccss, why would we be applying a differcnt standard to us? I'mjust looking for consistcncy with thc commcnts that have been made at this point. CHAlRMAN STRAIN: Tony, when you review -- when you did your rcvicw and the organization you represcnt did thc rcvicw, were they relying upon thc county's architectural standards in the LDC? MR. PIRES: No, that was not part of the discussion. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, so you didn't know until today that staff may look at it like that. MR. PIRES: That's corrcct. Wc had somc discussions. No one was sure whether it would or not. And it's the first timc, so -- if it docs in fact apply, I think it's important to reference it. But gctting back to what Rich was saying, you know, whcn hc madc his introductory comment, he said if wc wcrc to go through the conditional use process we would need to have -- number one, you'd havc to come back because of sunsctting issues potentially. Number two, we'd have to ask for a number of variances. And so we havc a PUD documcnt where they are asking for a number ofthcir own typical kind ofPUD dcvclopment criteria. So [ don't sec how it would be inappropriate to specifically say that thcy have to comply with architectural revicw standards. Evcn ifthcy may not. I think it's important-- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Richard, and your concern is that -- MR. PIRES: -- becausc thcy're asking for a lot. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ifthc proccss changes in the futurc, then you want to go with the process. So why don't we -- what's wrong with some language referencing thc architectural review standards as thcy apply through the LDC? That way if the LDC modifies it in the future, then that's the way it applies. MR. YOV ANOVICH: And if it docsn't apply to it right now, it doesn't apply. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Doesn't apply to it. Page 54 J~6rl ij,' 2~<h Is that okay, Tony -- since Tony hasn't countcd on it in the first place, I'm not sure why it would have any impact either way. MR. PIRES: Well, I guess we necd clarification from Ray. Ray is of the opinion they do apply. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, don't hang your hat on something you just heard today. You've donc your review. And if your review is consistent and you likc what you scc here today, don't push him through the eye of a needle over something that has yct to bc known, Tony. I mean -- MR. YOV ANOVICH: Lct mc n the people much smarter than I behind mc have said that the current LDC -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: There's a wall behind you. MR. YOV ANOVICH: -- it does apply. So he's protectcd. I don't think you need to put that in the LDC -- I mean, in the PUD document, because it does apply. Today. MR. PIRES: We have it on the record from Ray. Oncc again-- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's fine, I havc no problcm. MR. PIRES: I'm not trying to push anything. I'm just -- somctimes you learn something evcry day. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But you'rc going to rcwritc Exhibit F to coincide with the intcnt of Exhibit G a little bit more, as Brad Schiffer had suggestcd. Go ahead, Mr. Schiffer. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And Rich, you're relying on Exhibit G. So would that state that thc bcaring hcight or the outside edge of this is at 20 fcet? If the midpoint's at 35, thc top is at 50, you subtract 15 feet from 35, you're at 20 feet. So is that what -- can you add that to this drawing? Essentially -- and I think if you want to call it bearing height or somcthing so that you could put a Glu-Lanl on something on top of it. MR. YOV ANOVICH: I don't know that this documcnt was supposcd to be that detailed. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: But you said Exhibit G -- MR. YOV ANOVICH: We -- the community has -- wc havc some architectural renderings of what we're proposing to put on the building. And the community askcd us, come up with a document that is similar to what you're telling everybody you're going to do. I don't think the community said to us we don't have a finally-designed building. I mcan, wc haven't gotten to that level of detail. But thcy wanted to make sure that thc brochure that wc're utilizing is rct1ectcd in an cxhibit to thc PUD document. MR. PIRES: And part of that discussion, which I think you all indicatcd you didn't want to do, where you talked about having some level of articulation and openings, and you all said you did not want to do that. MR. YOV ANOVICH: Correct. At this time. It's too early. MR. PIRES: Right. It's not totally what we're a~king for. This has lcss detail than what we had requested. MR. YOV ANOVICH: Well, you didn't objcct to it in your letter. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Well, let me make thc point though, with the regulations we have MR. YOV ANOVICH: I have a revised -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You guys, one at a time, now. Comc on. Otherwise we can't movc forward likc wc're trying to be hcrc. So go ahead, Brad. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: With thc rcgulations we have now based on Exhibit G, we would expect somewhere around a 20-foot height bearing at the wall. The thing I'm concerncd about is wc don't want to build a 30-foot parapet on top of that, which has nothing to restrict that. So just makc sure -- Page 55 Jat$'f5'~~ 6 MR. YOV ANOVICH: I understand. We'll -- I'm going to rely on others to help write that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. I think you got the gist of what we're suggesting. MR. YOV ANOVICH: We got the gist. It's not the intcnt to build a parapet to get around the provisions that we've agreed to. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, Ict's movc to Page 10. Anybody -- and there's no changes on Pagc 10. Does anybody have any -- from the Planning Commission have any commcnts at this time on Page 10? Okay, Ms. Caron? COMMISSIONER CARON: Yeah, I had talked to Mr. Yovanovich about this too, in tcrms of the hours of operations and their restrictions. Thc normal opcrational hours may be exceeded up to four times per month for accommodation of special functions for the child carc and school. But that's prctty open-endcd, you know. And I had asked him to talk to his clients about timcs and MR. YOV ANOVICH: Is 9:30 for the four -- up to four time special cvents for the child care or school, per month. COMMISSIONER CARON: And is that sevcn days a week? MR. YOV ANOVICH: Wcll, we're only allowed thc child care and school Monday through Friday. COMMISSIONER CARON: Right. Okay. So that would be restricted there. Okay, thank you. MR. YOV ANOVICH: I think that was our intent was -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And Tony, since you didn't have any objections to this pagc to begin with, then I'm assuming that making it morc restrictive, you'rc not going to object to that. MR. PIRES: It sounds reasonable. And once again, that's 9:30 for thosc four timcs per month -- MR. YOV ANOVICH: Right. MR. PIRES: -- for thc spccial functions. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: J.D.? MR. MOSS: No objections. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I didn't -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Murray? COMMISSIONER MURRA Y: I didn't hear what the numbcrs wcrc. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: They'rc going to limit the four timcs per month to no later than 9:30. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ms. Caron? COMMISSIONER CARON: And then we had also talked about is it seven days for the adult day care? MR. YOV ANOVICH: Yes, potcntially. COMMISSIONER CARON: Sevcn days a wcek. MR. YOVANOVICH: Ycs. COMMISSIONER CARON: Okay. And number threc says non-worship uses of the facilities. Is that also a seven day? MR. YOVANOVICH: Yes. COMMISSIONER CARON: Thcn I will ask you the qucstion that I asked you, thcn why is there no effect on your parking count? MR. YOV ANOVICH: Well, we did the parking calculations, you and I -- COMMISSIONER CARON: We think we did them. MR. YOV ANOVICH: Wc think wc did thcm right, based upon the requirement ofthrce parking spaces per seven seats and thc overall project being allowed up to 600 parking spaces. And we also did that on our own tract. On this tract I think it wa, n we camc up with wc would necd 421 or 429 for this tract, Page 56 Ji6r1 '~ojJ6 that if we were to run thern concurrently we would havc 7I cxtra parking spaces on a Sunday, rnaxing out the number of seats we could have. But there's adequate parking to address both if they were running at the same time. If we had the adult day carc during worship hours, therc's 71 or 79, I can't remcmbcr the cxact number, cxtra parking spaces over the codc minimum. So it should addrcss it. COMMISSIONER CARON: Thank you. I just wanted to make that clear for everybody that thcy're not subject to those parking for additional parking, because they will have additional parking. MR. YOV ANOVICH: And there's no issue during the week, bccausc church isn't -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, let's move to Page 1 I. It's the tablc for Tract B. Developmcnt standards just likc it was in A, so we'll movc through that. The first strikeout is the last sentence. Tony, do you havc any problem with that? MR. PIRES: No, sir. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: J.D.? MR. MOSS: I havc a problcm with something on Page 10. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Oh, I thought wc werc done. But Ict's go back to page -- go ahead. Now this is not changed language. So assuming if staff had a problcm with it, you've already cxpressed it. MR. MOSS: They had -- well, staff was never in agrcement with this, and we had included a condition of approval for it. If you notice the last sentence of the paragraph at thc top of Page 10, it says that this location is subject to jurisdictional agency review and approval. Wcll, it's alrcady becn rcviewed and denicd, and so this language is no longer applicable. And so I havc languagc providcd by our environmental review staff to rcvise this one commitmcnt. And if you look at the n I gucss it's the sccond sentcncc of that paragraph, it says location of the 44 trecs. If you delete is proposed to, put will be. Within the perimctcr landscape buffer along Wcst Strcct and Myrtle Road, period. And then deletc thc rest ofthat commitment. And the ncw language would be, thc 0.12 acres of created preserve. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah. MR. MOSS: Shall not be located in dry water management arcas, duc to conflicts betwccn agency maintenance rcquircments. And staff would also like to have this sorted out on the master plan. It needs -- thcre's language in there that refers to the old language we've just stricken. And we'd like to amend it to make sure that thc two jive with one another. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Richard, do you have any objcctions? MR. YOV ANOVICH: We'rc okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Tony, do you have any objections? MR. PIRES: No, cxccptjust echoing what J.D. said, because I think thc master plan docs show a created preserve arca, and it sounds like it's being n MR. YOV ANOVICH: It's still going to bc crcated, it just cannot be part of the water management system is what I understand staff is saying. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Arc thcrc any natural preserves left on this -- natural areas lcft on this site? MR. YOV ANOVICH: Today? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Today. MR. YOV ANOVICH: Wc've got some pine trees out therc. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No, are thcre any scctions Icft with the layers of canopy that you would find if you were to walk out in the rural lands somewhcre'? Page 57 161 I'!' A6 January 15,2009 MR. YOV ANOVICH: No.1 don't think that you would idcntity this piece of property as having any real native vegctation as defined by -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And this is in the urban area along 41. Are there any cndangered species on the property? MR. YOV ANOVICH: Are there any cndangercd spccies on thc property? Not that I'm aware of. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. I don't mind thc opcn space. I think if we required you to provide the open space, that's finc. You have -- your acquiescing to thc rcquirement, so that's fine, too. Although I personally think it's a problem and we're creating a cost to someonc to recreate nativc vcgetation where it wasn't in the first place, especially in the urban area. It does no good. That's just my comment on that. I mean, certainly everybody's going to move forward with it like it is. But it just doesn't make a -- it's a waste of money for a lot of people and I don't see the need for it, personally. MR. MOSS: There was some nativc vegctation on the site. If you recall the supplemental staff report that I submitted, environmcntal had some issues because of a clearing violation that occurrcd on the site. And Susan Mason from Environmental is hcre to claborate on that. MS. MASON: Good morning. For the rccord, Susan Mason, Enginecring and Environmcntal Serviccs. Thcrc was a vegetation removal permit pullcd a few ycars back for exotic vegetation rcmoval on an undeveloped lot. It was approximately an acre or so. And they wcrc only allowed to do hand rcmoval on the vast majority ofthe site. Mechanical was prohibited because it had saw palmctto and the pines, and they would kill the pines. Subsequently, mechanical rcmoval was done on the entire lot and thc saw palmetto that was therc was removed and the pine trees died and were further damaged in storms. So while there's nothing currently existing out there, that's bccause thcrc was a small area that was illegally cleared. So that's why thcre was a recreated requirement. And that's why thcy do have a lot morc flexibility in the way of relocating than thcy do currcntly. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Murray? COMMISSIONER MURRA Y: Susan, this is not facetious, this question. It may sound that way initially, but it's not. If there had been 10, 15, 20 years ago pine and other saw palmetto and so forth and disease struck those down, they died, would you be advocating a replacemcnt of those -- that's a natural course of events in life and death of plant species. Would you be requiring thcm to rcinitiate? MS. MASON: It's prctty difficult to answer a hypothetical like that from decades of what mayor may not have happened. Staff would evaluatc that. We do have photographs that were taken prior to the mechanical clearing on this sitc, so we do know what was there and that it was removed without a permit. So that's why thc preservation requirements are based on thosc conditions, not somcthing that happened decades ago, but something that happened a couple of years ago. And thcre are before photos that are part of the record. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: So if I understand you correctly, you don't want to deal with the possibility of life and death associated with plants on those properties, but in fact as long as you observed something at some picture some time ago, you would then want to reinitiate it. MS. MASON: Well, staff has to have cvidcncc ofsomcthing being done legally or illegally to make a call. And in this case it's quite clcar, whether or not it was intentional or not. I havc no idea if thcy intended to kill those pincs, but thcy did violatc their permit. And by violating thc permit it's vcry clear in the code and on the permit itself that that permit bccomcs invalid. Page 58 Jal~~~~oA 6 And since they're coming in for a rezone now, that rather than it being a code case whcrc they would have to recreate what was destroyed literally on that property, because it no longer has a valid permit, they're merely having to recreate a portion that's required for prcservation. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Do we know how along ago that the destruction, if you will, occurred? MS. MASON: I believe it was-- COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Just a generality. MS. MASON: I think 2004 was when the permit was issued. But the dates may be even in that supplcmcntal staff record. I haven't looked at that lately. COMMISSIONER MURRA Y: What I'm trying to get at is would not code have citcd them for that? MS. MASON: Only if there's a complaint or if it's observed. There's a lot of territory and a lot of vegetation permits that are issued throughout the county. There's not normally a follow-up unless we know thcre's a problcm. And apparcntly it was 2005. And Summer Araque was the permitter who went out on thc sitc, if you have specific questions for the site. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: What I'm trying to get at is that if codc fails to sce something like that then in an event such as this, then there's a catch-up, there's a catchall and a catch-up. MS. MASON: Right. Wc actually have a proccdurc to dividc out responsibility for issucs if it's discovered and can be rcsolved as part ofa rczone or an SDP typc of process, that our section handlcs it. But if it's something that's outsidc thc realm of normal inspcctions and rcvicws, then code enforccmcnt will handle it based on the nature of the violation and different ways of coming into compliance. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Thank you for the information. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, are we donc with Pagc 10, cvcryonc? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: We're on to Page I I. And I guess the first strike-through is accepted by all, so now let's movc on to the table itself. The minimum yard section of the table, the cross-out of from right-of-way and the cross-out of the greater of 30 feet or the zoned height ofthc structure and the letters SPS across that line. And up above where it crossed out and conditional uscs. Tony, do you havc any objection to those? MR. PIRES: No, sir. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: J.D.? MR. MOSS: No, sir. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. The next one is minimum yards between tracts, that's been crossed out, and we havc added language for distanccs 01'30 fcct, 50 fcet, and thcn a bunch of underlincd addages (sic) to that. Anybody havc any problems with that? MR. PIRES: No, sir. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. MR. MOSS: No. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Get on down to the side existing new structures, it changes to 20 fect-- from 15 feet to 20 feet and from half the building height from 30 fcct. Does anybody have any problcms with that? Tony? MR. PIRES: No, sir. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: J.D.? MR. MOSS: No. Page 59 ~~j; 5, '2lhf> CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Balance of that page, the footnotes are crossed out under maximum zoncd height, and the maximum actual height's been changed from 55 to 45. Tony? MR. PIRES: No objection. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: J.D.? MR. MOSS: Nonc eithcr. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The last says any approved conditional usc language was struck. I'm sure there's no problems with that. Tony? MR. PIRES: That's corrcct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: J.D.? MR. MOSS: No, sir. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. The footnotes. Ycah, I was going to ask you, Brad, to kind of reiterate where your footnote conccrns are and we'll go through them. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Number two, the word occupyable instead ofhabitablc. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Tony, any problems? MR. PIRES: No, sir. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: J.D.? MR. MOSS: No, sir. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Anything else, Brad? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: That's it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, any changes --let's go through the whole -- all the way down. Let's say -- MR. PIRES: In footnotc thrce should we make the same changc wc made before? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. MR. PIRES: I think Mr. Schiffer suggested exclusive ofmezzaninc in your balcony -- the exact language I guess on that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Wcll, I think hc basically said, as I commentcd to him, as long as you're within the hcight, what does it matter what you do inside. So I don't know if any changes were ended up warranted for that section. MR. PIRES: Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, so on number two, you're in acceptance with all the changes in number two, Tony? MR. PIRES: That's correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And J.D. is? MR. MOSS: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Number fivc. Tony? MR. PIRES: No problcm. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: J.D.? MR. MOSS: Looks good. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Number sevcn? MR. PIRES: Once again, with the standing objection, no problem. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: We know your standing objection. J.D.? MR. MOSS: I'd just like to add this used to bc a stipulation for approval that was contained in Exhibit H, and I'll make sure to delcte that from thosc stipulations now that they've included it in the PUD document. CHAlRMAN STRAIN: Okay. And number cight. Numbcr eight is a little -- I need somc Page 60 16aJ r,'20~6 explanation on that, because basically what it's saying is if somcone owns Tract B, the Tract A standards apply. Are there any standards in Tract A that if applied to Tract B become objectionable? And I don't know if you've looked at that in that rcgard, Tony, or how this got in hcrc. MR. PIRES: No, and we discussed this at length, because one ofthc issues was the issuc about additional height on Tract A. But thcn we havc the additional setbacks for the Tract A regulations, so that counterbalanccd in our opinion. CHAlRMAN STRAIN: So you're okay with eight? MR. PIRES: Ycs, sir. CHAlRMAN STRAIN: And J.D.? MR. MOSS: I think I'm okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: As it is now, wc're going to have to come back with another hearing anyway, because staff's already put in on record they necd to rcview the changes that are already bcen possibly coming out as a result of the landscape buffer issue, so you'll have further timc to review this. But I want to make surc that you still -- where your concerns are. MR. MOSS: At first blush it seems okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ms. Caron? We'rc on number eight. COMMISSIONER CARON : Yeah, I'm just sort of concerned about the overall intensity on Tract B to begin with. It's far greatcr than what's going to bc on Tract A, the larger tract. And I don't know, wc seem to be shoving all this intensity ovcr to this little tiny I. 9-acrc plot that has to gct their water handled by A, has to n you know, but we're allowing thcm like 9,000 squarc fect an acre vcrsus 5,700 for Tract A. I'm just n I hope somebody's looked at that and you rcally are okay with it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But docsn't thc maximums of the PUD apply to the combination aggregate of the tracts? And would that solve your problcm? COMMISSIONER CARON: No. All alone they get -- whether it's owned by the church or it's owned by somebody clse. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No, there's a maximum in here of a hundred -- 80,000, 100,000 n MR. PIRES: 100,000 square feet total for the entire n COMMISSIONER CARON: Right. But all you have to do is add up the square footage allowed on Tract B. 5,600 square fect for the church, 12,400 for an accessory -- oh, I'm sorry, that -- no, accessory uses, and 2,000 for storage. If you divide that by their -- add that up and dividc it by their two acrcs that they have, you're talking about 9,100 square feet, you know, for cvery acre you've got. Versus if you add up all thc square footage you can put on Tract A and divide it out by thc 14 acres they've got, you're talking about closer to 57 squarc feet. So my concern is how much square footage we're dumping onto this littlc tiny parcel. And I don't think -- I think intensity-wise it's significant. I think that if it's owned by somebody separate, then the devclopment standards kind of keep everything down to a more manageablc level. If it suddenly is thcn incorporatcd into the church, then they get all their standards and -- I don't know, I think you're looking at an awfully intcnse use for two acres. MR. YOV ANOVICH: Ms. Caron, ifCovcnant Prcsbyterian buys Tract B, thc minimum building separation will be 200 feet. So there'll basically not be a building on Tract B. Now, the intensity n so that's 20,000 square foot -- MR. PIRES: Any new building. MR. YOV ANOVICH: What's that? MR. PIRES: A new building. Page 61 Jan!a~ 15,~oA 6 .~ MR. YOV ANOVICH: A new building, right. MR. PIRES: The existing building will-- MR. YOV ANOVICH: The cxisting building will stay and it's -- MR. PIRES: -- 20 perccnt it could expand with a setback of 50 feet. MR. YOV ANOVICH: So, I mean, if the concern is that somehow Covenant will buy Tract B and you'll have more intensity on Tract B, the cxact opposite will happen, you'll actually be moving the intcnsity away from the neighborhood, bccause of the increased -- if a new building is built, that increased setback of200 feet versus -- what is it now, Tony? On the road I think it's 50 fcet or 30 feet, I forget. MR. MOSS: Thirty. MR. YOV ANOVICH: But anyway, you get a better situation for thc community if Tract B is acquired by Covenant, wouldn't you agree? MR. PIRES: Yes. And oncc again-- COMMISSIONER CARON: That's fine -- MR. PIRES: I think Ms. Caron's conccrn might be a standalone utilization of Tract B with 20,000 square feet on approximately two acres. I think that's what is bcing articulated. MR. YOV ANOVICH: And square footage, I don't know that that's necessarily a good indicator of intensity for a church. I think it's people. And right now there are no fixed scats in that building in Tract-- the existing building in Tract B. And they can put 150 to 200 chairs in thcrc today. And we've kept it at that number. So from an intensity standpoint, pcople coming to the site, we basically have kept what's there today. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Well, Tony, you're okay with eight? COMMISSIONER CARON: They're okay with it. MR. PIRES: Ycs. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And J.D. is. And we'll go on if we necd to. And nine. Do you have any problcms with number nine, Tony? MR. PIRES: Footnote nine at Pagc I2? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: We're still on the same page, yes, sir. MR. PIRES: No objection. CHAlRMAN STRAIN: J.D.? MR. MOSS: None. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, we got through over halfthc PUD. We got through the most intense parts of it. There's a lot morc to come, but not quite as much as we've bccn through this morning. We normally leave a little bit early for lunch becausc of the lineup downstairs, so wc will takc lunch and come back here at 12:45, quarter of 1 :00, and resume the walk through this PUD and then wc'll get into public hearing after that. With that we'll take a nearly one-hour recess. (Luncheon recess.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, good afternoon, everyone, and welcome back to the mecting. I hope you all had a good lunch. And we're going to go back in to where we left off in just a moment. Itcm #8D - Continued from earlier in thc meeting PETITION: PUDZ-2007-AR-12026, SAVANNAH PLACE RPUD CHAIRMAN STRAIN: We have one housekeeping issue to takc care of. And Heidi, it involves Page 62 JaRa~~5, A{> Petition PUDZ-2007-AR-12026. That was the consent agenda item that we deferred while the applicant corrected a table. And the table I understand has been corrected, it's been passed out. I don't know how many here have it. Does everybody here have a copy of it? Ms. Caron? COMMISSIONER CARON: I was going to move approval. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I just want to make -- Commissioner Schiffer brought up most of the concerns. Did you by chance be able to talk to him about this at all? (Sic) MS. ASHTON-CICKO: Yes, 1-- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Oh, there he is, speak of the devil. MS. ASHTON-CICKO: There he is. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I'd rather not make a motion until he's agreed with it, too. Brad, the new table for that prior petition on the Savannah Place, any problems? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I looked at it. It's fine. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Is there a motion to recommend approval of Petition -- COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I will make that motion. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- PUDZ-2007-AR-12026? The motion was made by Commissioner Murray. Seconded by? COMMISSIONER CARON: Second. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Commissioner Caron. Discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: All in favor, signifY by saying aye. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Aye. COMMISSIONER MURRA Y: Aye. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Aye. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye. COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Aye. COMMISSIONER CARON: Aye. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion carries 8-0. MS. WILLIAMS: Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. We appreciate your patience in getting it done today. Item #9A - Discussed & continued to later in the meeting PETITION: PUDZ-2007-AR-12097, COVENANT PRESBYTERIAN CHURCH OF NAPLES. INC. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And with that, we get to deal with the attorneys again. Okay, we left off on -- we finished Page 12, so let's move to Page 13. We'll continue along the same path as we had before. And the first one there, and this is -- Page 13 is just those issues pertaining to Tract B. So the first one is A, buffers. Tony, there's a change, there's a sentence added. Any concerns? MR. PIRES: No, sir. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: J.D.? Page 63 JanL~ IftooA 6 MR. MOSS: No, sir. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And Richard, again, I will assume, since these are your documents, you don't have any concerns about your own document. MR. YOV ANOVICH: That's a good assumption. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Number three has a change from the heights, four to six feet. Any concerns, Tony? MR. PIRES: No, sir. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: J.D.? MR. MOSS: No, sir. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: As we move down the page, item C has three words added and one word crossed out. Any concerns, Tony? MR. PIRES: No, sir. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: J.D.? MR. MOSS: No, sir. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. And that's the last of the changes on that page that are underlined or struck out. Does the Planning Commission have any comments on that page? COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: No. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, 1-- number D, second paragraph it says, at the time of build-out or thereafter, the project shall provide/maintain a minimum of 40 percent of gross project area. This is the same language I believe that was in Tract A. And I'm wondering, does it fit for Tract B? It's referring to the project. And since this is a PUD involving two parcels, does that mean Tract B's build-out is going to be subject -- or Tract B's open space will be subject to the build-out of Tract A? MR. YOV ANOVICH: Yes. The overall PUD. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So the property owner of B is consenting to be regulated based on the performance of A. MR. YOV ANOVICH: At the end of the day when everything is built out, when you have the total redevelopment of A and you have B redeveloped, if it redevelops, the overall PUD will have a 40 percent open space. And the code requires 30. So it's above and beyond. So we're committing at the end of the day, when everything gets redeveloped, there will be a greater open space than the code requires. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: How many acres is Tract B? MR. YOV ANOVICH: Two. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. The first-- MR. YOV ANOVICH: No, wait. B as in boy? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: B as in boy. MR. YOV ANOVICH: Yeah, two. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The first sentence, the project shall provide/maintain a minimum of30 percent gross project area, i.e., not less than 4.8 acres of open space. MR. YOV ANOVICH: Because the total -- there's 16 total acres. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Tract B doesn't have any separate requirement for open space as a standalone? MR. YOV ANOVICH: No. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Now, would staff look at it like that? MR. MOSS: We looked at it as the overall area. They're required to maintain at least 30 percent Page 64 JJnQJ 11, 20A 6 , open space in the whole PUD. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. MR. MOSS: And they're providing more than that. They're providing 40 percent at the time of build-out. But they have committed to maintaining that 30 percent throughout the phases of development. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I just wanted to make sure under separate ownership there wasn't to be a separate allocation that had to be noted. That's fine. MR. PIRES: Mr. Strain, in may? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes, sir, Mr. Pires. MR. PIRES: Unless I'm misunderstanding, the last sentence of -- the last paragraph on Page 13, it just says the minimum open space requirement for Tract B and its associated contributions towards meeting the gross PUD minimum open space shall be 20 percent of the gross area of Tract B. So it does appear that some of the open space has to be on Tract B. MR. YOV ANOVICH: But it doesn't have to meet an independent 30 percent standard. MR. PIRES: Correct. But at least 20 percent of the overall 40 percent. MR. YOVANOVICH: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Anybody else? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: If not, we'll move on to Page 14, the water management. The first paragraph has a strike-through. And I believe -- MR. YOV ANOVICH: These are identical to what we did for Tract A. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. MR. YOV ANOVICH: So should we just make all the same changes? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I would agree with that. Does anybody on the Planning Commission have a problem? Tony, is that consistent with what you would -- MR. PIRES: It is consistent, that's correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So same changes as Tract A. And both parties agree? MR. PIRES: Ycs. MR. YOV ANOVICH: County agree? MR. MOSS: Yes. Thank you. MR. YOV ANOVICH: Sorry, Mr. Chair. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No problem. Okay, so let's move on to Page IS. It would be item F would be the first -- well, there's no changes on that page except number four, and it's the house of worship hours of operation. Tony, any concerns? MR. PIRES: In the Tract B regulations, I guess the question is, is this the appropriate place for it with regards to hours of operation? And one of the concerns outlined in my lettcr to Rich was that there should be language prohibiting outdoor music, requiring that when there is music associated with any activities that the music cannot extend past 9:00 p.m.; and that music only be performed and confined to a fully enclosed building with all the windows and doors closed so they cannot be heard from outside the building. It's my understanding there havc been sometimes activities have occurred past 10:00, 10:30, II :00 at night where there might be music or entertainment -- or music, excuse me, as part of worship or activities. And then when people are spilling out of the church and/or it continue on, it has an adverse affect on nearby property owners. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So your objection is not just outdoor music, but you're objecting to indoor Page 65 16JJmlry 1A, ~o~ music when the doors and windows are closed? MR. PIRES: That they -- when they have the indoor music, they need to keep the doors and windows closed to try to the confine that to the inside. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I'm not sure how we regulate that. Mr. Wolfley? COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Didn't we just go through a noise ordinance that would cover that? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I'm not sure what the noise ordinance covered, even though we spent I don't know how many days on it, to be honest with you. COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: That was going to be my point about the buffers, as well as the noise ordinance. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I think we did go through a noise ordinance, it is going to -- it may have already been approved. It's ambiguous in a lot of ways. It's concerning. But if we can strike a balance hcre where the applicant agrees to some restrictions that are reasonable, and the neighborhood agrees, it may not be a bad thing. Mr. Murray? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: It talks here about -- this is B, right? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes, Tract B. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: It talks about worship. And I thought the only house of worship was going to be on Tract A. MR. YOV ANOVICH: No, each tract will have the ability to have its own house of worship. Because right now they're owned by different entities. Covenant Presbyterian Church owns Tract A. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Why did we change it from houses to house of worship? MR. YOV ANOVICH: Because the way it was written, we could have -- each individual tract could have had multiple churches, and we had committed to just one church on each tract. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Well, maybe the city will give them a permit for entertainment. I don't know. MR. YOV ANOVICH: And this is what we had raised earlier about -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Schiffer? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And [ walk my dog by this site. This is a house that was converted I think into a church. It does make a lot of noise. I mean, it's n I've noticed noise coming out the windows that I think are old louvered windows, and it is pretty loud out in the center of the street anyway. So if we did limit -- unless the neighbors who live across the street have no problem with it, I would think we havc to be careful with the building. At least the existing building. MR. PIRES: And that's the concern, Mr. Schiffer and members of the Commission, is that as to Tract B, that structure is closest to the residential community. It's at that corner of West and Ridge. And it does have -- they do conduct worship activities where they have music, that it gets loud and people coming and going. And it's just a matter of not trying to prohibit it from inside, just to regulate it so that it doesn't -- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Right. MR. PIRES: n create a problem. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And the noise does get out of there pretty good. Now, you said it's owned by a bank now, right? I mean n MR. PIRES: Correct. But I think they're leasing it to another church, ifl'm not mistaken. They're currently leasing it to another church. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, Tony, if the noise was restricted from the outside and limited to the inside with the windows and doors closed, you still havc an objection to that? Page 66 Janl~ tlo~ 6 MR. PIRES: Yeah, I guess the problem that's tough to regulate is when they're coming and going, though, and the people leave the doors open as they're exiting. I don't know how you regulate that activity, though, that's n COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Well, let me say -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Is there a limit -- go ahcad, Mr. Schiffer. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I mean, the noise n it's interior noise that I'm listening to in the middle of the street, so, you know, enclosed or not, it's making a lot of noise. And I know what you mean, when the doors arc open, you can hear the difference. Anyway, I think that, you know, it's up n maybe the neighbors that live across from that are here and they'll testifY. But I think that 10:30 number I'm suspicious of. MR. PIRES: Yeah, we had a 9:00 number was what we were suggesting, because they've heard of activity at 10:30, I I :00 as the time there's bcen music. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, let's wait and hear from the public then and see ifthere's any kind of input or compromise we can get to. Richard? MR. YOV ANOVICH: Again, I just want to point out that all we're trying to do on Tract B is keep what's already there. And there already is a church with absolutely no limitations on hours of worship, music, anything. And we looked at this is we were asked would we agree to limit worship from 6:30 a.m. to 10:30 p.m., which we agreed to. And I don't -- again, I don't know of any n I've never been to a worship service that didn't involve some form of music in that worship service. To now say to this church that's been around for a long time that you're going to tell them that they can't have music as part of their worship service after 9:00 p.m. just doesn't make any scnse. We'll agree to the outdoor music. But the indoor music? The door's closed. People will leave, yes, that happens. But I think we've gone a little beyond what's a rea~onable regulation applicable to a use, a church use that already cxists on the site. So we would hope that that could be taken into consideration. Because you're not getting any benefit by trying to imposc a limitation over something that already exists. MR. PIRES: And members of the Commission, in may, just briefly, again, the applicants are here because, as I understand, part of the issue is they cannot expand the existing structures because they're nonconforming. And this document gives them the opportunity to takc that existing structure on Tract B, which is closest to existing rcsidential properties, expand up to 20 percent with a 50-foot setback so they can engage in expansion activities. And so I think there's an opportunity for protection for the neighborhood when they're asking for something that they're not allowed to do at the present time as far as having increased size. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So this would only apply when they cxpanded thcir operation? MR. PIRES: No, I -- no, it would apply over all. But I'm just saying as part of the process, where Rich is saying historically that has been utilized and there hasn't been any such regulation. But they're asking for a significant opportunity to significantly expand this facility. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Wolfley, then Mr. Vigliotti. COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: I'm afraid we're going to be setting a precedent. We have a code in place. If people have a problem with sound, they have every right to call the county and say there's too much noise. Why are we restricting a church to things where a restaurant, for instance, or a sports bar is not restricted? I don't get that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You couldn't put those there. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Yeah. COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Well, I understand. And that's what we're here for. But well, I'm Page 67 16aJuty 15k(j9 1 sorry -- MR. PIRES: Possibly you could. If a project was coming in for rezoning to a commercial and they wanted to have a restaurant and have some entertainment, I think the board would be well within its right to regulate the ability to have any music, and as far as regulating the hours of operation. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Go ahead. MS. ASHTON-CICKO: Mr. Chairman and Commission members, in may make a recommendation on this. I think that what Mr. Pires originally proposed and what the applicant indicated they would agree to was the language limiting outdoor music and agreeing to keep the windows and doors closed during the worship service. And I'd recommend that that be the extent of any limitations that you place on the church. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Recommend that it be what? MS. ASHTON-CICKO: That that be the extent of the limitations. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. MS. ASHTON-CICKO: I don't want to get too far into -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Freedom of religion and issues like that? MS. ASHTON-CICKO: And some other issues, yeah. So that would be my recommendation. That seemed to be what Mr. Pires was asking. And I believe I heard Mr. Yovanovich said those limitations were acceptable. MR. YOV ANOVICH: The 6:30 a.m. to 10:30 p.m.? MS. ASHTON-CICKO: No, what I was saying is the agreement that there won't be any -- you know, you won't be conducting outdoor music and that you'll agree to keep your doors and windows closed during the worship music portion of the -- MR. YOVANOVICH: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. And Mr. Vigliotti was next. Then we've got to go further from that. Go ahead, Bob. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: This reminds me of the last petition that came up. The last actually two church petitions. I'm kind of concerned about over-restricting churches where we're going to get in trouble with legal and what powers we do have and don't. To over-restrict a church -- I believe that there should be some restrictions to protect the neighbors, but I'm concerned about over-restrictions and how we might find ourselves in an uncomfortable position. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, Richard, just to summarize, you're in agreement with the hours that are underlined and put in here? MR. YOVANOVICH: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. You're in agreement there be no outdoor music? MR. YOV ANOVICH: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. And that you will limit the uses ofthe church and any music inside to when the doors and windows are closed; are you in agreement with that? MR. YOV ANOVICH: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So we've got those three points. I think we can continue this after we hear more of the public input and see what other options are available. But that gets us at least to three points of agreement on that particular item. Ms. Caron? COMMISSIONER CARON: I think we should also put the 9:30 time restriction on the exceptions for child care. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The previous ones that we put on Tract A? COMMISSIONER CARON: Yes. For number one, child care was 9:30 p.m., I think. Page 68 16 I '1' A 6 January 15, 2009 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Tony, any problem? MR. PIRES: No, sir. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: J.D.? MR. MOSS: No, sir. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Richard? MR. YOV ANOVICH: No. COMMISSIONER CARON: Same as Tract A. MR. YOV ANOVICH: I got it. No problem. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. With that, we'll move on to the master plan itself. And there's -- it's a changed master plan from what was originally provided for this project. Tony, have you reviewed that master plan from your client's perspective? MR. PIRES: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Any problems? MR. PIRES: Yes. One is I guess possibly for clarification, and maybe it's being overly picky. But around the perimeter it has language on three parts: Along West, along Trail and along Ridge. And it says 20-foot Type D buffer. And I believe by virtue of the additional enhanced buffering, as well as some of the deviations, it may not be just a typical Type D buffer. And so I think it might be appropriate to -- you know, Type D buffer as per -- in reference back to the PUD. You may want to have a note to that effect. Because it's not just a straight Type D buffer. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: From staffs perspective, is that something that's needed in order for you to enforce the PUD on the master plan, or -- MR. MOSS: I'm sorry, could you repeat that, please? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: What he's saying is the buffers that are pointed out on Trail, Ridge and West strcets don't say that it's the buffer pursuant to the PUD, it just says it's going to be a Type D buffer. And what he's saying is the buffer's more stringent in the PUD language. How do we make sure it's incorporated into the master plan, I think -- MR. PIRES: And/or even some deviations. MR. MOSS: I don't think we have a problem with that. MR. SCHMITT: Reference on the master plan the paragraph in the PUD. MR. MOSS: Yeah. MR. PIRES: Just to avoid confusion. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Richard, do you have any problems from-- MR. YOV ANOVICH: No. MR. SCHMITT: Buffer in accordance with n MR. PIRES: With regards to n I'm sorry. MR. SCHMITT: Enhance the buffer as defined in the PUD. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Schmitt, if you're going to comment, unfortunately Cherie's trying to look at me and say how am I going to get his writing, so n how am I going to get his comments down, so you need to get it on the record. MR. SCHMITT: Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Tony, your next item? MR. PIRES: Yes. In the notes -- and I think the font size couldn't be any smaller, but it's okay. Optometrists are loving these fonts. In note one, one of my favorite phrases, and I may steal this for any future applications, is retained flexibility. And I think that's almost a code word for let's do what we can do and just be -- anyways, it lends Page 69 IJQJaJI5, 2/t~ itself to a level of uncertainty, and I'm not sure exactly why that should remain. We had proposed language for that note one that is much more restrictive. It just says, no SDP's shall be approved that is not in conformance with this master plan, except for realignment of depicted access drive locations from Trail Boulevard, if required by county transportation requirements. And provided that in all events a minimum distance of 330 feet shall be maintained from the north and south CFPUD boundaries. Again, the idea of a master plan I think is to give everybody an idea of where items are going to go, give a level of certainty. And I think by this phrase retain flexibility -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But Tony, I understand your comments. Everything you just said I believe is already addressed pursuant to the rules of the LDC. Why do we even need note one at all? I mean, that might be a simpler way to solve the problem if that's in -- Richard, do you have a need for note one? MR. YOV ANOVICH: Well, yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes. MR. YOV ANOVICH: And the concern was we wanted to make sure that the labeling of these buildings on the master plan, there needed to be a note on the master plan to reflect the text in the PUD that would allow us to redevelop Tract B and move an existing building to meet a 200-foot setback versus what's there today. In don't have the note on the master plan to address the redevelopment of existing buildings, I'm concerned that I can't do that now without amending the PUD master plan. And that was the intent of that the note, it was to explain n if you want to take out the words retained flexibility and say, except to address the relocation, and then the other issue, then that's fine. I mean, if the words retained flexibility are bothering people, then let's just say, except to address the relocation. Because that's what it was intended to do. If we wanted to move the existing building on Tract B, I don't want to be n to me I might have to come in and amend the PUD master plan if I don't have this note. MR. PIRES: And I appreciate Rich's explanation, Mr. Chairman and members of the Commission, because I don't think we heard that before as bcing a basis for it that was solely related to Tract B. MR. YOV ANOVICH: Well, it wa~. We talked about that --I'm sorry. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No, what I'm suggesting is, Tony, you've suggested some language. Richard's countering your suggestion. If you take out the words retained flexibility and it says, except for-- except to address the potential redevelopment of buildings, is that going to be a problem? MR. PIRES: Yes, because it doesn't tocusjust on Tract B. As Rich mentioned, if the focus is for Tract B, we could -- MR. YOV ANOVICH: Tony, again -- and I'm sorry, let me interrupt you. But it talks about -- the note talks about except to address the potential redevelopment of buildings labeled on this master plan as existing. There's two buildings at the end ofthe day that are labeled on here a~ existing that might stay. MR. PIRES: Yeah, one's on Tract A and one's on Tract B. MR. YOV ANOVICH: Both of which, if! decided to move them, would put the buildings further away from residences. I don't want to be in a position where I've got to amend the PUD master plan. Ifwe decide to move what's the Living Word building right now further away from West, I can't do it without this note. And what I'm trying to -- I thought that it's actually better for the community because I will be moving structures further away from residenccs. MR. PIRES: I tend to disagree, only because the written text says that if you build anything new on Tract B, it has to be 50 feet from there. And if you -- and ifit's all under one ownership, it has to be 200 feet from West and from Ridge. So I'm not sure why this note even needs to be in the master plan. Page 70 MR. YOV ANOVICH: Because I again -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: He's not going to be building anything new. He's going to take an existing building and moving (sic) it. And that hasn't been addressed anywhere. So it's not new, it's sort of not existing, it's being moved. But if it's being moved, it's got to be moved further away from where it is now so it's -- it can only be a positive, not a negative. MR. PIRES: And I think this is the first time I've heard this, and I think it's the first time my clients have heard that they wanted to move that building. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Well, and that's a different -- I didn't know that either. I'm not saying it's bad or good, but -- MR. YOV ANOVICH: I'm not saying we do. I'm just saying we don't want to be in a situation where we would be prohibited from doing it because there's not a note on the PUD master plan that's consistent with the text in the PUD document. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But I think what you need to get your note down to, Richard, is what you're intending by the note. And if your intention is by the note to say that you can move these buildings as long as you move them farther away, and you don't know where you might move them yet, then say it in more plain English than the way that's written. MR. PIRES: And possibly label the buildings as, you know, like building A -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well. he did. MR. PIRES: -- and building B, existing A and existing B, and give a range of where you wish to have them located. I mean, that -- once again, it's the first I've heard that you wanted to possibly relocate those buildings and move them. MR. YOV ANOVICH: Well, it only made sense when one of the provisions in the PUD document talked about the possibility of a Tract A owner acquiring Tract B. And if we decided to raze the building on Tract B we had to meet the Tract A setback standards, that's what this note was intended to address, is to make sure that there was no inconsistency between the text of the PUD. And I think if the words retained flexibility is what is creating the issue, I think that striking those words, it just says to have it say, except to address the potential redevelopment of buildings labeled on this master plan as existing. There's only two of them and they're both labeled. Those are the only two buildings that could potentially move, and they'll have to meet the 200-foot standards. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, but this is a new scenario for the neighborhood to have heard. MR. PIRES: That's correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I would suggest that, and we'll hear the rest of the planning commission too, but I would suggest that maybe this is another item that you work out and come back with as a resolution. I think you can get to the resolution. From what I'm hearing, both of you are not that far off, it's just a matter of semantics in how you get there. Ms. Caron? COMMISSIONER CARON: If the bank sells Tract B to someone other than Covenant Church, then they don't have to be 200 feet back. MR. YOV ANOVICH: No, they have to meet the new development standards, which is -- I forget; I already blanked -- COMMISSIONER CARON: Which is 50. MR. YOV ANOVICH: Fifty, correct. MR. PIRES: And Mr. Strain, you make a good point, because I think in looking back at other sections of the document, they need to be revised too. For example, the idea of the ingress/egress driveways January IS, 2009 16 Itl A 6 Page 71 16~u1rY 1 ~2~9 j on Tract B that will be removed. It says, will be removed upon the reconstruction, replacement or demolition of the existing buildings. And I don't think it was contemplated as what would happen if they would be moved. Now that that issue has come up, that's -- MR. YOV ANOVICH: Let me rephrase that word. I didn't mean physically lift the buildings that have been constructed. I meant wipe them out and build something new. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, that's a new thing. Why would you say move if you meant new? MR. YOV ANOVICH: Well, I'm sorry. I apparently used the wrong word. In my mind I was talking about razing the building and reconstructing something new. That's the context that I meant move in. I didn't mean I thought we would pick up an old building and relocate it. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Moving the location is where you were going? MR. YOV ANOVICH: I meant -- yes, I meant reconstruct a new building. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. So you got existing buildings and you got new buildings. We have rules for both. All you're saying is this applies as if you demolish an existing building and you want to build a new building. MR. YOV ANOVICH: Correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. So under that pretense is how we should be looking at note one. MR. YOV ANOVICH: That's what I meant and I'm sorry I used the word move. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Me, too. MR. YOV ANOVICH: I didn't think anybody would think that's what I meant. MR. PIRES: I listen to you, Rich, and you don't think I ever listen to you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Now, Tony, assuming this is for new structures, and we can always add the word any SDP application for a new structure shall further conformance -- with this master plan and phase development of the plan shall be in substantial conformance with the approved master plan, except to address the potential redevelopment of buildings labeled on this master plan as existing and their associated parking lot. What do you mean by redevelopment then, Richard? MR. PIRES: I didn't even know if we need it. I guess because the text addresses what happens on-- with setbacks. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. MR. PIRES: I understand the driveway issue. And there is no longer a phased development in the document, I believe. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, this is a confusing note. I pointed it out to you-- MR. YOV ANOVICH: I know. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- when I met with you. And Tony, I have to -- I certainly a6'Tee with you, there's a problem with it. I don't know how to fix it right now with the fact that it's referencing a redevelopment of buildings when we actually have existing and new buildings. So I'm not sure redeveloping a building, unless you want to eonsider an addition a redevelopment. But I think that paragraph needs to have some work, and I don't know if we can do that here today. But it's one area offocus that we've got to have. And maybe before the end of the meeting we'll have some suggestions. Anybody else have anything at this time on this one? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Yeah. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Schiffer? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: On the -- and just to be clear, that these secondary accesses, as you call them, they will be removed potentially in the future? If the use stays, the buildings stay exactly as they are, they are allowed to stay. But once that changes, they get removed? Page 72 16}~. A ~ 1 anuary rs~009 MR. YOV ANOVICH: If this building gets redeveloped, these access points go away. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. MR. YOV ANOVICH: Is that what you were talking about, Mr. Schiffer? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: How about the other guy up in the -- just to the right. MR. YOV ANOVICH: This stays and this stays. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Forever? MR. YOV ANOVICH: Uh-hnh. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I've got a question. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: As soon as Mr. Schiffer's done, Mr. Murray. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Right. MR. YOV ANOVICH: I'm sorry. If they're under separate ownership, this one stays. If they become unified ownership between A and B, this one goes away. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: All right. And then the other thing I'd like to do, since we're coming back, is that the graphics on this drawing is to me a little misleading. First of all, the jumbo property line and all that's confusing. But the scale, the house of worship and the pedestrian, all the building areas you're allowed to build have more area than the lake itself, yet the scale of them shows them so small. So could somebody kind of rework this thing to show the buildings you're asking for in the size that's more representative of what you're asking for? Does that make -- what I'm saying? In other words, you're asking for -- MR. YOV ANOVICH: We kind of inherited this master plan from way back when, and so we're trying to not reinvent the wheel, so to speak, in working with this document. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: But the concern I have is the neighbors looking at these representation of buildings are smaller than the numbers that you're requesting. So I would like to see at least the campus area, for example, reworked to show. The 2.4 acres that you have for the buildings, which is about 100,000 feet, a little over. that's more area than the lake. So the graphics of the lake looks much larger than the buildings. Now, granted, the house of worship I'm sure won't be, but the other buildings might be two-story. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, though not all the buildings are shown now. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: What's not shown? MR. YOV ANOVICH: The house of worship is a two-story building. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: It will be a two-story building? MR. YOV ANOVICH: Yes. Both of those are two-story buildings. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: But in the 35 -- so the sanctuary is going to be half of the 35? I don't think so. MR. YOV ANOVICH: Yeah, they'll be -- I misunderstood. We don't have a full second story on the house of worship. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Right. You would want a much larger space. And then the other thing is it looks like we did lop off one of the buildings. But I wouldn't want this to go forward making everybody think you couldn't do a symmetrical layout, so -- anyway, just a concern. In that campus area, which itself is about the area you're requesting for buildings, try to do the buildings to be more to scale, actual scale. I know you inherited the problem, but -- MR. YOV ANOVICH: And one of the issues about having to put these buildings on, we were told we have to locate the buildings on the site development plan. And in doing that, the community says okay, I see the buildings, this is -- they scale it off and they see how far it's going to be from the street based upon Page 73 lr6uftril5, AOB this location. And one of the other reasons, this just came back to me, and Tony and I talked about this, is that if we had to shift the building 10 feet one way or the other because of, you know, we get into the final site design, am I now -- do I have to now come in and amend the site -- the PUD master plan because the building's not exactly where it is? And we wanted -- we need to have some flexibility in all of that. And so I have to put these buildings here. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: But that's not what I'm saying. What I'm saying is you're showing anorexic buildings when the buildings are a lot fatter, let me put it that way. And show them the right way. MR. YOV ANOVICH: What do you mean the right way? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Well, the area that the buildings are, the 100,000 feet, correct? MR. YOV ANOVICH: They're 80,000 square feet. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: On Tract A. MR. YOV ANOVICH: On Tract A. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And the other ones too. But if you combine the 100 thou, that's more area than the lake. And the lake is shown to be much bigger than the building. So ails I'm saying, just have somebody -- Grady Minor can look at it and more accurately represent. I know that probably the flanker buildings will be two-story, so they're smaller in footprint. But -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But Brad, why don't they just take the campus area and reference building -- area for house of worship and buildings, and then the whole cam -- anywhere in the campus area is going to be known then as your buildable area, and it solves the problem of their accuracy concern. MR. YOV ANOVICH: I'm at peace with that. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: But I don't -- MR. YOV ANOVICH: If it's okay with the community-- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: But I don't think the neigh -- MR. YOV ANOVICH: -- we're at peace with that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: One at a time now. Go ahead, Brad. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I don't think the neighbors realize that the area that they're asking for is the size of that whole shaded campus area. That's my point. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, let's see where that -- Mr. Murray, you were next. You want to-- COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Ifwe've settled it, fine. But I was getting very disturbed with the redeveloping of building. I know you can remanufacture a product, but I don't see how you could redevelop a building. Is that a common term? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: It is, but not in reference to existing and new. So they threw it in as a new -- it's a fairly new term for this PUD. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I can see a building, you know, coming in and being modified. And if you want to call that redevelopment, fine, but it -- if he's really talking about razing the structure n CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Riehard, you guys need to pay attention if you're going to be able to respond to the questions of the planning commission. MR. YOV ANOVlCH: Sorry, Commissioner. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I think if you're really talking about razing the structure, if that's what you intend to do, I would want you to stay away from redevelopment of the building. Or if that's what you intend to do, let's be very clear. Because when you had stated move, and I know that was in an error now, but that led me down a Page 74 JJ~~12A<6 path of thinking process, and I want to be crystal clear on my thinking process now. Is it an intent to redevelop that building or to raze it and construct a brand new building? Do we know? MR. YOV ANOVICH: The intent of that note was if we decided to raze and reconstruct the building. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Okay. You're going to put a new building on. MR. YOV ANOVICH: We were going to put a new building. And if we did that-- MS. ASHTON-CICKO: You'd have 200 -- MR. YOV ANOVICH: -- we have to meet the 200 foot -- COMMISSIONER MURRAY: 200 foot setback. I think it's moot then. MR. YOV ANOVICH: That's what we're trying to say. I just wanted the PUD master plan to be consistent with the text of the PUD. I'm sorry I used the word move. I didn't mean it. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: But you don't want to use the word redevelop either. MR. YOV ANOVICH: Again, I'm happy to use whatever word everybody's comfortable explaining of! demolish and I build a new one and it has to move away from the residences. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I think the consensus is the paragraph's got to change in the way it's referenced and what it really means. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Raze and construct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And you're going to do that. MR. YOV ANOVICH: And I would like some -- I want to make sure I get it as close to right as I can. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Well, there's hI think what we were focusing on is Brad's comment and your concern about the location and the size and the shape of the geometrics that are in that campus area. And it really could be solved by just noting that the campus area is the building area. And is that a problem for you, Mr. Pires? MR. PIRES: No, I think we had suggested that at one time to give a greater opportunity for people to identify looking at the site plan where that 200-foot-- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Could go. MR. PIRES: -- and then where the buildable area is. And I think Rich explained -- MR. YOV ANOVICH: I got it. MR. PIRES: -- and I understand it, they inherited this and it was difficult to try to modifY some of it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Do you have a problem with making that modification of this master plan? I think it works to your benefit, to be honest with you. MR. YOV ANOVICH: No, again, I heard what you said, Tony, I just misunderstood it when we talked before. We'll come up with a building envelope. I'm okay with that. MR. PIRES: Must not have been a moving statement that I made. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, that I think is a good idea. Anybody else have any comments from the panel? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anything else on the master plan, Mr. Pires? MR. PIRES: If I may, just for clarification. And my letter, in paragraph 10 of my letter referenced that the document should clearly state that only those proposed structures depicted on the master plan can be constructed. An amendment to the PUD and the master plan would be required if any other structures Page 75 ~~utry115, A~ are desired to be constructed. And I guess that's a follow-up to what Mr. Schiffer was saying, that this -- you used to show it three buildings depicted sort of in the center of the campus and now it shows two buildings. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Well, I mean, there is some stuff here that looks like it's further thought than this is representing. The point I was making is I wouldn't want that case. I would rather you still be able to do symmetrical buildings. But is it the intent that you're going to Phase I build probably what's shown here and then the ability in the future to come baek and build that third structure? As long as it's within the square footage, why not? MR. YOV ANOVICH: Well, no, what we had -- the original plan was to put all three buildings on there for the full square footage. Then we talked to the community and said instead of the full 120,000 square feet on -- I'm sorry, 100,000 square feet on Tract A, we'll cap ourselves at 80,000 square feet and ask for the final 20,000 square feet through the conditional use process. And that third building that we took off was that 20,000 square feet. So there was going to -- the third building was 20,000 square feet, okay? So these two buildings that are here together with the Living Word center is the 80,000 square feet that we would be allowed on Tract A. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. And then I guess my point is, and I am seeing some sketches here that show two-story and all. Just to make sure that that's the actual footprint of the building. MR. YOV ANOVICH: I think we've taken care of that now because we're now going to come up with just an area that's going to say building envelope in which we can locate this square footage. Unless I misunderstood again. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No, I think that's what Tony-- MR. PIRES: The building envelope, with the depiction of buildings, I think it also helps to get a generalized idea of sort of the n CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Then we're getting into a problem. Because if you're talking about a depiction of buildings and Brad's wanting to be scaled -- accurately scaled, then they've got a problem with the master plan if they have to adjust those buildings when design dictates a movement ofa few feet or two. They shouldn't be penalized to come back here for that. Most PUD's that come through here don't even go close to this clarity. I think it's good that it is and it helps the neighborhood, but at least have some flexibility to tell them that if you build within this envelope, we're okay with that. MR. PIRES: That's not a problem. That's not what I'm saying. We recognize it would be within the envelope, but also still get a sense of graphic as to how they will look. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Can't be on the master plan, then, because then he's locked into it. MR. PIRES: That could be some -- you've got an envelope that they can build within. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Right. MR. PIRES: And also a generalized idea of sort of the footprint. I don't think-- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, a generalized idea of a footprint on a scaled drawing that Mr. Schiffer is looking for means it's to scale. That becomes a problem. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I don't mind them being able to move it. We always state that these are conceptual, so I can't see how that would lock the location that precisely. I mean, obviously if they mirrored this site and put the church on the other side, that would not be allowed. I'm just saying make sure that the actual graphics are representing the areas that you're requesting so that the neighbors see the size of the building. It may be. It just doesn't look like it to me. Page 76 Jlk.) 11, 200A 6 MR. YOV ANOVICH: Wayne tells me he's got it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Wayne's got it? MR. YOV ANOVICH: These guys are -- I'm not drawing this. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I didn't know he was an architect either, but that's fine. MR. YOV ANOVICH: He understands what Mr. Schiffer's asking for as far as the master plan, and CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And he can take care of it? MR. YOV ANOVICH: -- also what you're talking about, he can take care of. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And when you eome back, we'll expect to see something on those lines. MR. YOV ANOVICH: It will be beautiful. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: And Wayne rules. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Mr. Chair, before we go -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes, sir. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: -- could we see it at 24 by 36, not this small? MR. YOV ANOVICH: What do wc normally give you guys? MR. MOSS: This eight-and-a-halfby II. MR. YOV ANOVICH: Twenty-four by 36 it is. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Tony. any other issues on the master plan? MR. PIRES: I'm not sure if we got past my comment or what the response was about that the documents clearly state that only those proposed structures depicted on the master plan can be constructed. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, Tony, if we're going to show a building envelope so that there's-- they can build within a eertain area, they don't have to get into the sealed drawings that we're asking them for, and we put that note on there, then we're right back to messing it all up again with wanting specificity when they're not to that stage yet. As long as the community knows they're going to be within a certain envelope, what difference does it make? It's kind oflike the height, if they're going to be 35 feet, what does it matter what's inside? MR. PIRES: I think it's important where the house of worship is versus the other uses within that pedestrian oriented campus from the community's perspective. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Mark, let me -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Go ahead, Commissioner Schiffer. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Tony, one thing you did do, that center half-circle shape kind of thing: They're calling that the campus. All the buildings will be within the campus. The only reason I'm against what you're saying is that maybe they'll look at this differently and it would be better looking symmetrical and then next thing you know they can't do it because you're going to argue that it represents the building. I think anything within the area that they're allowed that they build within the campus, the neighbors and everybody should realize it's going to be within the center, the western edge of that. MR. PIRES: We'll discuss it with them. I understand. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. MR. PIRES: Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, thank you, Tony. You know, you're the best I've ever seen in detail. I don't know anybody better. And that's what worries me. Because you're going to come back -- you could come back and say that little corner, that was shaved off and moved three feet, they're going to need a new master plan. MR. PIRES: Only ifhe gave me a 24 by 36, which I don't think he will. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I don't want to get into that, if we ean help it. Page 77 r6alf t, 20J 6 MR. YOV ANOVICH: That's what I was trying to avoid. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ms. Caron? COMMISSIONER CARON: I just did want to comment that normally this is not the size that we get them. We normally get large size of these. Certain of us have requested it on everything, and this is the first time I've ever had to -- MR. BELLOWS: For the record -- yeah, Ray Bellows. Our requirements are to provide you with the larger copies for submittals. I think what J.D. was referring to, on the consent agenda you might get the small one instead. MR. SCHMITT: You had it in your packet, but not the newer version, unfortunately. COMMISSIONER CARON: The new version. MR. YOV ANOVICH: Right. And we'll get you the new -- we'll make sure you get a 24 by 36 on the new. This is what I e-mailedout, so I understand. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Are there any other questions on the master plan from the Planning Commission? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Let's move on-- MR. MOSS: Oh, I have one, Commissioner. I'm sorry. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Go ahead, J.D. MR. MOSS: Yeah, there's a couple problems with the master plan. If you all recall, I dictated some text from Page 10 of22 of the PUD document. It's the preserve language. We revised that together. That language is essentially located on the master plan at the bottom on the left-hand side where it says preserve notes. That text is going to need to be revised to reflect what we discussed earlier in the meeting. And then also, if you look on the master plan in the landscape, dry landscape -- what does it say, dry water management area, right above where it says Tract A, it says CP 5,227 square feet, that's going to need to be deleted as well, since they can't locate the prescrve in a dry water management area. MR. YOV ANOVICH: Can we deal with the location of the preserve at the SDP level? MR. MOSS: Susan Mason is shaking her head yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Sounds good. So you'll know. Anyway, staffs going to get this again. You guys are going to have time in advance to review it, make sure that -- Richard, I know we got to reschedule after today. So I want to make sure this time that staff sees the final documents before it's scheduled to come back to us. I don't know how long it's going to take you to do that. On Page 17 of22, there's two legal descriptions. They haven't changed. I can't see why anybody would have any objection to those. Mr. Pires, you never know. MR. PIRES: This is true. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah, this is true. Okay, Page 18 are the list of deviations. There are no changes on the list of deviations in the package in front of us. Does anybody have any questions about those? MR. PIRES: No, sir. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I do. And I wcnt over this with the applicant and I've also mentioned it to staff. It's number four. And the way I read this is they're looking for a deviation from the number, because it says that in Page 78 :tQ~ 1,120&6 the second aisle -- second sentenee, drive aisles leading to main entrances must have at least a walkway on one side of the drive aisle to permit a reduction to a maximum of five. So if you turn to the master plan and you look at the layout of those drive aisles on the master plan, there are the number that they're asking for pursuant to the deviation, but they are no longer each one of them next to the drive aisles. So I really think the deviation is requesting two things out of that one section of the LDC: A reduction in number and a reduction in having those being required next to the drive aisles. And I want to make sure staff reviews it that way, and transportation and everybody has understood it to be that way. MR. MOSS: I looked at the staff report that I'd prepared for this petition and I did review it that way. It's mentioned in there just for some reason the language in the deviations portion of the PUD document didn't make its way there. But you're absolutely right, there are two deviations they need here, and staff did analyze both of them. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. So what we would have to do is change the language of deviation number four to reflect the additional deviants that they want in there? MR. MOSS: Yes, because they've only asked for one deviation in here. And like you pointed out, they really need to be asking for two separate ones. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Richard, do you have any problem with that? MR. YOV ANOVICH: No, sir. MR. MOSS: And staffs recommending approval of it. I'd also like to mention that staff is not supporting deviation number one. They're actually trying to provide trees in lieu of sidewalks, and that's not consistent with the LDC. They need to either provide sidewalks elsewhere in lieu of the sidewalks that are required around the site, or they need to provide payment in lieu. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. And that was one I had also circled. And I would -- if we set a precedent -- right now the sidewalk and bike lane in lieu of is so that the money goes back in the program somewhere else. And that money becomes important because it builds more bike lanes and sidewalks. If we allow this project, as well as any other in Collier County, by setting this one as a precedent to move that money into other issues like landscaping and things like that, we've actually deprived the sidewalk and bike lane category from having any funding. So as much as I know that this is a good thing for the neighborhood to keep consistency with the royal palms, the precedent it sets for all the county is not a fair one. And I certainly don't think it's appropriate. I would agree with staff, that the deviation should be denied. Richard, do you have any concerns one way or the other? MR. YOV ANOVICH: Well, I mean, we've got to spend the money one way or the other. And I do know that the residents of Collier County have spoken that they really do like their landscaping along their roads. And especially in this area of the county, sidewalks really are not customary and, frankly, frowned upon by the neighborhood. And it made sense to keep the money local by putting in landscaping. And the county commission and residents have said they really, really do like landscaping. So we thought we were using the money in the right location. But ifit's the will of the county to take the money from this area and spend it somewhere else through the payment in lieu of process, you know, we'rc not going to -- we're going to spend the money one way or the other. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You don't know that they would spend it somewhere else. You just know that this project wouldn't be putting in sidewalks and bike lanes n MR. YOV ANOVICH: I know that they will not be putting sidewalks in along Pine Ridge, because Page 79 JJnQJI~cA6 the community made it very clear to transportation staff and to us that sidewalks around the project or even on Trail Boulevard was not something the community thought was a good idea. So I think the money would be spent somewhere else. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ms. Caron? COMMISSIONER CARON: Isn't that why you're having to do the extension-- MR. YOV ANOVICH: We're not doing-- COMMISSIONER CARON: h the sidewalk extension? Yes, you are. MR. YOV ANOVICH: No, we're not. COMMISSIONER CARON: You're doing -- constructing a sidewalk extension from the campus to Trail Boulevard. And wasn't there another section that they asked you to go -- transportation staff asked you to do in lieu, right? Isn't that right? MR. MOSS: Yes, transportation asked that they build a sidewalk linking the site with the commercial center that's just north of it along Sand Pine. So that was the option, they could either provide the sidewalks there or provide payment in lieu. They didn't want to provide sidewalks there because it would have necessitated the removal of several of those live oaks that they had planted all along Trail Boulevard. So zoning staff suggested they do the payment in lieu. But I know transportation planning staff wanted either one, it made no difference to them. COMMISSIONER CARON: I'm sorry, I thought you-- MR. YOV ANOVICH: No, that was clear of transportation staff. My recollection was it backed off the requirement of any sidewalk on Trail Boulevard. And] must have missed it in reading this, but it was not h that was not an option. The options we had was payment in lieu from transportation's perspective, and we had proposed taking that money and keeping it at the campus level and the community level through additional landscaping. But as far as building a sidewalk on Trail Boulevard, my understanding was transportation staff really was not -- they may have left it in there, but they really were not pushing for that, knowing it would never happen. MR. PIRES: My reeollection is the same as Rich's on that, and as well as when J.D. talked about they'd have to take the live oaks that were installed. The Pine Ridge community installed those live oaks. It's not the county that installed those live oaks. And the Pine Ridge eommunity looks forward to the additional enhanced royal palms along Trail Boulevard, as opposed to paying for the sidewalk funds. We're in concurrence with that deviation number one. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I know you are, and I don't blame you for being that. I just -- it's a precedence that involves more than just the Pine Ridge area. Mr. Schiffer? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And this is kind of to Wayne, and you don't have to answer. But Wayne, when you do redraw that, would you change the line type on the perimeter? Because it's like 20 feet wide and it's hiding all the sidewalks underneath it in the graphics here. MR. PIRES: Thank you, Mr. Schiffer. I've been asking for that for six months, but -- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Yeah. I mean, ['m suspicious as to what's really under that line type. The -- MR. YOV ANOVICH: I'm glad you're at that podium. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: The way this is going to go, though, there will be a sidewalk from the -- on Myrtle from the entrance to the parking lot, correct? It will come, head west, go all the way down the western property of this project. And then does it turn east and go to the ingress/egress up there? You're Page 80 ~a~uJJ~ 5, Jce 1 referencing a sidewalk. MR. YOV ANOVICH: Yes, there's one from Myrtle at the entrance. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Right. MR. YOV ANOVICH: The western portion of the entrance that heads west. And then heads north to across the frontage of the property on Trail. Yes. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And it goes all the way up the frontage on the east side. And does it stop at Ridge, or does it turn at Ridge and -- MR. YOV ANOVICH: Stops at Ridge. Stops at Ridge. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: It doesn't turn and go the egress, okay. And that's hidden underneath that line type. MR. YOV ANOVICH: It's right there. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody else have any questions? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Where are we going to leave this issue between the sidewalk bike lane requirements, paying in lieu of or replacing that requirement with a payment to or the cost of putting in royal palms? Personally, I don't think it's a precedent that we want to apply to everybody in the county that comes forward with a PUD. And this -- honestly, if we do it here, we might be obligated to do it elsewhere. That's a concern. Mr. Midney? COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: I agree with you, there's a really big need for sidewalks and bike lanes in the county. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Schiffer? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And I agree with the other half of your concern, is that people will gladly spend landscaping on their own site in lieu of sidewalks. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: It's not a good precedent. Not that it's not better for the neighborhood, I don't disagree with that, it just isn't a good precedent for Collier County as a whole. So anybody else? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ifnot, Mr. Yovanovich, were you trying to say something-- MR. YOV ANOVICH: Not about this. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- and you changed your mind? MR. YOV ANOVICH: No, it wasn't about this. It was another staffrecommendation that I didn't want to forgot to tell you I objected to. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ms. Caron first, and then we'll get into the next thing. Go ahead, Ms. Caron. COMMISSIONER CARON: Yeah, Ijust wanted to ask the county attorney, does anything that we establish in this PUD, which is custom zoning, set a precedent for anything else in the county? MS. ASHTON-CICKO: Well, each PUD operates on its own. However, there may be an argument in the future that if you acted one way for one, why shouldn't you do it for us. COMMISSIONER CARON: Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, what was your next point, Mr. Y ovanovich? MR. YOV ANOVICH: It was -- and it's not related to the deviations, but I'm sure I'll forget, Mr. Strain, is there was a requirement from your transportation department that we fund a bus stop, a covered -- and we -- I just wanted to make sure it's notcd for the record that we had objected to that and still object to Page 81 1611 Ilt...~ January'b~009 that on the staff conditions. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Now, do you understand the basis for that bus stop? Because after I spoke with you and you told me of your objection, I went and tried to figure out how they could justifY that, what rational nexus they used to bring it in. And in talking with J.D., he indicated that part of the reasoning may have been the fact that you're in a TCMA and that there's a requirement to alter offsetting impacts if you have above a de minimis impact. And apparently when you get to your full build-out condition, you're above a de minimis impact on that particular project. And therefore you have -- and the rules in the TCMA are clear, they're in the LDC, there are alternatives you can put in place to offset that greater than de minimis impact. My comment to staff was then well, maybe we ought to be looking at it as a requirement for kicking in that Phase II, because Phase I is below the de minimis impact threshold. That seemed to be in agreement. Staff seemed okay with that. And that's a compromise I think is something that would actually justifY your increased traffic, should it occur, once you get to that Phase II. So -- MR. YOV ANOVICH: If we ever get to that number, perhaps. But still, I still think it's a reach to say that our -- that our project in any way triggers that bus stop. Because none of our -- I'm fairly certain that anybody who's coming there to use the day care or the school is not going to be using public transportation. And I'm fairly certain that anybody who comes there to worship on Sundays isn't going to be using the public transportation. I understand staffs rationale, but I still n CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You're missing the point. MR. YOV ANOVICH: I understand the -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The point isn't the transportation mode as much as it is the alternative needed to offset the greater than de minimis impact on the transportation corridor. Let me read you a sentence that might help explain it: Transportation planning staff has determined that the project is located within the northwcst transportation concurrency and management area, TCMA, and according to the tratlic impact statement would impact U.S. 41 above a de minimis one percent amount. Policy 5.8.B of the transportation element of the GMP states that congestion mitigation payments shall be used to add trip capacity within an anticipated TCMA road segment, or to enhance mass transit or other non-automotive transportation alternatives which add trip capacity with the impact fee district or adjoining impact fee district. As such, staff has included the request of a bus shelter as a stipulation, Exhibit G. That's it plain and simple. And the reference is Policy 5.8.B, and there are alternatives listed. There are other alternatives, but this is the one that would seem to be served the best. MR. YOV ANOVICH: Can you tell me what page you're reading from? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: None. I'm reading from a memo that was -- John-David sent to me after I questioned it yesterday. MR. YOV ANOVICH: Okay. Because John-David said it's somewhere in the staff report, so I'm -- MR. MOSS: It is. MR. YOV ANOVICH: -- looking for that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I don't know-- MR. MOSS: It's in the transportation section ofthe staff report, the original staff report. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But Richard, I wouldn't agree to it if it was an extraction that is above and beyond impact fees. That wouldn't have been fair. But based on the fact that it's in a TCMA and that the threshold would be revised to be the Phase II construction, I think that is fair and I think it's a good compromise and one that works. Page 82 16 UnlarA 620b9 MR. YOV ANOVICH: Okay. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I have a question. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Murray? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: John-David, the traffic study that we're talking about where it exceeds the de minimis, is that associated only with the day care? MR. MOSS: All that John Podczerwinsky, the transportation reviewer for this project -- COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Let me -- in furtherance of that, let me also say that I've heard Nick Casalanguida state that Sunday, they never use Sunday as a base for the number of vehicles, and so it must therefore then be associated with the day care in order for it to exceed. Otherwise the numbers don't reach, from what I would understand. MR. PODCZERWINSKY: Good afternoon, Commissioners. This is John Podczerwinsky with transportation. I'll give you my card later. With -- the answer to your question, whether or not the first portion -- I'll say the first phase of this, whether or not that's over one percent, which would be the de minimis impact on U.S. 41, I believe it is. I have to take a second look in the TIS, but I believe it does go over 1.49 percent -- or 1.0 percent which -- COMMISSIONER MURRAY: This is daily traffic and this is -- MR. PODCZER WINSKY: This would be daily p.m. peak hour traffic, not Sunday traffic, correet. COMMISSIONER MURRA Y: Okay. And that's the number that will come and go from that area for day care? Because that's the only active -- MR. PODCZERWINSKY: It would be day care and also the weekday church uses. There is some amount of traffic that's associated with the weekday church use. So the combination of the two -- COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Do we know that that-- MR. PODCZERWINSKY: Yes, it's-- COMMISSIONER MURRAY: -- information is all clear? Because I'm concerned that it might be an exaction. I can see the desirability of having a bus stop there, that's not the issue for me. What the issue for me is justification for it, valid justification. MR. PODCZERWINSKY: I don't think staff has any objection to going to Phase II for the requirement for the -- to meet the Policy 5.8 in the transportation element in the Growth Management Plan. If we were looking at it for simply Phase I, I think we'd have to take a second look at whether or not Phase I is what puts it over 1.0 percent impact or whether it's Phase II that does it. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Well, I think it would be very important to have accurate information. We're talking money, we're talking a lot of issues. MR. PODCZERWINSKY: Correct. COMMISSIONER MURRA Y: So if you're not sure. I mean, again, I think it's nice to have a bus stop there, that's very good for the community, but unless it's directly relatable, I think that's an exaction. So that may be something else you have to come back with. MR. PODCZERWINSKY: Okay. MR. YOV ANOVICH: Shouldn't we be allowed to choose amongst the alternatives? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I think what you need to do is get together before you come back and sit with transportation staff and see what alternatives there are you can choose from. I'm not saying you can't, that's what the -- MR. YOV ANOVICH: I'm just saying is if one of the options is a CAT and let's just say another option's a bike rack, I don't know, shouldn't I be allowed to choose the bike rack? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: If the LDC says that, Richard, and T believe it lists the alternatives, you should be able to choose your alternatives. Page 83 16 Juaary k60d9 MR. YOV ANOVICH: So maybe we should say in Phase II we should pick an alternative that's avail -- an option that's allowed under the LDC. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But you need to tell us where you're going to go in order to get the process approved. So by the time you come back, we need to have that laid out. MR. YOV ANOVICH: I have to pick my -- I have to pick my mitigation now, or -- what I'm saying, Mr. Strain, I'm agreeing with you. What I'm saying is at Phase II, when we trip de minimis, we, the property owner, have to choose from the alternatives available in the LDC. Why do I have to decide today that I'm going to do a CAT bus stop? Why can't I decidc when we get there, if we get there, that if one of the other alternatives is to provide bike racks, to provide bike racks? You understand what I'm saying? I don't know -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, yes, I understand what you're saying, but transportation is a big issue for this PUD. And I would think you would want to make and provide as many assurances as possible that you've met the criteria so that the transportation issue goes away as best it can during the PUD approval process. If you want to take a chance and rely on us not knowing what that is but in good faith expecting you to provide that at the SDP level in some form n MR. YOV ANOVICH: At Phase II. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, that's fine. MR. YOV ANOVICH: Right. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- you can take that chance. But you might consider it would be more comfortable for the neighborhood to know and for everybody here to know how you're dealing with your transportation alternatives prior to the ending of a publie process that we're going to have here in the next meeting. So that's up to you. And I think that's it. Anything else on that issue? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Just a question, Mark. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Schiffer? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: What is the approximate cost of a bus shelter? MR. PODCZERWINSKY: At last estimate that we had, it was somewhere between 25 and 30,000. That was with the purchase of right-of-way, though, I believe. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: For a bus shelter? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: With the purchase of right-of-way. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: A bus shelter') MR. PODCZERWINSKY: That's for a full shelter with the awning, and I believe that's also with the purchase of right-of~way to accommodate that bus shelter. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Does it serve food or anything like that? COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Is it motorized? MR. PODCZERWINSKY: There are some core differences here on this site, though, as we've already got the available right-of-way. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Members of the audience, you've got to lower your voice a bit, please. Go ahead. MR. PODCZERWINSKY: We already have the available right-of-way within Trail Boulevard that would require only a right-of-way permit be applied for by the applicant at the phase -- probably second SDP phase that they're in for. There would be no purchase ofland that's involved with that. So I think the cost would be less. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I would hope so, sir. MR. PODCZERWINSKY: And I'm not sure the extent to which that shelter would have to be a Page 84 IJQlJ.l A :609 j covered shelter or if it's simply a bus stop, so -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Vigliotti? COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Seeing this is coming back, what I'd like to see is your justification numbers showing that at a certain point they're going to need to do it. So I'd like to see your traffic numbers, and I'd like to nail down a cost, now that you know what's involved before you come back. MR. PODCZERWINSKY: That I can provide you with. Also, one other comment. I believe that there may be a little bit of mixing of apples and oranges. The TCMA and TCEA requirements that are listed in the LDC are specific mitigating factors to reduce traffic to a site. Things like bike racks, car pool parking, preferential parking for car pool people, those are a little bit different than the policies that are listed in the TCMA under objective 5. And it's under specifically Policy 5.8 where it discusses congestion mitigation payments and that sort of thing. I think they're a little bit different subjects. They're different requirements. The other requirements that I was discussing about the bike racks do not discuss whether or not you're going over a one percent de minimis impact. It just discusses whether or not you're banking on the TCMA to allow your impact. It doesn't discuss the percentage of the impact. So this is n once you go above a certain percent impact, these become affected as well. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I think what you need to do is when this comes back, bring your justification for asking this and the cost of it and how that cost is justified by what you're asking for. Twenty-five, $30,000 I mean for a four-post and a piece of metal, that's a lot of money. If you guys have been paying that, I'm worried. MR. PODCZERWINSKY: Absolutely. I understand, sir. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Did you have something else you wanted to comment on, Ms. Caron? COMMISSIONER CARON: No, that's fine. Ifhe's going to bring it back, that's fine. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah, it will have to come back. COMMISSIONER CARON: I was just going to ask him to read through the other alternatives. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: We have to take a moment here to do a bit of a side track. A gentleman has got a family issue he has to deal with. And he has to leave here shortly. He's been waiting all day to speak. He's a member of the audience. I don't even know what side he's going to be speaking on. But I told him I would let him at least speak before 2:00, because he has to leave then. Jerry Fisher? If Jerry's still in the audience, sir, if you want to come up to one of the podiums. Mr. Fisher, were you sworn in earlier? MR. FISHER: Yes, sir, I was. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Then if you'll state your name for the record, and then if you could tell us what's on your mind. MR. FISHER: My name is Jerry Fisher, and I'm speaking on -- against the PUD. I'm a resident in Pine Ridge. And the two biggest concerns that I have, and I think I speak for a number of other residents, is the traffic and the density of the project. It was my understanding they were going to have a 600-car parking lot, and of course the 100,000 square feet, which I don't think is compatible or consistent with the residential community. Especially one like Pine Ridge which probably has one ofthe lowest density factors in the county. They're a minimum of 1. I to five-acre lots, and there's maybe a handful that haven't been developed. But they're all single-family dwellings, except for a church. And it just -- I don't see how a 600-car parking lot and 100,000 square feet of building can be compatible with the residential eommunity. And I'd like to read a letter. North Naples United Methodist Church, by the way, has a sanctuary Page 85 161'~/Jt.. January 15, 2t)t~ similar to the one that's being proposed by the Covenant Presbyterian Chureh. Now, it's been in existence for, I don't know, seven or eight years. But here's a letter from our senior pastor, Dr. Ted Sauter. And I'm just going to read two quick sentences. It says -- and this was dated August 22nd, 2008. We are a seven-day-a-week congregation in which thousands of people participate in a multitude of ministries throughout the day, every day of the week. We not only serve the north side of Naples, but we are a regional congregation serving people from Golden Gate, Bonita Springs, Estero, Fort Myers and Marco Island. There's so many parallels between what this church hopes to be and what North Naples already is, that I see a tremendous amount of traffic coming in from Goodlette Road. If you're from Estero or Bonita Springs, you very well could take Livingston straight down to Immokalee Road. If you're from Marco or Golden Gate, you could be coming down Pine Ridge and you'd be entering either North Carica Road or Center Street. And you're talking about -- and they could have, since the chapel's going to hold I think up to 1,200 people, North Naples has three services on Sunday alone. So that could be 1,800 cars on Sunday alone. And I know there's hundreds of cars in the parking lot of North Naples every day. And, you know, it's a serious concern for a residential community to have that large of influx in traffic. It may not happen the very first year, but it will happen. And the other thing that eoncerns me is when they say we're going to use these buildings for church and other related uses. It's such an open-ended thing that they could interpret that pretty flexibly downstream. And we could be getting anything -- you know, we could be getting a bag of worms, so to speak. The other thing I wanted to mention is a lot of us who live in Pine Ridge -- I live right across from the PUD, I'm one house away from 41. But 99 percent of the time I go through Center Street and through the area to get to my house, because I don't want to go up to Pine Ridge and 41, deal with the backup of traffic, deal with the light and then, you know, proceed north on U.S. 41. So I think that it's going to be a serious matter of concern. Let's see if I have something else. And I think with these other uses, the school, the adult care center, it's all worthwhile, and I don't think there's probably anyone in Pine Ridge community that says it's a bad thing for a church to grow and spread the Word of the Lord. But I do think that they should move, because the physical plant that's going to be there will not be eonsistent or compatible. And I know that Temple Shalom moved, First Baptist Church moved, North Naples United Methodist Church moved, and Naples Christian Church moved, and they all moved to different locations. Shalom went to Pine Ridge Road, Naples Christian Church went to Goodlette, as did North Naples United Methodist Church. Excuse me, I'm pretty uncomfortable talking in public like this. And then the Baptist Church went out to Orange Blossom. And none of them retained their residential environment. And North Naples sold their church to another ehurch. And I don't -- you know, it would seem to me rather than almost reinventing the wheel, it would be easier for them to sell their facility to a small growing church that could move in to there, and then they could relocate to a place that would be more consistent and compatible with the surrounding area. Thank you very much. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you very much, Mr. Fisher. Appreciate your time. And good luck on your next meeting. MR. FISHER: Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you, sir. Page 86 1 ~rLf1; 111~9' Okay, we'll move back to the process we had already been into. And by the way, we'll take another break at 2:30 for the court reporter. Richard and Tony, we're on Page 19 of22. We're almost through the document. This is Tract B. There's been one change on Page 19. Prior to the issuance of the SDP for a new permanent building. Tony, do you have any problem with that? MR. PIRES: No, sir. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: J.D.? MR. MOSS: No, sir. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody from the Planning Commission have any comments on Page 19? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, we're on Page 20, Exhibit F, list of developer commitments for Tract A. The first change is a strike-through on number three, and it's rewritten. Any n Tony, do you have any concerns with that? MR. PIRES: No. Not as that reads, no. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. J.D.? MR. MOSS: Yes, I do. If you could insert -- the first sentence reads, for services and other periods and events of significant traffic generation, as determined by Collier County staff. If we could insert there, the church shall provide traffic controlled by law enforcement or law enforcement approved service provider, and then delete shall be. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Richard, is that okay with you? I know it's clear on what the intent was. I don't think -- MR. YOV ANOVICH: I'm fine. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Tony, I don't think you'd object either. MR. PIRES: No, my only concern is by focusing on the word church. Somehow if we could just say that type of control shall be provided. But whoever owns the property may be -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, how about the PUD-- MR. PIRES: Or the property owner -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Or the property owner. What -- J.D., what's a good alternative? Good point. If it's not a church, it -- well, it can't be much else than a church, though, Tony. MR. PIRES: I know, but they could have somebody operating the day care center. MR. MOSS: That's true. Instead of saying the church, the property owner shall provide. COMMISSIONER MURRA Y: Well. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Murray? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Yes, that presents the question of the word significant traffic generation. If the traffic study and all permission's based on the number of cars coming and going for the day care centers, then that represents the so-called background or ambient traffic. So the significant traffic would have to then be associated with services, would tlley not? MR. PODCZERWINSKY: That's correct, sir. Yes, it was associated with the Saturday and/or Sunday traffic, whatever the peak events are for the site. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: So we may be beating a dead horse, possibly. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, it says as determined by Collier County staff: So -- and the applicant's comfortable with that. MR. YOV ANOVICH: I think instead of the word church, put property owner, and then I think you're covered. MR. PIRES: Yes. Page 87 161 I~! ilL. January"5,2~<.D COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Mark? MR. YOV ANOVICH: Does that work? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Schiffer? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Rich, instead of that, why don't you put -- say the traffic generator shall provide it because -- MR. PIRES: There you go. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: -- why should the property owner or the bank provide traffic control, if that's the case? So whoever's causing the traffIc, let them provide it. MR. YOV ANOVICH: But this is related to our project. If it's an event that we're having on our project, we will provide traffic control. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: You are the traffic generator. MR. YOV ANOVICH: We are, yeah. It's not -- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: But if you're -- you know, you're assuming always that the property owner would be the one causing that trafiic. It may not be the case. Anyway, my thought. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Wouldn't the property owner, though, be ultimately responsible for it? If staff says it's needed, all they got to do is tell the property owner, no matter who's there, the property owner's got to make sure it happens. Isn't that the way it works? MR. BELLOWS: Yeah, for the record, Ray Bellows. The county would have the leverage with the property owner to get that done. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I have a question. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes, sir, Mr. Murray. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I'm now a little confused. The property owner of Tract A currently is the church. The property owner of Tract B is currently the bank, but there's a church there. MR. YOVANOVICH: Yes. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: So do we not -- Tract B generator can generate traffic. That could be a problem. But I'm trying to understand, are you trying to cover it all with Tract A ownership or-- MR. YOV ANOVICH: Well, the same language appears in Tract B. So if there's something that is going on on Tract B, the property owner would ultimately -- if they're leasing it out, they'd have to make sure their tenant is providing it or do it themselves. But I mean, the leverage for the county really is the property owner when you're going through code enforcement. It's really the property owner. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I appreciate that, okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. Move on to number four. Before I ask you if you have a problem with this, Tony, I mean, I've already expressed a problem with it to the County Attorney and to staff. So maybe we ought to see where it's going to go first. I'm wondering how a PUD can dictate what the Sheriffs Department issues citations for. MR. PIRES: No, it's not dictate. If that's how it's construed, that's -- it can be rewritten. The idea is -- the attempt is, and I haven't had the opportunity yet to discuss this with the Sheriff's Department, is the specific language. I had initial discussions with the Sheriff's legal adviser a few months ago about how-- because the discussion occurred as to how could this no right turn condition be enforced. And the Sheriffs Department legal adviser said if it's a county ordinance. And then if you put in the county ordinance that the restrictions constitute a violation of county ordinances, the Sheriffs offIce may Page 88 16 f!laA~, d009 issue eitations, then they may be able to. So it's a matter of working that language with the Sheriffs Department's legal adviser who I've not yet had a chance to coordinate with. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: What county ordinance do you think's in violation if they make a -- over this specific condition? Because I don't know of any ordinance we have in the county that's written about this project on Myrtle Road and Ridge Drive with no left and no right turn language. MR. PIRES: This is a PUD ordinance. This is an ordinance itself. And the concept is a violation of this constitutes a violation of a county ordinance for which they can issue a citation. Because the Sheriffs Department at times has the ability to issue citations for violations of county ordinances. And it's just a -- it may need to be rewritten or rephrased from a legal adviser to the sheriffs perspective. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So the Sheriffs Department believes that if the 85 or 100 PUD's put a sentence somewhere in the PUD that says they'll enforce something, they automatically will know that and they will go out and enforce it? I mean, they have a section of ordinances and laws that they have to look up when they cite somebody. How in the world would they ever know to look this up? I mean, I understand what you're saying, but it seems so impractical, and I can't imagine -- I know Danny Schriver. Is he the fellow you spoke to? MR. PIRES: Yeah, I had an initial discussion with him a few months ago, and we had that sort of a preliminary concept about if it's determined in the ordinance itself that the violation constitutes a violation of a county ordinance for which they can issue citations. perhaps that may give them the opportunity to issue the citations. I've not yet run this -- I mean, he and I have not discussed this specific language, but a copy of the ordinance will be -- believe me, will be provided to the Sheriff's Department after it's adopted, and if this language is in there, we'll highlight that for them. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And they won't be carrying these in their squad cars and sitting there reading 22 pages of an ordinance in order to give a ticket. It's not going to happen. MR. PIRES: It's not 22 pages, it's one page. And I think that we can work through the logistics with the Sheriffs Department. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Tony, this is a troublesome one. Mr. Vigliotti has a question. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: What is very troublesome too, don't you believe the sign enough is going to work? MR. PIRES: No. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: So then -- no, okay. MR. PIRES: I mean, to enforce-- COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: But how could you expect the county to police it? MR. PIRES: I'm sorry? COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: How can you expect the county to police it? MR. PIRES: We're not expecting the county. Once again, it's the Sheriffs Department. If it's reported, they may end up placing people there during certain events to make sure that the right turn prohibition is abided by. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Heidi, do you have a comment? MR. PIRES: And that's the Sheriffs Department's call as to whether or not they place personnel. MS. ASHTON-CICKO: Yes, I would recommend deletion of the sentence that begins with a violation of these turn restrictions. As I'm understanding it, these turn restrictions are located on the private Page 89 16 I 1\~' A t.. January 11,'2bb9 property and generally the county restricts public roadways. So I'd ask Mr. Pires to explore other alternatives and recommend deletion of the language. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Until we see other alternatives, I think that's a good move. Anybody have a concern? Mr. Schiffer? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Tony, and wouldn't somebody then just shortcut through Tract B and come out on West and go north and south? MR. PIRES: It all depends on what access points are on Tract B after redevelopment, I guess. But getting back to the idea about the enforcement, that's a Sheriffs Department call. And if they feel that they can enforce it, why not have the language in there? I guess where's the harm and where's the fault? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: They enforce handicap parking on private property. MR. PIRES: Yes. They enforce fire lane -- no parking in fire lanes on private property. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Fire lanes are written up in other more legal ordinances other than a PUD. A PUD zoning ordinance you don't normally find in a squad car. And that's my concern, Tony. MR. PIRES: We may provide them. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah, and I'm sure they're going to sit there in that squad car and every officer that changes hands are going to sit there and read that PUD. MR. PIRES: Perhaps the North Naples substation would get a gift of one. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, well, enough said for that one. Anybody else have any comments on four? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Let's move on to six. MR. MOSS: Commissioner Strain? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes. MR. MOSS: John Podczerwinsky had a comment about number five before you move on to six. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, that's an undisputed one, but go ahead, we'll dispute it then. MR. PODCZERWINSKY: Yeah, it's just one word in corrunitment five. It lists a southbound turn lane on Ridge Drive. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. MR. PODCZERWINSKY: Ridge Drive is an east-west road. Should be a westbound turn lane. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, so westbound is what it should read. Richard, any problem? COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Rich, don't do east-west, please. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Tony? MR. PIRES: Are we on number five? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: We're on number five. The word southbound lane, Ridge Drive is east-west. MR. PIRES: Yeah, we had some discussion about what that really meant. And I think it is the southerly most westbound lanes, if I'm not mistaken, Rich? MR. YOV ANOVICH: I -- whatever. I'm not -- you're asking the wrong person about directions. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Don't ask him east-west. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Number --let's move on to number six. Fourth line down is some added-- we have an added sentence on the bottom. Tony -- or actually the next page has got a whole pile of added information. Tony, do you have any concerns with these additions? Page 90 161f'A6 January 15,2009 MR. PIRES: Yes. Bear with me. From the bottom of Page 20 to the top of Page 22, one of the concerns again gets back to we have -- I'm not sure how many TIS's we all have had and reviewed during the course of all this. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Too many. MR. PIRES: And these were models, and they're based upon assumptions, projections. And we believe it's important. And you'll hear some expressions of concern by the long-term residents of Pine Ridge that there will in fact be extensive cut-through traffic using Center Street and/or Carica. And that we don't believe that the location of the traffic counters at Ridge Drive and West and Myrtle Road and West will accurately capture all the traffic that will be generated by the new and intense uses on the site. We believe that there needs to, number one, be a base count performed during peak season beginning now, or beginning before any development occurs, so we have a baseline to really fully understand what the impact of this proposed development is real world, as opposed to just modeling. And in addition to the traffic counts outlined in the top of Page 2 I, we would also submit that the annual traffic counts need to be taken at Carica Road and Goodlette-Frank Road and at Center Street and at Goodlette-Frank Road during the first quarter of each calendar year. We would also suggest that the data will be utilized by the county transportation staff to determine if additional measures to minimize impact to the residential Pine Ridge neighborhood are appropriate and should be required to address the uses within the PUD. And after reviewing the data, the county would have the right, power and authority to require the property owners within the PUD to implement measures to minimize impact to the residential Pine Ridge community. And we're concerned again about the cut-through traffic. People will -- the intersection of Pine Ridge Road and U.S. 41, people say they'll take it to get to this property. That's not a very fun intersection. And people may come down Carica and may never hit the counters at West and -- excuse me, Ridge and West, but instead could ultimately come out on Trail-- we had that discussion -- and eome down Trail Boulevard. And so they would not be picked up in this counter that's proposed in the language that continues over to page -- it starts at Page 20 and continues over to 21. So we think it's important to have traffic counts taken at Carica and Goodlette and Center and Goodlette annually, peak season and do those before they even have any redevelopment of this site. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Ray, would you put that map that Tony gave to Richard to use back on? It's the better one. Yeah, that's the right one. I guess it doesn't matter. Just along as -- there, that's good. See the -- COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Bring it out a bit. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Little bit to the -- yeah, that's good right there. Okay, the applicant's suggesting that the two corners in the yellow, the two that would be close towards the top of the page, would be the best locations. And Tony, the community is suggesting that over on Goodlette Road, that one and the one to the farther side of the page. MR. PIRES: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, I've got several questions about the differences in those, but my very first question is why wouldn't you want one in that center road? You've got three roads that go out there to Goodlette. Why are you picking the two extremes when that center one lines up more closely with MR. PIRES: It's closed. Page 91 1r6u~Jr~, A<6 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Huh? MR. PIRES: It's closed. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: What do you mean it's closed? MR. PIRES: It's not open to traffic. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Why isn't it a road? COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: How did it get closed? MR. PIRES: I'm just saying, it's not open to traffic. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: How did it get closed? MR. PIRES: Just as they mentioned, that's -- COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Years ago. MR. BELLOWS: For the record, ] believe a lot of that area was subject to traffic calming programs that the county initiated a few years ago, and some of those accesses may be restricted. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, how is it re nl mean, is it gated? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: No. MR. YOV ANOVICH: They have a barricade. There's a barricade. There's earth and as well, I believe, a concrete barricade as well. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Is that a county road? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: It was done. It was done. MR. YOV ANOVICH: It was done years ago. At least] O. MR. PIRES: At least 10 years ago. MS. ASHTON-CICKO: Mr. Strain? MR. YOV ANOVICH: And I've been living in Pine Ridge for 10 years -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ms. -- go ahead. MS. ASHTON-CICKO: The county took formal action many years ago to close that opening, and it was, you know, at a board meeting and through public hearings and so forth. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The map doesn't show it. That's why I thought it was odd they were picking the two on the left and right side and not the one in the center. Okay, the theory is that people will come in those two entrances, somehow miss the two intersections that the applicant wants to use and come through the front of the property to get to the property; is that -- MR. PIRES: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. What do thesc traffic count stations consist of from a cost perspective? MR. YOV ANOVICH: Before Rob gets up here and tells you, we do have counts, peak season Sunday traffic counts, from March, 2008. So we've already done the background number. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, let's get n MR. YOV ANOVICH: And the cost -- he can tell you the cost. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The dispute seems to be n let's take one item at a time. And right now I'm trying to focus on where the counts ought to be taken. So let's focus on that one. There's a dispute. How much -- these traffic stations, to set them up and use them, what's the cost? MR. PRICE: Typically to do a traffic count, you're talking about about 200, 250 bucks. You basically put somebody out there. You go to Goodlette-Frank, you're talking about having to maybe put two people out. But the intersections of West and Myrtle and West and Ridge, one person could easily count that traffic. And you're talking about about $200. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So if you've got to do traffic counts and the dispute is that somehow these Page 92 1ftJ t iocA 6 people using Goodlette-Frank Road are sneaking by the two areas that they want to put the count stations at and coming in the count station where there's nobody at, why don't you put count stations in all four corners, if it's only that kind of cost? MR. PRICE: I mean, I don't think that's an issue, honestly. I think the biggest issue -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: There's one way to prove it. MR. PRICE: The biggest issue I think for us is that if we have to do counts at Carica and Goodlette-Frank, we're catching a lot of traffic that's not generated by the church. And so if there's improvements that are needed at those intersections, how are we to determine whether or not they're necessary as a result of the chureh traffic or as a result of the background traffic? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I think all we're trying to do is make sure if there's traffic counts that they're true to what the church's generation is. MR. PRICE: Exactly. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And if you cover every four intersections and the cost is only a few hundred bucks per interseetion, we're done. I mean, I can't see why that's a prohibitive issue for the applicant at all. I mean, Richard, do you know where the problem would be with that from your side? And I'll ask Tony ifhe's got a problem. MR. YOV ANOVICH: Well, you know, the problem is it really makes absolutely no sense. It doesn't make sense. Forget the money, it makes no sense to put someone -- to assume that someone who's coming in off of Goodlette-Frank Road at Center and Carica are coming this way. So why do I need to do two when the one that really makes sense to count are the intersections adjacent to the church? Forget the money. It just -- at some point you've got to say does it make sense. And no, it doesn't make sense. And then two, what are we h are they going to be n which one is going to be right? I get 500 trips that come in off of Carica and Goodlette-Frank and 200 of them come through the intersection -- I'm making up numbers, it won't be that high. But which one's the right number? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Rieh, all I'm saying is you could end the dispute. Do all four corners. It's indisputable then. Go ahead, Ms. Caron. MR. YOV ANOVICH: But if! do all four-- COMMISSIONER CARON: That's all I wanted to say was, Mr. Y ovanovich, listen, we're doing the four corners around your PUD -- MR. YOV ANOVICH: Never mind. I thought you were talking about on Goodlette-Frank -- COMMISSIONER CARON: If you do-- MR. YOV ANOVICH: -- when you said all four intersections. COMMISSIONER CARON: -- the four corners of your PUD, then you get it coming-- MR. YOV ANOVICH: I thought you said four eorners of n I'm sorry, I misunderstood your comment. I thought you were talking about on Goodlette-Frank. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: If you really believe that you don't have a trafiic issue there and that's the way you stand, for 250 bucks for -- MR. YOV ANOVICH: Fine. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- two more intersections each, I can't see why you'd think that question shouldn't be put to bed for that kind of money. MR. YOV ANOVICH: No, no, I'm sorry, Mr. Strain, I was -- I missed what you were talking about CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I understand, you weren't even thinking of-- Page 93 ~a~u!J~, 2Ach MR. YOV ANOVICH: I was thinking four counters: One, two, three, four. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: It makes no sense. MR. YOV ANOVICH: I understand one, two, three, four. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right, right. MR. YOV ANOVICH: Because then that's right -- that's by our property. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Nobody can get to your property without going through those counters. MR. YOV ANOVICH: I understand that. I understand that. I misunderstood. I thought the four still dealt with Goodlette-Frank. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Vigliotti, did you have something else you wanted to-- COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: No, that was my question. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Wolfley? COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: I don't want there to be a sticking point here, but didn't we, I don't know, seven years ago when we put some moratoriums on 41 and Davis and so on make about eight or 10 moratoriums on construction on roads, didn't transportation knock out peak season anyway? So why are we talking about peak season? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: It's important. COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: I know it's important, but it was important -- I objected to it the whole time, that it should -- if you're going to knock out peak season, knock out the minimum amowlt of traffic. But it was just my -- a point that I wanted to make. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Mark, I -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Sehiffer? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: When you're done with this topic, Mark, I have a question. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. I'm not sure we're done with it yet. There were several issues. I want to take them one at a time and finish them. Mr. Pires, the alternative has now been acceptable to the applicant. They would put four counters, one on each corner, up to the church. Do you have any objection to that? MR. PIRES: It makes sense. I haven't talked to my client, but it seems to make sense to be able to capture it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, there ain't nothing else you're going to capture. I mean, you couldn't get a better deal than that. MR. PIRES: It indicates doing it peak season. Doing it before they begin any development activities so we have the baseline. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Well, they already acknowledge they've already done some traffic counts in the before stage. But let's talk about what I just said first. So the four counters, one on each corner, that's acceptable? MR. PIRES: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Next item, what's this base count issue -- oh, go ahead, Ms. Caron? COMMISSIONER CARON: Well, I want Mr. Y ovanovich to explain what the actual counts he has from March of2008 -- is that what you said? MR. YOV ANOVICH: Sunday peak church time. That's the peak. And then we went back, and it was in June, we were asked to do weekday counts. We did the week days and factored them up for what peak season would be. Do I have that right, Rob? MR. PRICE: Let me clarifY this real quick. Rob Price for the record. We have not counted the intersections of Trail Boulevard and Myrtle and Trail Boulevard and Ridge. We counted 41 in those two intersections. But we did count West and Myrtle and West and Ridge at Page 94 IJ6uL~~, A<6 the request of county staff. And we counted them on Sunday during peak season in March, and we counted them -- we went back and counted them during the a.m. and p.m. peak hours ofthe adjacent street weekday back in June. And we have adjusted those in our TIS to peak season conditions. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Tony noh, I'm sorry, go ahead, Ms. Caron. COMMISSIONER CARON: No, I was just going to ask him if that's -- I mean, it sounds to me like they've got at least a base for you to start with. MR. PIRES: It does sound like it, yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: What was the other complaints about that paragraph? MR. PIRES: Bear with me. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So far we've got a couple of changes. The bases have been done and now we're looking at counters on four corners. What else did you have a problem with? MR. PIRES: I think it was additional protection language, if you could bear with me, with regards to actions the county may take. If I can compare the language that's currently there. COMMISSIONER CARON: It says here, after reviewing such data, the county has the right, power and authority to require the property owners within the PUD to implement measures to minimize impacts to the residential Pine Ridge community. That's the line you're seeking to add; is that it? MR. PIRES: Yes. And once again, right now they're just saying they don't have to do that study until such time -- bear with me. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: It says first quarter of the peak season. MR. PIRES: They just say one year after the seating capacity is achieved they do the second study. It doesn't say there's a study thereafter. I think they need to have an annual study. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, the annual study would occur at what point? COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Why? MR. PIRES: Just annually at the same time. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: If they do the -- so what you're saying is Phase I goes in, then when we get to Phase II they do the study. MR. PIRES: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And then you want -- once that study's done you want the study done thereafter annually? MR. PIRES: Yes. Because once again, the seating capacity of -- it's 980 for the entire CFPUD. And recall, that's not the full maximum seating capaeity for the entire CFPUD. And then one year after the I 10-person facility is open, they do a supplemental study. But recall, they can go up to 220 ultimately. And so I think it's important to know what happens when they hit that maximum utilization of the property. There might need to be additional traffic mitigation that occurs after it's fully built out and fully utilized. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, let's find out about this annual PUD monitoring. There is an annual PUD monitoring report required of every PUD in Collier County. MR. YOV ANOVICH: At our-- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And we have to do traffic studies for those every year. MR. YOV ANOVICH: We have to do counts at our project entrances. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. And what are you trying to get? Are you looking for something beyond that, Tony? MR. YOV ANOVICH: And I believe -- and that is when you do new construction. The way I read Tony's request was for the existing uses, I've got to now immediately start doing Page 95 1 ~atuty 1 J1 ~09 these annual traffic -- MR. PIRES: Yes, so we have the baseline. MR. YOV ANOVICH: But we already have a baseline. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No, you have a baseline. MR. YOV ANOVICH: So what I'm saying is I already have a baseline. Why am I now going to -- and I don't think, and correct me ifI'm wrong n where did John go? My understanding is is that you don't do -- you only do PUD monitoring counts is when you put something new on the property, you add a use, that's the change that was recently made. So if nothing happens on Tract B, why would Tract B trigger any -- you wouldn't be doing any counts on Tract B. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. MR. YOV ANOVICH: And if nothing happens for a little bit on Tract A, you wouldn't be doing any counts. And we're saying we already got a baseline, we already got uses there. We shouldn't have to do anything above and beyond the annual PUD monitoring counts until we get to Phase II. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And I don't know why-- MR. YOV ANOVICH: That's what we're suggesting. MR. PIRES: The difficulty is they don't have to do any new additional building to start increasing the number of students that they have at the site. There's nothing saying that they have to put them in a new building. They can go up to the -- MR. YOV ANOVICH: I understand that. But what I'm saying is that we agreed that we would cap our -- we were phasing in our students to 110 for the entire PUD and capping our seats from the 1,200 to 980. And then we agreed that if we wanted to go beyond that number, we'd have to do these annual counts to see if there's any existing issues within the community, any perspective issues within the community. We agreed to that, and we think that that's a reasonable requirement. And we'll do the counts at that point when those two numbers are hit, 110 and 980. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ms. Caron, then Mr. Murray. COMMISSIONER CARON: But your caps that are agreed to here are not what exist today. The baseline is what exists today, correct? Because it was done in March and June. MR. YOV ANOVICH: What exists today as far as number of seats, on Tract A it can hit 200 seats. Living Word that's there today, 175. For the Covenant, that's 478. So existing today is 853 seats. We're asking -- yeah, for the PUD. And we're saying we just want to go to 980 right now. And we're saying if we go for that extra 130 seats, rely on our traffic study. When we get beyond that number, we'll do another one, and we'll do these annual counts, both externally and internally. We think that's reasonable. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Murray? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: John, on to the LDC, the requirement for the annual count. MR. PODCZERWINSKY: Yes. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: What days are chosen for counts? And is Sunday one of them? MR. PODCZERWINSKY: There was a recent revision to the LDC that requires that any time they come in for a new SDP or any development order on the site, there is also a requirement annually, I think it's annually, based on the adoption date ofPUD. And those are all adjusted for the peak season factor. So essentially what you're looking at would be the numbers for our peak season. COMMISSIONER MURRA Y: But I don't think you answered my question. MR. PODCZERWINSKY: Okay. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I'm trying to find out -- let's go on what is requested by Tony, okay. He wants counts every year. Page 96 161 f'd A6 January IS, 2009 What does the LDC require for the count every year? And I'm going to give a hint. Does it include Sunday as a normal process? MR. PODCZERWINSKY: Typically no, it does not. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: That's what I thought. MR. PODCZERWINSKY: It's aimed at p.m. peak hour. COMMISSIONER MURRA Y: So what would the count, ifit were the satisfaction of Tony's desires for his neighborhood, what would you be providing him? Or what would they be providing with their count in compliance with the LDC? MR. PODCZERWINSKY: They would be providing -- and you have to forgive me, it's something that I don't normally take in. I believe that there's just an actual traffic count over a three-day period. And Rob, maybe you can clarifY that for me. You've done some of these traffic counts. It's three separate days with the counts? PUD monitoring counts, three separate days p.m. peak hour? MR. PRICE: Typically the monitoring counts -- Rob Price for the record -- requires you basically just put a tube out on a driveway for three days, and it collects data for 24 hours each day. What I think we're getting at, in order to determine if there's improvements necessary in an intersection, you're looking at peak hour counts. You want to see peak hour tuming movements. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Okay. But that's not what the purpose that Tony is trying to serve. He's trying to determine whether or not there's an increase, an increase that represents a deterioration in the neighborhood through additional traffic. And I respect that, I totally understand that. But what I'm getting at by these questions is that I'm not sure that a PUD required annual recount will provide you the answer that you want. MR. PIRES: I tend to agree with that, Mr. Murray. Additionally, I'm not aware of anything in the PUD monitoring requirements that said if it shows that the traffic has increased and shows additional cut-through traffic that you need to have minimization techniques. And that's where you get back to this document as specific to the particular uses on the site. If you have increased traflic to the Pine Ridge community, you need to address it and take approaches to minimize the impacts on the community. The PUD monitoring requirement doesn't do that, doesn't trigger anything like that, to my knowledge. And that's another concern. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: But this is an extraordinary request from the point of view of this type of thing and whether or not it will serve you. So if they were to take and employ the same technique that the county would require, which is thc strip across that, and it told you there was a six percent increase in the number of traffic on that given day, you'd use that as proof that their census has grown. And now what would you expect in response~ MR. PIRES: Once again, that's what the language would be in the document that would allow the county transportation staff to evaluate that and implement measures to minimize the cut-through traffic through Pine Ridge. That's the language we're proposing. MR. YOV ANOVICH: We -- this is how it all came about. Our traffic analysis -- and Rob, correct me ifI'm wrong -- assumed that 10 percent of the people coming to the site will come through and cut through Pine Ridge, correct? MR. PRICE: Rob Price for the record. Our traffic analysis assumed that we would get about 10 percent of our traffic from the east. Whether it was residents within the Pine Ridge community or cut-through traffic. I think it's important to note, there's going to be residents in the Pine Ridge community that might use the facilities at this church. So we're not just talking about cut-through traffic. MR. YOV ANOVICH: So we -- what my point is, we estimated 10 pereent. They're skeptical about Page 97 1 6 I'" A 6 fanuary is, 2009 that estimate. And we said when we hit -- in order to go beyond the 980 seats and 110 students, attendees, whatever n for what use we put there, we will do internal counts. And if the numbers exceed what we expect -- because transportation's looked at it and said they're okay with 10 percent of the traffic coming through that community. Whether they're already living there or external to the community, they're already okay with that. If that number is exceeded and there's things we need to do to mitigate because the number's higher, we'll do it. We're not quibbling or questioning doing the counts or the studies. We're just saying we shouldn't have to do it until we hit the 980 and the 110. But we may not -- it may -- just because six percent come through at that point, I would have underes -- we would have overestimated the impact to the community and we would have said guys, now you can trust the study based upon actual counts, not a model. And this is intended to verifY at a certain point that the model is correct. And if it wasn't, we'll deal with appropriate measures to address that. It's just -- it's not a question of doing the counts when they want them done. We've said we'd do them in the peak season. And I agree that the annual doesn't work. We'll do it at the peak season. The question is when. We say it gets triggered at the 980 seats and 110 students, they want it immediately. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. But immediately means the base eounts you already did, does it not? MR. YOV ANOVICH: That's what I'm arguing, the base counts should be good enough. But I don't know if the community says that's fine or not. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, if you're operating right now with 853 seats and your base eounts that you currently have done reflect 853 seats, wouldn't -- I'm not sure what another base count right now would accomplish, Tony. MR. PIRES: Once again, I'm not -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I mean, it would be theoretically the same as what they've already got. Now, maybe your argument ought to be that when they increase from 853 seats to wherever they want to go, they do another study at that point and then do one before they go into Phase II to assure you that Phase I was consistent with the base counts and thc maximum excesses that staff thought they would hit. And if that one comes through okay, then phase II goes in and you do another one there. But that might be a compromise that you could get that work, because it would tell you how above the 853 they're impacting the neighborhood, if at all. MR. PIRES: I think the question is to understand the base count. I thought I understood that it was taken at the project entrances, so I'm not sure if they identified where they were -- MR. YOV ANOVICH: No, we did them at both 41, and we also did them at the two that I had originally said, the two -- Ridge and West and Myrtle and West. We have not done the two additional ones that you're talking about, but the base counts we have were March of '08 at those two internal -- MR. PIRES: Right, and -- MR. YOV ANOVlCH: -- intersections and the U.S. 41 intersection. MR. PIRES: And I think to follow up with what Rob was saying, to eliminate the assumption that he n he's indicated that some of the traffic was Pine Ridge residents, that's appropriate to do the counts at Carica and Center and Goodlette-Frank Road. Then you would know, you'd be able to eliminate the internal traffic from the outside traffic. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No, no, no. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: We ruled that out already. MR. PIRES: No, but I'm just saying, he mentioned that some ofthe traffic was from internally from Pine Ridge. MR. YOV ANOVICH: Right. And we've said that's fine. Your concern is how many people are Page 98 161"'1 .rtnuary l~, 2~P coming to the church that normally wouldn't be coming to the ehurch property, right? MR. PIRES: Day care-- MR. YOV ANOVICH: Wherever they come from. MR. PIRES: Day care, adult day care, Pre-K. MR. YOV ANOVICH: But you don't care -- my understanding from the community was we don't care if it is our own residents -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. MR. YOV ANOVICH: -- they wouldn't normally be coming here. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Put that map back on that Tony loaned you. At the scale -- and narrow it down, okay, so we can see the whole thing. Okay, just so we know. If you point to the two uppermost corners of that, right there, those two have had a base count done. And where on 41 did you do the two? Right out there, okay. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: That's fine. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: As of today's discussion, we now would move those two out there to the inside. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Right. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, for the base count, Tony, for what they've got now at 853, 1 think you're getting a pretty good reflection by the four that they've done. But what I'm suggesting is that when they want to go above 853, we get another count. We institute those four counts that they now agreed to do at those locations in order to get the next stage put in, and then once more at Phase II. That means two more times you've got to do counts in that regard for the construction. What is unreasonable about that, Tony? MR. PIRES: What about thereafter, though? Once they've implemented the full Phase II and have the full seating capacity -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: They've already agreed to do annual repor -- their monitoring report requires them to do annual reports. But they will do them now during the peak season. MR. PIRES: They may do that. But what happens if it shows that there's additional traffic? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Tony, I want to get one thing done at a time with you. MR. PIRES: Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: We've got five issues so far we've compromised through. And now the last one is the timing of these eounts, because that was one of the issues. The timing of the base counts that we've got now. We're going to look at more counts when they go above 853 and another set of counts when they go above 980. Are you comfortable with that? MR. PIRES: I believe so. I'll consult with the client, but I believe so. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Now, your issuc about reaction if the eounts exceed what they're supposed to be based on the TIS that was submitted, or expectations. Can county staff tell me how -- you haul them off to jail? What do you do with them? MR. PIRES: What, the traffic counters or people driving through? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Whoever. I just want to get to -- I want to figure out how we control the process if it's proven to be inconsistent with the TIS based on traftic counts of actual happening. MR. PODCZERWINSKY: The traffic counts that we would look at at the end of Phase I would then basically dictate any need for extensions of turn lanes, intersection improvements, or further directional or signage controls on any of the intersections or driveways. We might want to reroute traffic from the site n I'm sorry, from the site driveways where they currently use it so they access to another intersection or a different direction at an intersection, say Myrtle Page 99 16'~! I January 15,4~ and -- I'm sorry, say Trail and Ridge. We might rather have traffic approach from the south than from the-- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, all these enhancements, penalties, whatever you want to call them, corrections, they would have to be done in order for them to proceed then with an SDP of approval to move to their next level of construction; is that correct? MR. PODCZERWINSKY: Correct. As I understand it, that's correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Tony? MR. PIRES: I'm wondering, does that also include traffic calming measures within the Pine Ridge community itself, in addition to -- it seems like a more narrow radius that John was mentioning. MR. PODCZERWINSKY: That's a good question. I'm not sure if traffic calming measures can be imposed the way that the PUD is written today. I don't think that traffic calming measures are listed in that. MR. PIRES: But it's possible that that's a minimization approach? MR. PODCZERWINSKY: It is a possible mitigating factor that we could ask that they adhere to at the SDP phase. But it's not currently written into the PUD that I've seen. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Murray? COMMISSIONER MORRAY: Yeah, here's the thing, though. We -- it's written in here that we're going to have a sheriffs deputy, we've agreed that that's going to be there. And I don't know if you need more than one. But I would think he'd be in a position to do some trafiic calming as far as that's concerned. If that's the focus that you have, Tony, is on the Sunday is when you have the greatest number, or are you really looking for every day? MR. PIRES: Every day, we don't know. Once again, when they get up to full running capacity with their facility and if they have n COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Well, we do maximize at a certain point with the number of students, the number of people in day care. That doesn't get any higher. The only census that seemingly can grow is church attendance. Now, if you have an officer on duty and perhaps they'd have to go to two officers, would that not be enough of a mitigation? Would that not be enough of a calming effect? MR. PIRES: Possibly. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I mean, I recognize pork chops and the rest of it could even be put in there, but how much disruption for the neighborhood do we want to allow in order to contain what may be perceived as a potential problem? That's the balancing act I think here. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right now where we're at is they've agreed to a series of counts, and that we could add language in the PUD that traffic calming measures would be another alternative that could be sought for any kind of increased traffic measures. And I'm not sure, Tony, at this point there's anything missing from correcting that paragraph. It may not reflect the exact language you want, but the county does have methods in place so that when they come in, if the traffic counts that we're now requiring exceed the TIS anticipations, then they can instill additional traffic measures to bring them back into line. That seems to be what you asked for. We kind of got there in a different way. Is there a problem now? MR. PIRES: Yeah, I think in listening to what John was mentioning, it may not -- I'm thinking it may be helpful to have it in the PUD document, though. It possibly would give them a greater opportunity to point to something else and say we can direct other minimization or mitigation techniques as deemed appropriate by county transportation staff. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And I think that's what we're saying by including traffic calming measures, that any measures deemed by county transportation staff then. But I think we've got to a solution on this traffic issue, or at least a way that you guys can go back, put some language together and come back to us in the next round that should be very close to final. Page 100 16nLat 15A69 1 MR. PIRES: I think it does get close to it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. With that, let's take a break till 2:45 and we'll resume at 2:45. (Recess. ) (At which time, Commissioner Murray exited the boardroom.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, if everybody will resume their seats, we still have a lot to go yet. We want to make today as productive as we can, so I'm going to need the rest of the Planning Commission here too, at least. Okay, Cherie', let the record note Mr. Murray had to leave. So we're -- and Mr. Midney is here, he's just not in this room right now, so he'll be back. So we're down to seven members instead of eight. Before we go into the continuation of this process, we do have another case that we have to hear today. There are people here who have come from a long distance, they've waited all day to hear the next item on our agenda. And I want to make sure that we don't continue and miss that item today. It would not be fair. We've spent a lot of time on Pine Ridge. We still need to. It needs to come back anyway. There will be more time spent on it then. But for the folks that are here for that last item, I'd like to make sure we lock them in. Now, and I need two things from the board. How late do you want to stay today? COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: 5:00. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: 5:00 is only two hours, but if that's what you want. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: 6:00? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I was going to say hopefully at least 6:00. We can try to get as much done by then. Is that okay with everybody? Brad? COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: 6:00 is fine. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: As far as looking at the case that's involving the Chokoloskee, I know we've got a lot further discussion on this one to go, we'rc in the heat of it now. Would it be fair to say that at 4:00 we'll start Chokoloskee? I don't think it will take more than an hour. Does anybody have any -- a lot of issues on that? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ifit takes even shorter than that, fine. And then we'll go right back into Pine Ridge. So there's going to be a break in there at 4:00 to give those folks here from Chokoloskee a chance to be heard and get home. We've made them wait all day, and we just need to get past that small one, so -- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Why don't we just finish this and then do it -- get them out. Why wait till 4:00? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I have no problem with that. Ijust didn't want to get everybody n sometimes when I expect something to be quick and short, we end up three hours later still into it, and I'm amazed. So I want to make sure that we aren't getting into one of those scenarios. And if you all feel comfortable with it n COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Yeah, my question is I'd like everybody to be heard today, both sides. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Both sides of what? COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: This petition. Everybody that's a registered speaker, I'd like to hear from today so we can get that resolved. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: If we can get done by 6:00, yeah. But I'm saying we have a second item on today's agenda, it's a boat -- it's a house placement with some mangrove infringement on Chokoloskee. It should be a short item. There's folks here that have been waiting all day to hear it. Page 101 J~I~~O(f\ 6 When we started today, I wasn't sure how long Pine Ridge would take. But the majority of the people here today are for that project, so they obviously are certainly going to be heard today. I'd like to inject Chokoloskee's issue, get done with it and then go right back into Pine Ridge. You suggested a cut-off COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: It's only a suggestion. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No, I could stay here till 12:00 tonight, I don't care. You said you want 6:00. So the people may not get to be heard if they can't be heard by 6:00, based on that comment that you and the others made. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Well, I presumed we'd be done by 6:00, but if we -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: After this you're presuming we'd be done by 6:00? Good luck. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: If we need to stay to completion, we'll stay to completion. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, well, let's just play that by ear then. So with the consensus of this panel, if there's no problem, we're going to shill gears for a few minutes. And I'm sorry for the people from Pine Ridge, but we need to finish up a quicker moment right now. We've had six hours on your subject. I know there are people here who have been waiting all day, so let's move into the Chokoloskee one. Let me make the opening comment and announcement and we'll get on with it. Item #9B PETITION: VA-2008-AR-13756, LEE WYATT CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The advertised public hearing would be Petition V A-2008-AR-13756. It's Lee Wyatt, represented by Lauren Barber of Turrell and Associates, and it's to do with the Otter Avenue in Plantation Island. All those wishing to testifY on behalf of this issue, please rise to be sworn in by the court reporter. (Speakers were duly swom.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Are there any disclosures on the part of Planning Commission? (No rcsponse.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, hearing none, we'll go into the presentation by the applicant. MS. BARBER: All right. Good afternoon. I'm Lauren Barber of Turrell, Hall and Associates, here today representing Mr. Lee Wyatt. We're asking-- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Just a -- for the people that are leaving from Pine Ridge, we are going to come back to your subject as soon as this one's over. We just want to interject this for a few moments. Thank you. Go ahead, ma'am, I'm sorry. MS. BARBER: We're asking for the consideration of the approval ofa nine-foot variance for the front yard setback, typically 25-foot, and ehanging it to 16 feet. And we're also asking for the consideration of I 39.4 square feet of mangrove removal for the lot. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Cherie', did I swear all these people in? THE COURT REPORTER: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I did, thank you. Well, somebody. I just n trying to make sure we stay on track with something here. MS. BARBER: This is just a location map of the property site. Any questions? Are you all familiar with Plantation Island? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I don't think a lot of us are familiar with Plantation Island, but I'm Page 102 161 f~! A 6 January 15,2009 not sure we have a lot of questions on your application, which if that's what you're ready for us to do, we can certainly poll the members and see if there are any questions. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I have a couple -- MS. BARBER: Sure. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: -- real quick. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, Mr. Sehiffer? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: One thing. This is referred to as a stilt house through the whole thing. But then there's also designs of a pad. How is this thing going to be built? Will it be lifted above that pad? MS. BARBER: It will. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: So the pad that you're showing in all the applications is a slab that will be underneath the house? MS. BARBER: Yes, sir. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And then it's also called a mobile home. So you're lifting up a mobile home, or is this a stick built -- MS. BARBER: It's a prefab home, it's just zoned as mobile home. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. And then obviously they went through great effort to make sure you can't use the dock. And is that -- that's typical and they do maintain that just to be a fishing pier? MS. BARBER: Correct. Until the AIP is listed, which is the Area ofInadequate Protection under the Manatee Protection Plan. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay, thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Any other questions? Mr. Schiffer? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I'll make a motion. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, we've got to get staffreports first. Ms. Caron? COMMISSIONER CARON: I just had one question. You were saying that you were going to take out 39.4 square feet of mangrove. But you're going to recreate those -- MS. BARBER: Yes, ma'am-- COMMISSIONER CARON: -- somewhere else. MS. BARBER: -- we are planning on replanting them. COMMISSIONER CARON: So they're going away from one spot and being recreated actually another whole foot or something. MS. BARBER: Correct. And we're actually proposing to bring in a higher quality of mangroves. We'll be taking down the delapidated ones on-site and replanting better quality. COMMISSIONER CARON: Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Any other questions? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. J.D.? You ean keep this real short and sweet. MR. MOSS: Yes. For the record, John-David Moss, Department of Zoning and Land Development Review. Subsection 9.04.02(B)(l) allows site alterations up to 2,500 square feet. And the applicant is requesting to impact only 139 square feet of mangrove area, which the Environmental Services Department has determined is degraded. Page 103 161"~; A 6 January IS, 2009 And as Ms. Barber just stated, the area will be replanted with -- well, not the area that the mangroves were removed from, but another area on the site will be planted with 140 square feet of mangroves to replace those that are taken away. Regarding the setback, 16- foot setback would be consistent with the other setbacks in the neighborhood. If you look at the exhibit that was attached to the staff report, appendix one, it shows that most of the setbacks in the area are consistent with the 16 feet that's being requested. However, only two variances are on record, and both were for front yard setbacks and both were approved by the Board of Zoning Appeals. And I'll be happy to answer any questions, if you have them. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody have any questions of staff? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, Ray, do we have any public speakers? MR. BELLOWS: Yes, we have one. Harold Hall. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Harold was here. He probably gave up. I can't blame him. I'm sure Harold was probably in conformance with what was being asked. So we'll just have to -- MR. PIRES: Here he is. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Oh, okay. Harold, your moment has arrived. MR. HALL: I'm glad, thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: We apologize for taking so long. And it has -- MR. HALL: I've been reading a pamphlet from church, but I'm not going to preach. Harold Hall, 1082 Rainbow Drive. THE COURT REPORTER: Were you sworn in? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Did you get sworn in? MR. HALL: No, no, I didn't. (Speaker was duly sworn.) MR. HALL: In this petition, it's my personal reeommendation that you approve the petition. I'd like to tell you, though, that in the past week I have talked with three other residents in Plantation Island, two of which were past presidents of the property owners association. They have no objeetions to this applicant, and they think you should approve it. I want to do two things, and I've got to keep this down to five minutes. I know that -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Harold, I might give you a tip. It's headed tor unanimous approval right now. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: You can only -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You can only hurt it. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: You can only shoot it. MR. HALL: Well, then I will hold my preaching to just one minute. Is that okay? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Go ahead, sir. It's good to see you back again, though. It's been a long time SInce, so -- MR. HALL: Well, I was afraid you'd put me in jailor something if! wasn't careful. On setbacks on Plantation Island, the 25 feet on I OO-foot lot is too much setback. For the most economical family unit of a mobile home, the box on it is 65 feet. So 25 feet front, 10 feet back leaves 65 feet. It's almost impossible to accurately locate a 25-foot box --I mean, a 65-foot box in 65 feet. So any application you get, to decrease that front yard setback I think you should do it in the future. Now, on the area of critical state concern. To begin with, Plantation Island should never have been in that area of critical state concern. The map that the state used and the map that the county used did not Page 104 1 J~nJaJ 15, ~~ show Plantation Island mobile home subdivision, even though it had been permitted, completed, roads, canals, electricity, water, telephones, television, all in there. And dozens of residents in there. Yet the map didn't have it on there. So the county showed Plantation -- showed that area, including Plantation Island mobile home subdivision as conservation and recreation. Now, when this was called to the county staffs attention in 1988, '89 and '90, in 1990, they revised this and showed the mobile home subdivision as urban, same as Everglades City and Chokoloskee. I called this to the Department of Community Affairs' attention a couple years later. Nothing happened. I did ascertain, talking with them, that I'm 99.9 percent sure it was the same map that Collier County used. But they didn't feel any urgency to correct it. Now, when this came up before the county commission and the commission worked with some of our legislative body a couple three years ago to take it -- Plantation Island out of the area of critical coneern, an agreement was reached to take it completely out. And word got all around in that area, so people down in the Everglades area is very happy. But they were shocked, I was shocked, to find out that after an agreement was reached verbally that the Department of Community Affairs said no, we won't do that, we will allow up to 2,500 square feet altered. Well, when you take out what is needed for a septic system and a driveway, leaves you about 1,000 square feet. There's no way that you're going to put any kind of a family sized mobile home on that in ] ,000 square feet. You can't do it. I talked with two different contractors down there. One of them told me they absolutely wouldn't even accept a job to do that. There's no place to work, unless you bring evcrytbing in by helicopter, including workers. But at any rate, I'm unhappy with the Department of Community Affairs twice, first in ever putting it in there to begin with using a map that didn't show it, and secondly, by actually effectively still preventing any effective use of that. Especially if you're talking a family with children, they can't use it. However, they sold some lots real quick, thinking that it was coming out. So then on the one lot that I own, my taxes went up from about $30 a year to $1,000 a year because they was appraised just like any other lot. And the next year they changed that, so it was assessed value per tax purposes down to $30,000, so I only pay 500 a year now for a lot that can't be used. I'm unhappy with the Department of Community Affairs. I'm very happy with the Collier County staff Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Hall, thank you. And it's very good to see you again, sir.lt's been many years, so -- MR. HALL: Good to be here. I just was in a conversation outside, being very complimentary on you folks on what you're doing, these applications, especially this last one. To get a whole bunch of what could be troublesome items next year, five years from now, getting those questions asked and resolved now. That's going to help the staff, it will help all of us in the years to come. Thank you. Appreciate it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you very much, Harold. You have a good day. Ray, were there any other public speakers? MR. BELLOWS: No speakers. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, if there's no questions, I'll close the public hearing and entertain a motion. Mr. Schiffer? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I move with a recommendation of approval V A-2008-AR-] 3756. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Is there a second-- COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Second. Page] 05 lr6Jy Is, 2A06 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- to the motion? Motion's been made and seconded. Let me see, make sure there's no staff -- there's no staff recommendation, so it's as-is. All those in favor of the motion signifY by saying aye. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Aye. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Aye. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye. COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Aye. COMMISSIONER CARON: Aye. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion carries 7-0. Thank you, and I apologize for making you wait so long today. I honestly didn't think we'd be here quite as long as we have been. So thank you all. Okay, would those people for Pine Ridge and Covenant Presbyterian Church -- no, Heavenly PUD please come back in the room. We're going to resume the process we ended a few minutes ago. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Mr. Chair? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes, sir. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Ask John not to leave. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Pardon me? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Could you ask John not to leave? Because I want to bring back number -- oh, he's moving up. Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: John, don't leave. COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: John, don't leave. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Y ovanovich, where's your partner here today, Mr. Pires; do you know? MR. YOV ANOVICH: Well, we actually duked it out. He lost. And he told me to go ahead and represent him. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Oh, okay. Well, that's good. This will be a most interesting finish for the meeting, When Tony comes in, when I say so, everybody say aye. All those in favor? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Aye. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Aye. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye. COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Aye. COMMISSIONER CARON: Aye. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Sorry, Mr. Pires. MR. PIRES: I appreciate it. Brings new meaning to being on your toes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I thank all of you for your indulgence in that last process. Those people have been here all day and I wasn't sure. I didn't see them -- I didn't want them to continue to another day, so thank you. Page 106 LQabts', 2cA~ Item #9A -- Continued from earlier in the meeting PETITION: PUDZ-2007-AR-12097 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And with that, we had finished up all but one page of the 22 pages of the PUD. And the last page was the elevation page. And that hopefully won't have a lot of discussion with it. Tony, I guess the elevations were modified from the original package so that there's a front and a rear now. MR. PIRES: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Do you have any concerns with those? MR. PIRES: Just gets back to the height issue. I think it shows 80, we talked about 70 overall. That goes back to the addition -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. MR. PIRES: -- the prior discussion with regards to height. No, I think it helps everybody understand. And that was the purpose of it, to understand what would be looked at. What is not in here in the PUD, and I don't know if we have additional supporting materials, and it sort ofties into this, our sightline graphics. I thought we were going to get revised sightline graphics to get an indication of what this structure would look like from the surrounding residential community. MR. YOV ANOVICH: We gave those to you. MR. PIRES: Okay. I thought there'd be further-- MR. YOV ANOVICH: We gave those to you when we met back prior to Christmas, we gave you the updated -- MR. PIRES: There are no more since then? MR. YOV ANOVICH: The last one was with the] 2-foot trees. We have not updated it for the ] 4- foot trees. So the one you have actually shows a worser -- a worster -- a worst case than -- MR. PIRES: A more worser. MR. YOV ANOVICH: Yeah. MR. PIRES: But Mr. Strain, if] could briefly go back to the traffic issue, just for clarification. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah, we've got -- Brad's got a question on the traffic issue too, so can we finish with this graphic page first to make sure everybody's in conformance, whether -- or does your traffic issue have an issue with the graphics? MR. PIRES: No. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, J.D.-- MR. PIRES: I didn't see a -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- do you have any problem with this exhibit? MR. MOSS: No, sir. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody else on the planning commission? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Ijust-- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Brad? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: -- want to point out one thing, is that notice that the actual height and the -- that 80-foot including extension height is measured from the center lines of the road; is that right, Rich? That's what it says so -- that's good. That's what it has to be. MR. YOV ANOVICH: It's supposed to be, right? Made me a little nervous. Page 107 161ff A6 January 15,2009 COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Well, the nervous part is the comparison with the other ones. In other words, you can't compare the two because you don't know the distance between the finished floor height and the -- but that's fine, you're trapped in that dimension. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, then let's move back to Page 20. Mr. Schiffer, you've got a concern on number five. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Yeah, I mean, I live in that area. One of the biggest problems we have is because Trail Boulevard is so close to 41, setting up traffic, especially in making a southbound. I think that makes sense to me. What it's really saying is that the southbound turn lane, that means a lane on Ridge Drive that is intended to take traffic south on 41. So we scratched it out, but I think we should look at it and keep it in. Because what that means is coming out of the church, people making a left won't clog up Ridge Road and won't, you know, clog up Trail Boulevard, which happens. MR. PODCZERWINSKY: Yes, sir, I did speak with my manager this morning on this one. At this point I don't know if we want to define that as specifically as a left turn lane to provide left turns onto 41 to provide storage for left tums onto 4 I. I think we want to keep the flexibility to determine if that needs to be an additional right turn for Sunday mornings. Under police control it may be a dual right turn onto 41. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: In other words, when we come out of the egress on Ridge and we head west, how many lanes do you expect to be there? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Could you-- MR. PODCZERWINSKY: It would be a total of three paved lanes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Could you put Tony's graphic on so we can -- you can show us exaetly what Mr. Schiffer lives next to or near so we can understand what he's trying to say better. And blow it up to the area that we're in question. Focus -- zero in on it. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: It's not on that map. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I know, it's toward the bottom. Okay, great. Now, what roads are we talking about, Brad? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: The one between that seventh -- right where his finger is. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, thank you. And is it where it hits 41 or where it hits Trail Boulevard? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Well, what they're stating is while you're on the church property you come out and you head west, whieh is down in this orientation. You would stack there. The problem we have up in that neighborhood is people stack on Trail north-south, they stack crossing Trail, they stack -- you know, it's pretty out of control up there. So the thought of having a stacking lane there, then people could go down Trail for that matter-- MR. PODCZERWINSKY: That's correct. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: -- or could come out to 41. In other words, you've got three lanes now. What you're saying now is you don't want to paint an arrow on it, you'd rather just keep it two lanes and you could -- and the two lanes I assume are in the westbound side. MR. PODCZERWINSKY: Correct. Correct, they would both be westbound lanes. The direction that those westbound lanes would take, whether westbound to northbound or westbound to southbound, would still be left open for Sheriffs Office control. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. And the coneern I had is we took out number five, which is -- but you're saying if we take out number five, what we took away is the painting of that lane. The lane will still be built. Page 108 1~ I ~.. A ~ ~nuary 15, 2Ml9 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: We didn't take out five, we just changed the word south to west. MR. PODCZERWINSKY: Just changed the word south to west. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. A westbound turn lane. MR. PODCZERWINSKY: Yes. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: All right. Okay, as long as the two lanes are there, okay, I'd be fine with it. MR. PODCZERWINSKY: Yes, we just haven't defined it as westbound to southbound or westbound to northbound. And transportation, like I said earlier -- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Why don't you just call it a turn lane and just -- I mean, here's what I don't think the neighbors would want is people blocking, you know, Ridge Road and they've got to wait for everybody to clear out of that before they can go north if they were going up for breakfast or something. MR. PODCZERWINSKY: Correct. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: All right, thank you. MR. PODCZERWINSKY: Sure. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. I believe that wraps up the issues of the PUD that we've -- go ahead, Mr. Pires. MR. PIRES: For the record, if we could, I think one point of clarification. I think during the discussion there was a statement that the baseline studies were done in March of '08, the existing traflic counts. And for clarification, I think in going back to the TIS, the March, '08 studies that were performed were at West and Ridge and West and Myrtle, not at U.S. 41. The U.S. 41 traffic counts were taken in June of '08. So there is no peak season baseline for U.S. 41. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I thought we were told there were four done. MR. PRICE: That's not true. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. MR. PIRES: I'm just going through-- MR. PRICE: Rob Price for the record. I stated that the turning movement counts we did at Myrtle and West and Ridge and West were done in March of '08 on Sundays. I have it written down here. I went through our TIS and wrote it down. We did counts at all four: 41 and West -- I mean 41 and Myrtle, 41 and Ridge, West and Ridge, and West and Myrtle. We've adjusted all of those for peak season. We've even grown them up to 2013 volumes as well. So we have baseline, you know, peak season existing traflic volumes at all four of those intersections. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. MR. PIRES: No, I guess I understood that the actual traffic counts were done in March at 41 and-- MR. PRICE: The ones that were done in March were at West and Myrtle and West and Ridge. MR. PIRES: So there were no actual traflic counts done on 4] in March of'08? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, no-- MR. PRICE: In those -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- they did them in the summertime and then you moved them up. MR. PRICE: We moved them up for peak season adjustment. MR. PIRES: Okay, thanks for the clarification. MR. PRICE: And those -- also, I should point out the counts that we did at West and Myrtle and West and Ridge were done beyond peak season. So we reduced those volumes, according to county policy. Page 109 Jat~)1 t~o' 6 CHAIRMAN STRAIN : You just threw a zinger there. What does that mean? MR. PRICE: Basically the state has peak season correction factors. And if your peak season correction factor is below one, then you are to reduce the volume. So you're supposed to reach a 100 highest hour. That's what your design hour is. It's not the peak of the peak of the peak like the busiest day of the year, it's the 100th highest hour. So the counts that we did at Myrtle and West and Myrtle and Ridge were done beyond the peak hour. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So you looked at a more difficult situation than-- MR. PRICE: Exactly. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- a less difficult situation. That's a better way to say it. So we understand that you looked at a much more harder look at the intersection, with more traffic than you would normally have had to look if you had done it more conservatively. MR. PRICE: Exactly. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. I think we've gotten through the document. If there's no concerns from the Planning Commission at this stage, what I'd like to do is start working our way through the public comments so that before we leave today we've at least heard all the public and this can go into some kind of process with the applicant and the representatives after the meeting as a setup to the next meeting. So Ray, if you'll start calling folks. And the way this works, first of all, we assume everybody coming up has been sworn in. If you haven't been sworn in, please let us know. And that would have occurred earlier this morning. You can come up to either podium. We ask that you limit your time to about five minutes; though it's not a hard and fast rule, we have flexibility. It's best if you're not redundant. If the person ahead of you has said something that you agree with, just your acknowledgment that you agree with them works fine for us, we understand. So with that in mind, we'll move forward. Ray, would you call the first speakers. MR. BELLOWS: Sally Barker, to be followed by Allen Jones. MS. BARKER: I wasn't expecting to be first up, but here I am. For the record, my name is Sally Barker. I'm here as a 29-year resident of Pine Ridge, and the outgoing secretary of the Pine Ridge Civic Association. I have been involved in this PUD since we first got wind of it back in October, 2007, when notice went out of the first neighborhood information meeting. As you probably heard, that meeting did not go well. Pine Ridge, at least the board of Pine Ridge, has consistently maintained from the very beginning, from that first NIM, that this project should have been submitted as a conditional use rather than a PUD. However, we were not given a choice in the matter. And rather than let a PUD go through without our input, we chose to try and work with the planner to lessen the impacts on the neighborhood. That also did not go very well. At least until the church brought in Mr. Yovanovich, at whieh point things started to improve. A lot. In fair play to Covenant, I think we do have to say that we do appreciate their willingness to work with us and their openness about their plans. And it's been a pleasant association working with the church. And we have never opposed the building of a new church building and a new church campus. A few of the items initially gave us heartburn from the earlier PUD's, like the freestanding school and the health center and things like that. And those were subsequently removed, and we appreciate that. A handful of issues still remain, as Mr. Pires has pointed out. But on the whole, I think we are relatively comfortable with Tract A and the plans for Tract A. Page 110 InQa& r ;ocA 6 What is still giving us heartburn is Tract B, the Mission Possible property that went into foreclosure during this year and a half long process and is now owned by Florida Community Bank. The bank has indeed also made some concessions. But the uncertainty over the future of that parcel is still glvmg us pause. We need -- well, we feel we need more concrete assurances that a future owner will not redevelop that property in a way that the changes are so radical that they become incompatible with the neighborhood. It's hard to predict what a new congregation would do. And I understand that the bank doesn't want to put too many restrictions on what a new congregation owner will do, because more restrictions make it tougher to unload the property, obviously. But as -- and I hate to say this in relation to a church, but the devil is in the details, and the details are not what we're getting about Tract B. You know, if this were in a sparsely populated part of the county, it wouldn't be a problem. But it's not. It's right smack dab in the middle of a 50-year-old neighborhood that's built out, platted and occupied. We need to know what we're going to get on Tract B, and we need to know if we're going to be able to live with it. And if this PUD goes through, we lose all ability to have any input on the redevelopment of Tract B. And frankly, that makes us very, very uncomfortable. A conditional use would have solved this dilemma. But as I said before, a conditional use was not the option that was given to us. And I hope that explains why our support -- well, we don't really support the PUD, but we don't really oppose it. We're kind of ambivalent. Our ambivalence is really more over Tract B than Tract A. And if you have any questions, I would be happy to try and explain. Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Sally, the -- Sally, I do-- MS. BARKER: There you are. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The Tract B, there are a series of development standards that are being imposed by the PUD for existing and for any renovations. If they were to --I shouldn't say renovations, expansions of the facility. If the building is combined with Tract A, I think your issues are less. MS. BARKER: They go away. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. MS. BARKER: Yeah, the issues go away. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But haven't you reviewed, or wouldn't the fact that we have -- they're talking about a lot ofrestrictions on Tract B that would take care of some of the stuff that would happen? What part is -- I'm trying to focus on what concerns you. Is it the setbacks, is it the height? Is it what? Because it's got hedges, setbacks, driveways. Whatever issue we could think of! think has been addressed. What is missing? MS. BARKER: Well, one issue of course is the height. Right now, as was mentioned before, it's a converted single-family home. One-story, single-family home. And it blends in quite well with the neighborhood. However, if a new congregation purchased that property, knocks down the old church, they could seemingly build a -- an edifice that is what, three stories tall? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, 35 feet. MS. BARKER: Thirty-five feet plus another 10 to the rootline and then another seven on top of that. That's 52 feet in a neighborhood where most of the homes are not of that height. In fact, I can't think of a single three-story home we have. So -- and then there's the architectural considerations. You know, it's a matter of taste, perhaps. A new congregation could come in and build something that we would consider horrendously ugly, but we Page III l~a~ , ;~~ 6 would have no input on the design or the architecture because the PUD would be in place, and we would be stuck living with whatever a new congregation decides to build. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And what about your deed restrictions? MS. BARKER: The deed restrictions only designate Block 0 for religious purposes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. MS. BARKER: The architectural control committee again I think would be frozen out by a PUD, unless the PUD stipulated that he -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No, PUD's don't override deed restrictions. MS. BARKER: Okay, so the archi -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I can tell you that from personal experience. The PUD doesn't override deed restrictions, but you guys would have to exercise your rights under your deed restrictions. And I thought the way -- and I did not study the documents [ received that provided deed restrictions to me because I got them late I think yesterday. MS. BARKER: And they're vaguely unreadable. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: They're very difficult to read. But what I could tell was there was a change made that allowed Tract 0 to be used as church facilities. But [ thought that the language then left the rest of it under the basis of the other -- the remaining deed restrictions for architectural review or architectural review board and things like that. Now, I could be wrong. MS. BARKER: I don't think it addressed that issue. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So you guys don't think you have any review over that parcel? MS. BARKER: Cliff Schneider is our representative from the architectural control committee, and he had to go run an errand, and he's going to be right back. But he's the one who would be able to answer the questions about the role of the architectural control committee under a PUD. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Well, I'll make sure that when he gets back we'll ask him that question. And also, would your concerns be somewhat helped if you had some, say, a rendering or an idea of what the building would look like that was going on these parcels? MS. BARKER: Only if we had some input into whether it gets approved or not. But you see, right now it's owned by the bank. It's up for sale. Nobody actually owns it except the bank. And of course they will try to find a new owner, a new congregation, hopefully. And whatever that new congregation wants to do basically they will be free to do under this PUD. And we will have no say so. We will just have to live with the consequences of what a new congregation wants to put up. Is that clear? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes, it is. Thank you. That's what I was looking for, and you provided me with good information. Thank you. MS. BARKER: Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Schiffer? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: One thing I think, and this is for Rich's tearn. You know, the Exhibit G you have for the church, could you make it Exhibit G for Block B too, showing what the heights are that you're -- MR. YOV ANOVICH: We could certainly provide a height exhibit. But as far as any type of document like we did for Exhibit G for Tract A, we can't because we have -- we have an architectural rendering for Tract A, we don't have anything for Tract B. But we certainly can provide a height exhibit-- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And that's all this is. This is a generic thing with generic heights and stuff like that. [ mean, this certainly isn't much of a design. So if you could just throw something Page 112 JaJ415~oo<A 6 similar together for that, just so the neighbors see what the heights are. MR. YOV ANOVICH: We can provide a height exhibit. That's not a problem for the neighborhood. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: While we're on that subject, what is the current zoned height you're allowed to go to on that property; do you know? MR. YOVANOVICH: Yeah, 35 feet. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So you're asking for no different than what you currently have? MR. YOV ANOVICH: Not asking for anything different than what we currently have and what everybody else in the Pine Ridge community has. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So if we turn this project down for parcel B's lack of information, because that is a concerning one, then you still could do on Tract B exactly what you're asking to do in the PUD. To the extent of the height. MR. YOV ANOVICH: To the height, yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. Because you don't have an actual height restriction now, either, do you? MR. YOV ANOVICH: Actually, in Pine Ridge there is no upper number -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. So you could have-- MR. YOV ANOVICH: -- because there is no actual height. We are at least establishing an upper number that nobody else in Pine Ridge really has to establish. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So you could go 35 feet zoned with unlimited actual height. MR. YOV ANOVICH: Yes, as the zoning regulations currently apply in Pine Ridge. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. And if I'm not mistaken, staff indicated this project would come under the architectural review criteria? MR. BELLOWS: That's correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Would Tract B come under the architectural review criteria? MR. BELLOWS: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, because that's far better criteria than nothing at all. And it might be better than what's there now, which I don't think is any. Do you have any -- is there any on that current building there? Because the -- MR. YOV ANOVICH: No. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- building hasn't been changed. MR. YOV ANOVICH: In fairness, and this has been the issue is the uncertainty of Tract B. And we had -- the owner of Tract B met with David Humphrey to come up with the development standards in the table itself to hopefully make it more -- if someone were to design to the worst case scenario of that development table, it would be something that would be attractive at the end of the day. And that's why you see the difference in height from Tract B to Tract A. And that was put together with the assistance of an architect to come up with that development table. Because we did know that Tract B is not as far along as Tract A is on the design of buildings. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. Next speaker, Ray? MR. BELLOWS: Next speaker is Allen Jones. MR. JONES: Good afternoon. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Good afternoon, sir. MR. JONES: For the record, my name is Allen Jones. I'm a resident in Pine Ridge, 15 years, 10 years as an officer in Pine Ridge Civic Association. First of all, I'd like to say that Pine Ridge Civic Association and the residents have enjoyed a good Page 113 ~~J~~5, AQ relationship with the church. We have, you know, no animosity to the church and their attempts to further develop the lot. But I realize that as well as the members and the board of the church, we have a stake in what the outcome of this project is. We both share in what the outcome is. But there's no doubt that the magnitude of the church activities has changed in the past 50 years from what ha~ been set aside and allows for Block 0 to be used for church use. I think churches today represent a totally different thing than they did 50 years ago. When we look at Block 0 and we take it in the perspective that was put on it 50 years ago, we consider our little neighborhood church. So this is where our concerns come up, is that we have to be cautious about what we're going to wind up with as a finished project. And that's basically the foundation of all our concerns on it. Now, some of the concerns I had from the beginning were the parking, traffic and the water management. Now, the parking was set aside. One of the big concerns was their desire to put in a parking garage. That's been tossed out. We're comfortable with that. The traffic, I thought until today that one of the prime concerns we had was traffic leaving the site, and especially during the day, during the week days. During the week days you don't have an open 41 like you do on Sundays. People who are leaving the site after dropping the kids off for day care or any other reason, if they wind up like I'm sure they will, tied up trying to get out onto 41, then pretty soon they're going to start having a desire to go heading east and going through the neighborhood. We have a lot of people in the neighborhood who are trying to get out. We have minimal exits from Pine Ridge subdivision as it is. Going across Trail Boulevard and onto 41 is a dangerous situation. It's not going to allow for a lot of traflic leaving that site. You mix in the people who've dropped kids off or whatever elsewhere with the residents of Pine Ridge leaving and there's a problem. I thought that one of our problems was going to be resolved in those no left turn on Myrtle, no right turn on Ridge. However, for some reason that was decided not to be included in. I would like to see that put back in there. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I think it is in there. Yeah, that's in there. That's still in there. MR. JONES: Didn't I hear somebody objecting to that today because of how is it going to be controlled, it couldn't be dictated in a PUD -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No, no, no, that was the police enforcement of it. MR. JONES: Yes. Well, ifthere's no enforcement-- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No, no, there will be enforcement, but it can't be done through a PUD. Somehow the signage and other aspects of the project will have to address it. Zoning documents don't dictate the law to law enforcement officers. That's all the point was trying to be made. MR. JONES: Okay, that's fine. And the water management of course was a concern. We had no definition of how that was going to be at the beginning. We have really serious problems around through Pine Ridge right now. We have an older system. It's not a backbone system, so we rely on our swales and all. And so anything at all that impacts that really puts us in a bad position. However, that seems to have been met by the conditions. The outflow goes to the west and it's going to be used, so that's okay. Now, that leaves me only one major concern, and I've had this concern from the onset on this and that is that phrase accessory uses and structures customarily associated with a principal use. To me that doesn't say anything specific. Not any more than the people who said Block 0 for church related uses 50 years ago knew that they were going to be talking about day care, a much larger Page 114 lJQlJ.15, ~Q church and whatever else might come. That -- you know, an awful lot of these things later on raise themselves up and create a lot of problems for the neighborhood. And I think that we owe it to the residents to make sure that those bases are covered. I would propose that that phrase be stricken out and anything -- any proposals for any buildings or any changes in use or anything else be brought up and approved or disapproved on their merit or lack thereof. And other than that -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No, your points are well taken, and we will -- we'll be discussing them further. So thank you very much. Appreciate it. Next speaker, Ray? MR. BELLOWS: The next speaker is Ben King. MR. KING: Good afternoon. For the record, my narne is Ben King. My wife and I live across the street diagonally from the church property at the corner of Myrtle and West. We have a number of concerns. We feel the church has made some progress, particularly the latest filing in terms of addressing them. But I guess the biggest issue that bother -- you know, we have the trouble with is the uncertainty issue. And Mr. Schiffer pointed out, when he pointed out -- you know, we have the filing, we have like a blueprint of what's being built. And when I was looking at it before, it looked like to me like none of these buildings aren't that big. It looked like there was a lot of green between them. And now I look at it and I see it as basically a lot of parking lot and all buildings in the front. It's going to be very unattractive from an esthetic point of view. It's going to be very little green visible. My other question, it raises the issue of is the rest of the inf()rmation in the site plan correct? I mean, is it to scale? Does it look right? I mean, I don't really know. I mean, I can see there perhaps being a reason for this, because I guess we shifted personnel or whatever. But if this were a conditional filing, I assume this would have to be detailed exactly right, the conditional zoning, is that -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: It doesn't -- this can be detailed. And a conditional use doesn't necessarily mean it's going to be any more detailed than what you'll see here. But that's why we were looking for public input. One of the things we can ask is for some more detail on their building. They do have a brochure. Some members of this board have it and some don't. But it's things like this put into more formalized attachment that may be helpful, provided the right -- and I'll use the bad word -- flexibility is built in to understand that maybe this is what you're looking at. MR. KING: Absolutely, that's correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And maybe if the colors were allowed to be changed because they aren't accurately depicted here or some language like that, that works. But that may help move this along. And that's the scenario we're hopefully going to get to through your input and others today. MR. KING: Okay. Well, going further with uncertainty, is I've been at just about every meeting, I've listened to what's being said. I still find the input's confusing about the size of what's being built. And there's virtually no input on the timing of the development. All I look at when I see this is a lot of abstract numbers dealing with square footages. And sometimes I don't really understand them. And it appears they're flexible. For exarnple, if you go to Page 5 and you look at -- this is for the maximum square footage for the church is 28,000 square feet. The minimum floor area is 2,500 square feet. Does that mean that the minimum -- I know realistic it's not going to be built that size, but does that mean the minimum size of the church could be 2,500 square feet, according to the documents? There is no minimum. Plus the major point of this is what square footage is not used for the church, it can go over to accessory uses. And this rendition of the church size and accessory uses and the breakout could change so drarnatically, I'm not comfortable with what I'm seeing here. I mean, perhaps Page 115 1 Snta~ 15, ~~ there should be a reasonable minimal size for the church. And I guess at this point there are no development timing commitments. We don't know exact-- approximately when the site improvements will be done, what's going to be built first. We were told over six months ago that the funds were available to build either a new church or an activity center type building. To our knowledge, no commitment has been made as to which one is going to be built first. Obviously from our point of view a church is more desirable because one is it removes the old church, it improves the look of the site. It also shows the church is committed to their primary use of building -- I mean, that would be a priority to me. And also, it would appear that the church plans would be able -- at this point give us an idea of what the church would look like, what you have there. But also the size of the church. And I don't know why they wouldn't be committed at this point to what type of building you would be building. I mean, which one is going to be built first? It's been months and months that they've been kicking this around. We've gone very far along through many, many meetings. And I'm just wondering why we haven't committed to which building would be built first. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, these are issues, sir --I'm up here. Up here front. Up here. These are issues that -- I don't know how to get your attention. There we go. No, it's no problem. The speakers are all over this room. Your input and the issues and questions you're asking wcre things that we needed to hear today so we can find out how to further either define this PUD to a point where it's more accessible or say it's not going to be. And so that's the next stage we're going to go into. We're going to take what input you and the others provide today and try to get answers for you and go as far as we can. MR. KING: Well, that's the biggest problem I personally have with the PUD is it's abstract type things. It's not the real word. And you're looking at, you know, diagrarns that sometimes may not be exactly right or whatever and you're not looking at real conceptual type buildings. The other issue I have is we live -- I wonder, could you blow that up a little bit? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Sure. Just give us the lot number. It should be on there once it's -- MR. KING: Yeah, well, I'd like to see. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah, keep zooming in. MR. KING: Just a little bit more. Okay, right there is fine. Our property is lot 56, which is on the southeast corner of Myrtle and West. And the new lake is basically going to be right on that corner. So we have a lot of concerns about water management. In looking at the document, what we see so far is there's a three-day 25-year test, or the greater of the capacity of the lake. Or with the newer additive is the -- what might be in effect in terms of zoning requirements when it's actually done. We do not know ifthere will be any improvement in water management. We do know that our new neighbor directly across the street from our property would be a rather large relocated lake. The present lake is 50 percent larger than the proposed lake. The old lake has had severe flooding problems in the past. And also, it was much more centrally located. The size of the development has been reduced from 148,000 square feet to 100,000 square feet, which is a very good reduction. And that even before this reduction there were more than the number of needed parking spaces to meet the zoning requirements. But we haven't seen any compensating commitment to improve water management. And I do know that Pine Ridge, and it's been said a number of times, that Pine Ridge has water problems. And we feel that this is an opportunity to address at least one of them. I mean, so much is happening there. We're moving Page 116 1.QJarlI5A269i lakes, we're totally redeveloping the property. Why not do something for the community. This is a good opportunity to do it. Why not do something in terms of guaranteeing an improved water management. We are going to face, without quantifYing it, more traffic levels, we're going to increase activity levels. There's no doubt our standard of living is going to change somewhat. I can't say how much, but whatever, it's going to be some number. Another issue we have problems with is the hours of operations. Our peaceful times to enjoy our property will compete with expanded church activities. It's inevitable. The church's hours or operation are basically, per the documents, 24/7. The other aetivities start at 7:30 in the morning and end at 10:30 at night. That's 15 hours a day. seven days a week. This is a residential community. School hours also include undefined special functions on a weekly basis. It's basically -- I don't know why they call it special if it's every week. We feel that the activities that are going to be conducted should be more clearly defined. And once they are, we'll be in a better position to determine if they're reasonable or if we have to do something in terms of maybe restricting the evening hours or perhaps the weekend hours for the activities. We really don't -- this went back to what we said earlier about the activities not being -- the accessory uses not being clearly defined. 1 can't really comment on this completely because 1 really don't know what's going to be done and what -- how many are going to be at a class at night. At one time we were told it would be like a Bible school in the evening, a very small class. That's fine. But if it's a lot of Bible schools or a lot of activities running simultaneously, it could really have a different -- you know, give us a different impression. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: We're getting close to your time frmne, sir, so you have to start wrapping it up. We've got to give everybody a chance to speak, and I -- MR. KING: 1 do have one more point though. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. MR. KING: You asked earlier about whether there was any preserves on the property. I'd just like to point out that lot 489, which is very visible from my property, is basically a pristine strand of pine and other growth. I do not know what's in it, but I don't think anyone could walk through it, it's so dense. There could be native vegetation, there could be invasive plants, I really don't know. But I just wanted to point out that is there. And that the native vegetation that was destroyed was basically between lot 481 and 489. So I don't know if that would impact a kind of environmental thing or anything like that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: They've already settled on that. so thank you very much, sir. I appreciate it. Ray, next speaker? MR. BELLOWS: Clifford Schneider, to be followed by George Buonocore. MR. SCHNEIDER: Afternoon. For the record. my nmne's Cliff Schneider. I live at 234 Tupelo Road. I've been a resident of Pine Ridge since 1972. I'm one of three members of the architecture control committee. the Pine Ridge Architecture Control Committee. That consists of Steve Brisson. he's our chairman, Tom Peak and myself. Steve Brisson was not able to attend today, so I'm here. Our committee has reviewed this pun project on numerous occasions, and we as a committee have not seen a final document as yet. I had one e-mailed last night, which was what was here today. But as a committee, we have not reviewed a final document. We reviewed numerous documents. PUD master plan's a constant state of flux. So. you know, it's -- we're at a disadvantage not seeing some final documents. But I understand we're making good progress towards that and looking forward to it. The Pine Ridge Architecture Control Committee does not support the PUD as presented, and we're on record as such. Letter dated October 9th. 2008. I think you have this. It's in the staff. I can leave a copy Page 11 7 16 hI, Janmlry lsA69 for you, if you want. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I believe it's in our packet. MR. SCHNEIDER: You have it? Okay. And our consensus of the committee, that position's still not changed. We have not seen anything to date that would change our position. The PUD documents show very limited definition with respect to building configuration and locations. Some on parcel A, but nonexistent on B. I mean, that's just -- they show an existing building but something that's proposed. There's no definition there. The improvements that are proposed occur in a long established, low density subdivision. And we suggest that both parcels A and B need to define what they are going to build, both in horizontal and in elevation detail. For instance, some conceptual architectural drawings. Mark, you mentioned some reference to a brochure there which shows some proposals for the church. I think they look pretty lovely. That I believe is only for parcel A. But what's parcel B? Is there a definition there? I know the owner is not an end user, it's a receiver at this point. And I understand they want to salvage something out of it. But I think that we as an architecture committee want to feel comfortable that we either support or oppose what's going on based on something that we can grasp. We would rather support what's proposed, we would rather see what is planned. And I think this can be done by adding more detail to the PUD or a more detailed conditional use zoning application. We as a committee, the architecture control committee, we're not opposed to the PUD process. We know ofPUD's that have had much more detail put into them, into the actual ordinance defining what's going to happen. If -- and I mentioned that parcel B was very vague. And suppose parcel A can have some more definition put into the document. IfB cannot, our suggestion is leave parcel B as it is, residential single-family zoning with a conditional use on it for a church. And if they can define what they're going to do with some degree of conceptuality, then perhaps we can reach some common ground. And based on what I saw today here, I mean, we're working in that direction. I just hope that things can continue. There was some mention earlier today, well, we maybe don't need any architectural standards within the PUD because the Land Development Code has some architectural standards that would be subject for review of this project. But what if those standards changed? What if we go back to the mentality of having just big white boxes for stores with no architectural facades or detailing to them. That could happen. Future leaders could say we're not going to go through that anymore. Just build four walls. And we could have something that looks like Fifth/Third Bank at Vanderbilt Beach Road and 41, just a big '01 block building with a flat roof. We don't want to see that, and I don't think the community does either. There was some discussion about terminology in the proposed document regarding no flat roofs. The architecture committee does not want to see flat roof structures in there. Now, there can be structures that have flat roof portions where maybe equipment can be up there, but from the street it would still look like a pitched roof. And that's about all I have to say. If anybody has any questions, I'd be glad to answer them. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I had asked the question earlier, Cliff -- every time I talk everybody looks around. Those speakers are really -- MR. SCHNEIDER: They'll fool you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: It makes you think it's coming from back there. About your -- what rights as an architectural review committee do you actually have to impose upon these people? I'm not trying to figure out that in a bad way, I just want to see where your strengths are so we can help -- Page 118 1~Jatl5,'6 MR. SCHNEIDER: That's a good question. And I'll explain that. Barron Collier companies originally developed the three Pine Ridge subdivisions. At that time there was no PUD or planned development type of ordinances in place. It was conventional zoning. And the Colliers hired a company called Harland Bartholomew. They were very prominent planners of the day. And they designed Pine Ridge, master planned it and created a deed restriction that listed allowable uses, setbacks, prohibited uses, minimum square footages, minimum prices to build -- that you had to spend to build a house, et cetera. And that is similar to a PUD of today, but that was the document that was established. The deed restrictions guide the development within Pine Ridge. And the Colliers set up two basic commercial areas in the subdivision: One north, one south. And in the middle subdivision, which is the Pine Ridge extension, they designated subsequently in the Sixties, that Block 0 was suitable -- recognizing the need for houses of worship, was suitable for church uses and church related activities. And that's how that got established. The Colliers, when they had control of the majority of the land, and basically until they had sold out all their lots, they were the architecture control committee. There were three representatives of the Barron Collier company. And you didn't get your plans approved, you didn't get a building permit unless the architecture committee of the Barron Collier company approved them. And they recognized at some point in time they would no longer have a vested interest in the community, they both sold their properties, so they transferred the architecture control committee responsibilities formally to some residents of Pine Ridge, currently myself~ Steve Brisson and Tom Peak are the three members. We're individuals assigned that responsibility. We serve as volunteers, like you all, and we try to do our job. We have, by delegation from the Colliers, architectural review responsibility over all the ago lots, all the residential lots, including Block 0, which is a residentially zoned area of Pine Ridge. Colliers retained architectural review responsibility for the commercial sites north and south. They still have architecture control responsibility for the commercial properties. But we are the committee. We try to do a job, and we're just looking for a project that's in esthetic harmony with the neighborhood. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So what you're saying is that the applicant has to come to your board for approval of their plans before they can build or they would be subject to potential action from your group? MR. SCHNEIDER: Well, we would -- let's just make an assumption, and it's happened before. Somebody built something and they did not get approval from the architecture control committee. And it happens on a daily basis, somebody builds a house, pretty nice house. What's going up there right now is pretty nice facilities, and it really isn't a problem. But there have been a few occurrences where people have tried to do some things that were just way bizarre, and we had to act as a committee. And in such case we disapproved what was proposed for the property. And that's where our limit stops. There's a 30-day period with which an affected property owner can file a suit in the courts and then you have to go to the courts and battle it out, post a bond, file for an injunction to stop activity. And it's a complicated process. That's the way the deed -- you know, just deed restrictions work. We're not a homeowners association, so we have limited powers. The individual owners have to stand up. But residents of Pine Ridge on several occasions, we have stood up and we've gone to court. Haven't always won. But we don't want to do that. We just want to see the community remain a nice place without a whole lot of rules. That's one thing that's nice about Pine Ridge. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, the reason your review, if it's mandatory, is important to know is Page 119 L6!~1~: " because if they have to complete the drawings to show to you anyway, there may be an advantage to bring them forward at this stage to expedite the review before this board and the board coming up, which is the BCC. So that's why I wanted to get to the answer, and I appreciate your time. MR. SCHNEIDER: But the truth is, an applicant can go straight to the building department, go straight through development services and submit an application and bypass us, if they so choose. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, they can. But if-- MR. SCHNEIDER: But we would hope not. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- you legally have jurisdiction, you can file a civil suit to stop them, so -- MR. SCHNEIDER: Yeah, but nobody wins with lawyers. We'd rather just work it out ahead of time. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Well,especially if you've not exercised it uniformly in the past, it's kind of hard to exercise it -- MR. SCHNEIDER: Well, we're as uniform as we can be. And on properties like what's called the Sterrit Egg Ranch (phonetic), which was down at Pine Ridge Road and East, our committee has been involved probably four separate times very heavily with people trying to make that into a commercial site. An expansion of a church on Pine Ridge Road that wanted to b'fab a single-farnily lot and rezone that into a church use, we were very active opposing that. We've had -- somebody wanted to establish a law office the corner of Ridge Drive and Trail Boulevard. That was stopped back then by the Colliers. But no, we have a history of standing up for the community, the architecture committee, predecessors and current. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I appreciate it. Thank you. MR. SCHNEIDER: All right, thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Cliff, good seeing you again. Okay, next speaker, Ray? George Buonocore, right? MR. BELLOWS: That's it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thought I'd save you the trouble of tongue-tying yourself on that one. MR. BUONOCORE: Hi. I'm George Buonocore. I'm the past president of Pine Ridge. I've been president several times. Last time I carne here, I think this little place called Pelican Bay was getting developed. They had a PUD too. It was called Waterside Shops, which was located in the center of Pelican Bay. Now we have a giant shopping center right on the corner. So that's where PUD's can go. Anyway, my basic problem is the traffic. The Ridge entrance onto the Tarniarni Trail is going to be a nightmare. I live on Carica Road, I work south on 41. When I go to work in the morning, [ will go up to Goodlette Road and go down Goodlette Road and cut through somebody's neighborhood down that way. Most of the time it's Pine Ridge Road. Depends what bank I have to hit. And that's the way I choose to go, because cutting across 41 in the morning to head south is not pleasurable. It's also not safe. If you cut across at the church, which I've been doing quite often now, just to see how nice it is, I drive a large size pickup truck, which is probably about the sarne size as a Lincoln or a Town Car, something like that you get into the divider as you cross over to wait for your chance to go into the lane, and it just about handles one car. Just about. I always worry about my back end getting hit. Then when you're ready to go out, if there's a car in the stackup lane to the north of that, you can't see anything. Right now they've got a very small day school. So in the morning there's not too much traffic going there. Once the big school, the day care, the adult day care, et cetera, et cetera, gets going, there's going to be a lot more people in the morning. Okay. Page 120 1611' A6 1 January IS, 20~ So that intersection, for anybody trying to head south, is not going to be nice to get across. Traffic studies don't show that. You've just got to go there and see it for yourself. Now, if you want to go to a light, you can head north and go up to Pelican Bay Boulevard. That's another disaster brought to you by the Collier County and the State of Florida traffic departments. That holds four cars at most, if you're lucky, unless there's a school bus there. Now, your traffic backs up right on Trail Boulevard, because there's only room for like usually one and a half cars on the turn lanes to get onto it, plus it's a quick light. Also, you've got traffic coming -- heading north to make a right turn into Trail Boulevard without stopping. You have to yield to them. You've got a stop sign just before you make your left to get into the stackup lane. So it's kind of a nightmare getting across. And a lot of times you tend to put your foot on the gas to make it across before you get killed and try to make that light. So any more traflic coming from the church in the morning going up that way is not going to be fun. It can't handle it. County says they've got a problem getting right-of-way to make an additional lane up there, okay. Now, you guys are talking about making an additional lane on Ridge, which is probably great. It won't be that long, though, because it's not a big area. You can stack a few cars. It can get pretty hairy over there. And I don't see anything in the traffic survey that shows that the accesses to 4] can handle it. They say 4 I can handle the traffic. They do not show that the access to 41 can handle the traflic. This is why anybody with a half a brain is going to travel through Pine Ridge. It's much easier coming through Pine Ridge. Whether they've got to use Goodlette, go up Carica to Goodlette, go down Center to Goodlette, they're going to use it. It's much, much nicer. Anybody -- once you learn it, it's great. Right now we've got Center Strcet and north Carica as the two exits. We managed to get the middle part of Carica closed, because when that was opcn it was a nightmare. The neighborhood was horrible. Now with Goodlette being expanded, we've got less traflic coming in, because you can't just turn there anymore, you've got to go down to Vanderbilt, make a U-turn and come back. So that was great and it cut down on a lot of traffic on Carica. This church is going to put the traffic right back on Carica a lot more than we had before. And it's not a safe situation to get out of the church onto 41 and it's going to really increase our traffic. So we should really have a count now. Because they're only going to have -- they've got 30 kids there maybe now. Once they open up, they're going to have 100, 200 people? That's a lot morc. Plus the extra help that's going to be needed. So you've got a lot of people coming in and going, and that intersection can't handle it. And if you go down south, you got the sarne problem at Cajeput. Tbere's no place to get out onto 41 heading south in a safe rnanner. I want to see someone prove to me it is safe. Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you, George. Ray, next speaker. MR. BELLOWS: Robert Hamilton. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Hamilton, are you here? MEMBER OF THE AUDIENCE: He had to leave. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. MR. BELLOWS: Dr. Robert Petterson. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Dr. Petterson? DR. PETTERSON: For the record, I'm Bob Petterson. I'm the senior pastor at Covenant Presbyterian Church. And I would likc to have these folks as part of our church, because they are so optimistic about our Page ]21 ~a~U5, 2<A<6 future. And it is very, very encouraging that you are. Just three things I would like to say. First of all, I would like to say that it is our intent not only to worship God where we are, and that's our first and highest priority, but it is our intent to be good neighbors. And I don't think we started out as quickly intcracting with you as we should have. But I think you know that we have tried very hard to be very considcrate and tried to work through. And we are not going to build any kind of a building that will not be as attractive to the neighbors at Pine Ridge as it would be to the rest of the community, because our intent is to attract people to the gospel of ministry. And sarne with our activities. We do not intend to have activities that will not be winsome and wholesome and meaningful to not only our community around us but to the whole community. So that's number one. We really want to be good neighbors. And we don't want to do anything that will cause any consternation. And secondly, I would just like to say that also in our church are hundreds of people who have been residents of Collier County, all of them are residents of Collier County, almost all, and a few come from Lee County. These are people, many of whom have been at the church since 1967 when the church began. Many of them have been there since then and have a great stake in the church. And many of them drive great distances to come to the church and to be part of the church. And for them, this is important to their quality of life too. And we want to be very sensitive to the quality of life for our neighbors, but also the commitmcnt of our members who like the location, who are ministered to by the location, who in this last year in extremely difficult financial circumstances that wc're all going through dug deep in their pockets and committed millions of dollars to see us move forward in this, beyond anything we expected or imagined would happen. And so it's important I think that we understand that as well as the many neighbors that we want to be good neighbors to in the Pine Ridge association are hundreds of Collier County people whose quality of life also is affected. There are people in our church who literally have become full-time residents of this community, moved from the north simply because of this church and because they're part of this church. And so as the county considers and as our neighbors consider our request, to remember that the community is largcr than the Pine Ridge community that is there. And many people spend -- we're not there 2417. I think I am sometimes, but I don't think -- but we're there a lot, and because we're involved in a lot of activity, a lot of worship, a lot of ministry that is meaningful to the people. And then finally, regarding the move, a~ I heard earlier, we really did look into moving. In many ways it would have been easier to find another piece of property. But as we looked at all the options and looked at the financial cost and to sell our church to a smaller little church, as somebody suggested, would not be economically feasible. And so we believe that we're in the right location and we believe that there's been a great investment on the part of our people for that location. And so we do appreciate -- this has been an education to be here today. And I appreciate you. I know you all serve here as citizens and as volunteer citizens. And thank you for hearing us and for your consideration of this important issue. Thank you very much. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I have one question. You're Richard's client. You're the guy that's basically in charge; is that a fair statement? DR. PETTERSON: No, I'm not in charge. There's a whole congregation of people who work hard to keep me humble. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, the rea~on I'm asking is-- DR. PETTERSON: I am the senior pastor ofthe church. We're Presbyterian Church, which means we are -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You have some influence then, right? Page ] 22 1 qatJ~ lA (909 DR. PETTERSON: I certainly do from the pulpit and as a pastor, I hope. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, there are some issues that are coming up and we've heard some discussion from the public already. And we went through this lengthy PUD process of discussion. I don't have solutions and I'm not sure this board can suggest solutions to them all right now. And I'm sure that meetings after today might bring some up. But I don't know how much of a hurry you're in, but your plans will have to get refined as you move forward. If that refinement produces more detailed plans that can be used in these meetings in the next meeting to show more ideas of what you're doing so it becomes more palatable to the neighborhood, if your plans become firmed up to a point where the architecture review committee can get a better taste for them, and if you get a stronger handle on what uses, accessory uses you specifically want to have, defining those things a little further will probably go a long way in helping this community accept what you're trying to do, or refine it to a point where it is more acceptable. That's what I've been hearing from the people that have come up so far. There are some issues that Ijust didn't mention yet, because I personally don't know what that will take. And I'm sure this board will have to chew on that for a bit, like traffic and things like that. But if you're going to produce those plans anyway, and you're going to get that far along anyway, the earlier you do it, the more help it might be to get you through this zoning process. So that's just a suggestion. DR. PETTERSON: I would say this, if I could, as a pastor. I tried to stay within about two and a half minutes, which my congregation will tell you is very unusual for me. But I would say that there are two things that I know. I know that we serve a God who is in charge of all of this. And we know that we are in interesting times financially and every other way. And so we believe that everything that happens is under his Sovereign will. And so we are not anxiety ridden over this. I would say to you, as you would understand, that there is a momentum for a congregation. And it is no small thing to go to a congregation and present something that is $12 million in cost. And by the way, we do know exactly what we are going to do with which building. I think that will be presented. We've come that far. It has been a refining process. And you're helping us with the refining process, because you're demanding things of us that we never thought of before. But to simply say, we believe that God is in charge of this. And so whatever we have to do, we'll do. And we believe this is part of the refining process, not only for the community but for us too as a congregation. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ms. Caron? COMMISSIONER CARON: Dr. Petterson, there has been some question here on the accessory uses. It's been a big hangup for people on how you want to define that. Have you come to any -- your lawyer is -- oh, I'm sorry. Usually I'm the only one everybody can hear. There has been some discussion here on accessory uses and what you mean by that, and could you define what you mean by that? I lave you given any thought to that while you've been sitting here? DR. PETTERSON: I've been interested to hear some of the accessory uses that others have -- our friend, the attorney for the other side and others have said have been intcresting to me, because it never occurred to me or to our congregation to be involved in those things. In fact, one of the things that I would -- I would invite the Pine Ridge association people to do, as well as to go to the meetings that we have, to perhaps occasionally -- I'm not trying to drum up church attendance, but to come by and come to a church service and come and see what our heart is. Because I think that not only are we talking about as we have trust with each other, but what we're doing is to understand one another's heart. And we are a very different church, for instance, than the Methodist church on the other side of Page 123 1611 I A 6 January IS, 2009 Goodlette-Frank. We admire that church, but we're a very different church. When I think of uses for -- when we're talking about other uses, we're talking about things like Vacation Bible School. We're talking about last fall we had on our property a farnily fun fair where we had events for children and farnilies to come to, an outreach thing. It was done before 9:00, and it was cleared out before 9:00. I don't ever remember us having an outdoor event after 9:00 in the evening since I've been there, and I don't anticipate any kind of accessory kind of events. We might occasionally have a special speaker come for an evening talk that might go past 9:00, so there would be traffic going out of the building after that time. I think we've had some all night prayer mectings with the windows closed and a very small group of people. You don't usually get big crowds for all night prayer meetings. And so I don't know what other -- you know, other than school, other than some special speaking events, other than a few outreach events to families. Perhaps a safety fair where we might have on our parking lot the police come and share with children how they could have bicycle safety and that sort of thing. That's more what we're thinking about. We're not thinking of anything wild and wacky. We're not ever going to have a farmer's market, because if you knew anything about Presbyterianism, you would know that that would be anathema to Presbyterians that we would be selling anything on the church propcrty or running any kind of a marketplace or anything like that. You'll never see a bunch of pumpkins sitting there for sale, for instance. And not that we're opposed to -- and we might buy a pumpkin over at the Methodist Church, but you won't find that at our church. COMMISSIONER CARON: Okay. So perhaps the suggestion that I had made earlier to Mr. Y ovanovich is not that far off here. In your further discussions here after this meeting, Mr. Y ovanovich, you know, maybe you can continue to head down that path and make it palatable for everybody. Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you, sir, appreciate it. Ray? MR. BELLOWS: Bill Potter? MR. YOV ANOVICH: He waives. He's part of the -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, Mr. Potter waives. MR. BELLOWS: Georgia Hiller? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Georgia, are you here? She left. MR. BELLOWS: Barry Zubelman (phonetic). CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Barry Zubelman's left too, from the shake of heads I see. MR. BELLOWS: Tony Pires? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Oh, please. MR. PIRES: Round two. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Oh, no. MR. BELLOWS: Michael Turnarnian? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Michael Turnarnian? Good, he's here. MR. TURNAMIAN: Yes, Michael Turnamian. Yes, I live in Pine Ridge, and I've been there for 12 years at 600 Ridge Drive. I live across the street from the church. So when I heard about the -- that there was a plan, of course I was very interested and I went down and I spent a few hours looking at the drawings and the specifications, and I had a lot of questions. I really wanted to know about this, because the church is rny neighbor. And, you know, I was looking at the traffic and I looked at the way the traffic would leave the church on this plan. And it showed that all the turns would send the traffic away from the community onto Page ] 24 la~a~ '5, 2~P 41 and onto Trail. And this was positive, because all-- you had to turn off into Trail. Now, Trail's a very long road and there's many ways to get onto 41 from Trail. You know, if you're making a right turn going north, then you could head north, you know, or you could go south. I mean, the most dangerous thing of course is to go across 41. And we all know that 41, as well as Airport Road and certain roads in this town, are very dangerous. But Trail does have a lot of access to 41. So I was really impressed because the -- all the turns out of the parking lots of this plan sent the traffic away from the neighborhood. Now, I was also concerned about stormwater and flooding, because we have had flooding in my neighborhood. And the hurricanes, you remember, we had a lot of water on West Street. Now, the new plan, I was looking at the specifications, and it culled out provisions to move water off West Street into the lake and systems. Right now there's no -- there's no way to move water off West Street. So the water sits there and it floods. So this plan would actually increase drainage. And that's very important. Water carne close to my house after one hurricane, and I know West Street was a lake. So this new plan, from what I can see, will increase drainage and water, stormwater. And then the setbacks, the main facility -- and this is even the current plan is 200 foot from West Street. Well, 200 feet is a long way. I mean, the main facility is really on Trail. So the church really has been put away from West so that -- and I looked at the buffering and the trees and the shrubs, and there's a tremendous amount of landscaping. So I really wonder whether you're going to see much of the church from West. Because if you're 200 foot back and with all this landscaping, [mean, the church is going to blend in, I believe, from what I've seen from the setbacks. And now we have the school. And I wanted to know what kind of school, how big a school. Well, it turns out this is a very small school. This is from nursery to third grade. This is a really small thing compared to schools and what we think of schools and the kind of traffic and things that a school could generate. And so the design of the building, the sanctuary, I looked at that. I think you have a brochure up there. I don't have it. But if you look at it, it's very attractive, the design. Maybe you could put it on the screen. I don't think many people have seen -- everyone has seen that. It's attractive. It's a good design. I mean, there's an elegance there. It's going to increase property values. I mean, they really put a lot of time into this. It know they scaled it back. And it's mainly visible from 41. Unfortunately you're not going to see that from West. That is the view from 41, because it's so far back, the 200- foot setbacks. So I'm really impressed with the plan and I hope that -- you know, I appreciate the neighbors are all working together. And, you know, I think you have common ground. Because the church does want to be a good neighbor. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Thank you very much, sir. We appreciate your time and comments. MR. TURNAMIAN: Thank you. (At which time, Mr. Midney exits the boardroom.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ray, our next speaker? MR. BELLOWS: Last -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: How many more speakers do we have? MR. BELLOWS: Last one. Nick Hale. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Nick, are you here? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: He left. MR. BELLOWS: That's it. Page 125 1 RnLaJ IS, ~~ CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, that will end the public speakers. And let's see where we're going to go from here. J.D., normally we would have staff presentation, but staff kind of worked through us this whole six hours, so I'm not sure you have any more to say, but I certainly want to provide you the opportunity. MR. MOSS: No, thank you, I appreciate that, but I don't have anything further to say. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, Richard, you know, we afford rebuttal when we go into motion, but I honestly don't see a motion coming out of today's meeting. You might want to get a consensus on it. Mr. Schiffer? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I have a question for staff. Can I ask? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Sure, absolutely. Go ahead. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: John-David, when you look at -- and if you put the -- Ray, put the drawing up you had before. Between this, the appraiser's website and stuff like this, who owns the lake? MR. MOSS: Yeah, I recall looking at that. The lot Jines extend out to the center of the lake. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Now, there's a survey from Agnolli here that shows lot lines, but it doesn't show any dimensions on the lot line. In other words, it's a boundary survey, which is what it says. And it shows topo. But do you have a survey that shows the legal description of those lots going into the lake? MR. MOSS: I might -- I don't have one with me, no, but I might have one in my office. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Because the concern is who owns the lake. MR. YOV ANOVICH: Well, I don't have it with me, Mr. Schifler, I don't believe, but-- MR. PIRES: I'll be willing to help Mr. Y ovanovich out. MR. YOV ANOVICH: I was going to say, the ownership is both in Covenant and Florida Community Bank. Because a portion of the lake is on Covenant's property. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: But is that the original plat that he has? MR. YOV ANOVICH: It's right here. You'll see. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: If Tony -- with Tony's looking at this, if there was any chance they didn't own the lake, he would have pointed that out decades ago. MR. YOV ANOVICH: As you can see, Mr. Schiffer, this is -- right here is Tract B. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay, good, move on. MR. YOV ANOVICH: You're done? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Yeah, done. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Did you have any other questions of staff? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: No. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Richard, I'm going to take a moment and tell you where the biggest issues are that seem to be unresolved so that you can focus on those hopefully before you come back. First of all, is this Planning Commission in a consensus? I believe that we need to have a better document than the one we have today. I think there's some issues that need to be worked out, possibly some items to be added. Does anybody believe differently at this point? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So we're not looking for a motion today, okay? On Page 6, the issue of20 to 30 feet, that seems to be one point of objection that you and Tony still had. On Page 7, the buffers and landscaping issues -- not the buffers as much, but the material used for the buffer and the landscaping issues, those need to be looked at in more of a private agreement arrangement than the PUD. Page 126 J!~J I} 20~6 MR. YOV ANOVICH: And I believe Tony and I -- where did he go? There you are. I think we're in agreernent with that, Mr. Strain. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. MR. YOV ANOVICH: That there will be a separate agreement. So that stuff would come out. Is that right, Tony? MR. PIRES: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: There's a concern over the way the noise issue is handled on Tract B between the outside and inside. So we need to see if we can get a resolution to that. PUD master plan needs some changes to the notation regarding the flexibility and the -- how the buildings are shown on that plan. There's questions about the deviations; they need to be cleaned up regarding the exits. The use of the pathway money and the bus shelter as an option to the traffic issue. The traflic counts and the way the traffic is handled on Page 20. There was a long discussion on that. I have notes indicating at least three or four different issues that were worked out through the discussion today. I'm sure you've made notes of them too, but that needs to be clarified and come back on a final document. MR. YOV ANOVICH: On that point, what was -- I mean, I understand that we agreed to do four counts. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. MR. YOV ANOVICH: And -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You have a base count that you've already done. MR. YOV ANOVICH: Correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You're going to do annual counts during the peak season. You're going to do another -- MR. YOV ANOVICH: The question I had was when. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Huh? MR. YOV ANOVICH: The question I had is when are we going to start these counts? Did we ever reach an agreement on that? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I don't think that got in --let me finish what I was going to say. MR. YOV ANOVICH: I'm sorry. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You're going to do a count when the 853 is put into place. MR. YOV ANOVICH: Right. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And another count when the 980 is put into place. MR. YOV ANOVICH: Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Which would be the count you do prior to going to Phase II. MR. YOV ANOVICH: Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And then looking at countermeasures to the traffic, depending on what those counts show. There'd be some language added to the PUD that allows traffic calming measures to be incorporated as part of your requirements. MR. YOV ANOVICH: So is the -- if] can, I talked to John Podczerwinsky about that. The language as it currently reads, it says -- and it's on Page 21 of 22. I just want to see if there's a reason why this is not acceptable. It says, the supplemental data will be utilized by the county to determine if additional improvements to minimize the impact to the neighborhood are appropriate and should be required to address the existing uses and as a condition of approval for the additional seating. And this way I guess we would have to say 853 and the 980. But I thought that that language Page 127 161'1 A6 January 15,2009 covered -- was broad enough to allow the county to dictate the necessary improvements. If it's not, what's the -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, Tony had some suggested language. His seems to be going maybe a little too far in the other direction. In talking with staff, it was clear that your traffic counts, if they exceed what the TIS says, you can't get your SDP's until you do traflic mitigation of some kind to bring it back in line. MR. YOV ANOVICH: Well, when I spoke to John, he thought this language covered it. That's why I was asking. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. All I'm suggesting to you is I would make sure that Tony's in agreement with that, to the extent you can, and come back with reasonable language. If Tony's unreasonable, then you guys need to come back and you need to take your position, he needs to take his and we'll make a decision. MR. YOV ANOVICH: Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But I'm hoping that those were -- these were points of contention not resolved today. I'm suggesting the two of you or how many of you get together and try to work these out to come back with a better document. Ms. Caron? COMMISSIONER CARON: Yeah, I just had a question on the very first sentence here which says, one year after the seating capacity 01'980 for the entire PUD and the llO-person adult care is reached, you have to do a study. But what if the church decides not to -- or what if the church doesn't get to 110 students or they only -- or they get to the full student level but they don't get to the 980, they get to 979'1 Then you're going to say we don't have to do a traffic -- MR. YOV ANOVICH: Right. The language -- as we understood the commitment when we talked about it at the neighborhood information meeting was we were -- the PUD asked for 1,200 seats and it asked for 220 students. And the traffic study was done based upon those maximum numbers. The community said we don't believe those numbers. So what we said was, okay, we will scale back. We'll do a -- we'll phase it in. We'll do 980, which is 100 and change more than is there today for seats, and we'll do 110 students, which is half. And we said we can have that. And if we want anything more than that, then we havc to do this additional study. So if we decide to stop at that and not go beyond that number, we would rely on the study that was in place. And that was what we said we would do at the neighborhood information meeting. We thought that was agreed to by the community. Apparently it has not been agreed to by the community. But that was what we thought would work, because it's slightly over what's therc today seat-wise and it's half the school. And the traffic study showed that it would work. It didn't seem to be a need to -- we were only getting half, half a loaf, if you will, on the school. And we would come back if we wanted to go to a bigger school. And that was our position. And we thought it made sense. And we understand the community's not necessarily in agreement with that. What would help us, honestly, is if we can get some flavor from the Planning Commission as to what they would like to see happen on some of these issues. And maybe you're not ready to tell us that. I don't want to draft something and then not -- and still not hit the mark. No pun intended. And I really didn't even think about that. COMMISSIONER CARON: You meant that literally. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, I thought we went through this, but let me go again. You're going to revise the language to indicate there are four locations, all adjacent to the church, Page 128 l~I'l 14 Hnuary 15,~M9 that you're going to be putting your points in. Your base count that you already did is acknowledged as being done. You did the base count on two of those points and two out on 41 and you did them at different times that were somehow -- multipliers were used to get them back to the peak times. You've agreed to do annual counts in the peak season. And then we were looking at you got your base count. You need to do a count at 853 and another count at 980. And then we need to add language that indicates that there's going to be traffic -- we have the possibility through the PUD to request traffic calming measures. MR. YOV ANOVICH: Okay. And I understood all that, Mr. Strain. My question becomes if we do 50 students, do I do counts? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I think when you get the 853 maximized. When you're utilizing the 853, that's when you need to do a count. And we need to show the difIerence between that and the 980. And ifthere's an increase that is inconsistent with the TIS, then we know we've hit a threshold that we've got a problem with. John, do you have any -- can you enlighten us in some way that makes this clearer? MR. PODCZERWINSKY: I sure can. Annual traffic counts are required until the PUD is considered built out. If they choose to claim that the PUD is built out prior to fulfilling their entire capacity in seats or in students, then they can go through a build-out determination. And I'm not sure, Ray can probably correct me on this if I'm wrong, but I think they give up the additional rights, the unused development rights. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I think they do too if they declare themselves built out. MR. PODCZERWINSKY: But until that date, they are responsible to provide us an annual traffic count. And of course I think that can be dictated by the PUD. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So Richard, I'm not sure what is missing here. MR. YOV ANOVICH: Well, I'm with you on the seats. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. MR. YOV ANOVICH: Okay? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But if you're doing annual traffic counts and they coincide with the seating, you're looking at a count. MR. YOV ANOVICH: The difference is the school, Mr. Strain. We don't -- right now I'm asking you, is there a trigger to having to do the additional counts for the school? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Don't the students sit in seats in the school? MR. YOV ANOVICH: The 800 and something seats is for basically Sunday. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. MR. YOV ANOVICH: Monday through Friday. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Oh, so you're looking at-- MR. YOV ANOVICH: Right now we said we would get the 110 students during the week. No need to do another count. I understand. I understand the -- so I'm just saying, we don't have an objection to the 8 -- what was the number? I'm blanking on the number. COMMISSIONER CARON: 853. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: 853. MR. YOV ANOVICH: 853 and 110. We're okay with that. So if we never go above the 853 or the 110, we don't have to do any additional counts. That's what I'm asking. Is that the consensus of the Planning Page 129 1 kn!aJ lsA1&9 Commission? I could write that up -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Pires, do you have a concern on that? Would you mind coming up? Because this was part of the ones that we had previously discussed with you. Basically what Richard's saying, 853 and 110, they would do a count then and that would be the count. MR. YOV ANOVICH: And then again at 980 -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. MR. YOV ANOVICH: -- and 110. CHAIRMAN STRAIN : Yeah, 980 and the 110 would be there too. MR. YOV ANOVICH: I know, but I'm saying if we decided to go beyond that. MR. PIRES: And I think -- Tony Pires for the record. I think the idea about doing it was based upon whether or not they'd have to build a stacking lane or not. That's how it all started. And our concern isn't really a stacking lane, per se, in its impact on the neighborhood. So we're saying we'd like to have an annual count. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: They're going -- you're going to get that. MR. PIRES: I'm not hearing Rich say that. He's making it -- he's tying it into seats and children, or CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No, that's in addition. Didn't Johnjust come up and say there's going to be an annual count-- MR. PIRES: Right. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- because it's required? MR. PIRES: But I guess the question is, is that annual count under the PUD monitoring standards or under the criterion that we're establishing here? MR. YOV ANOVICH: If you prefer that we do the annual count during the -- the PUD required annual count. I think you're supposed to do it one year on your anniversary of the adoption of the PUD. If you prefer that we do that, the required annual count, during peak season, I don't think we'd mind. We could put that in and say we'll do that. MR. PIRES: At these four locations and under these criteria. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But John, ifthey do an annual count, the PUD monitoring requirements for an annual count, can they be what the PUD dictates for monitoring -- MR. PODCZERWINSKY: I don't-- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- meaning what we're talking about here? MR. PODCZERWINSKY: I don't see any reason why they couldn't. And in fact, to add to that, every time that there's a development order, I mentioned this earlier, say they come in for an SDP, a Phase I SDP, Phase II SDP or any kind of improvement plan on the site in the interim, there's an updated PUD monitoring report which would include traffic counts that would be required at that time. That was just recently arnended I think in 2008 in the LDC. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Richard, did you hear that? Tony, did you hear that? MR. PIRES: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Do you guys feel that with the information you got you can come back and propose something to us in regards to this issue? MR. PIRES: I think we're close. MR. YOV ANOVICH: Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Then the only other issues I want to make note of: Your listing of your accessory uses, I think it would be important that you attempt to do that. You can obviously decide not to, Page 130 ~~Uk~5, ~09 but I would think that especially with the Pastor's comments, you might have a good enough handle on the array of things you may need that you could put a list together. The architectural way this building's going to look. You've got a brochure. Anything that gives us some idea that we can put on record as conceptual would certainly be a help to let the people know what to expect. And I think that was a big part of some ofthe people's discussions I heard today. MR. YOV ANOVICH: And Mr. Strain, we understand that, the word. And we just will write the word conceptual on that. But unfortunately I can't do that for Tract B. I can do it for Tract A because we're far enough along for Tract A. For Tract B, I don't have the ability to say this is what's going to also be on Tract B. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ms. Caron? COMMISSIONER CARON: But the one thing you could say for Tract B is that it would be architecturally compatible with Tract A -- MR. YOV ANOVICH: That I don't-- COMMISSIONER CARON: -- no matter what. MR. YOV ANOVICH: I'd have to check with -- COMMISSIONER CARON: I mean, within -- you know, they have height and setback and all that, if it gets sold to somebody other than the church. But that even if it got sold to somebody other than the church, it would have to be architecturally compatible with this structure. MR. YOV ANOVICH: I'll have to run that by -- I'll run it by them. COMMISSIONER CARON: It might give the neighborhood some peace of mind. MR. YOV ANOVICH: I understand. COMMISSIONER CARON: I don't know, you'll hear from them. MR. YOV ANOVICH: Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: By the way, something that I'm not sure because of the length of this process that this particular PUD's taking. I know you're authorized to speak on behalf of Tract A. Were you authorized -- MR. YOVANOVICH: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- to be speaking today on behalf of Tract B? MR. YOV ANOVICH: Yes. But they had to leave for another meeting, so I cannot -- obviously I don't have carte blanche. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No, I just want to rnake sure what we've already heard we haven't got to go all through with them -- MR. YOV ANOVICH: No, you do not. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- on a one-to-one basis. MR. YOV ANOVICH: Trust me, you don't have to hear that again. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The water management. There was a question about is it an improvement. There's -- you are taking in water from West Street? You are taking your water and routing it through a source, an outsource that may not be the one where the water's going now on that property. I think that it would behoove you to show those calculations and changes as a positive when you come back, meaning wherever the water's going now, it may be worse than where the water's going to be going when you refine that lake. I don't know what your outfall is. MR. YOV ANOVICH: We spared you the details of that presentation. We did make that presentation during the NIM's and explained to them that we have an existing lake with a crushed pipe that doesn't function. So the existing storm -- there is no control on the properties today. And we've explained to them that the water actually flows into the street, it doesn't flow into the lake. The lake's higher than -- the bank is Page 131 l~a~ iJ,12~9 higher than the street. So we -- I don't know how else to explain it. And I'll do the sarne presentation -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Richard, you didn't tell us. MR. YOV ANOVICH: I spared -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: We're going to be making a recommendation on this. I think it would be important, especially with the concerns raised by the neighborhood -- MR. YOV ANOVICH: We'll be happy to do it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- that we understand that. MR. YOV ANOVICH: I understand. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And at the sarne time, I think if you're going to take a volume off of West Street, that's something -- that volume ought to be known, because it's better than what's being taken off now, apparently. So those are things I think would help everybody understand what you're doing. MR. YOV ANOVICH: And we'll do it. And the reason I didn't, Mr. Strain, is it wasn't raised as an issue in the letter. We thought we had taken care ofthat, but we obviously have not satisfied everybody in the community with that explanation. We'll go ahead and make that presentation next time. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Well, I think that sums up most of today. Does anybody else have any comments? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, Heidi, in order to conclude today, do we need to make a recommendation to continue to a specific date or just continue until the applicant decides to come back with the information? How definitive -- MS. ASHTON-CICKO: It would be better probably for the applicant to continue it to a specific date. Because I don't think he'd be required to advertise if we have a specific date. If it's indefinite, you would probably have to advertise. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, thank you. Richard, I don't think you can get this done by the next meeting. If you can, fine, but it's up to you. You might want to pick one where you've got enough time to make sure that staIfhas the review time they need to your corrections. MR. YOV ANOVICH: I appreciate that. And we were scheduled to go to the Board of County Commissioners February 10th. Which we could have made that if we were in a position to do consent agenda in two weeks. We're obviously not in that position. My question of staff is where do we get bumped to, let's just say we don't get in the next meeting but the following meeting, which would be -- I don't even know what date that is. It would be the first one in February. MR. BELLOWS: The second meeting-- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, the first one in February is the 5th. That's the next meeting. I'm not sure you can make that meeting -- MR. BELLOWS: The following meeting is the 19th. MR. YOV ANOVICH: I'm sorry, I've already lost -- it's early in the year and I already don't know what day it is. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: It would be the 19th of February. MR. YOV ANOVICH: Okay. So what does that do to my schedule for the Board of County Commissioners? MR. BELLOWS: Let's see. There's a meeting on March 10th, but I'm not sure what the -- if it's closed or not. I'd have to check. But I think we can -- if you're continued, we can make accommodation for Page 132 I'" A6 la~Jr;'~5, 2009 that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. If the 19th -- can you get all this done by the 19th? MR. YOV ANOVICH: I could get it all done and to you all in a couple of days. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, it's more important that staff review it and the community gets involved with it. MR. YOV ANOVICH: I don't know that I can -- I was just going to say, I don't know that I can get sign-off from everybody else before I get it in -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Tony? MR. YOV ANOVICH: -- that quickly. I need commitment from the other side. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ijust need your acknowledgment, if you don't mind, up here on the mic., to let us know that if this was rescheduled for the 19th that you could have reviewed -- you at least could have -- you could put some time to where you and your group can arrange meetings with Richard to look at these issues. MR. PIRES: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Well, I know he says yes, but we'll get it done. MR. YOV ANOVICH: I understand that. MR. PIRES: We've been pretty good at our mectings. MR. YOV ANOvICH: No, you've been great. You really have. The question I have is I always get confused in the backup of how quickly I got to get it to staff -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ray? MR. YOV ANOVICH: -- for them to then get the information out to you all. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ifhe has to have -- if you have to have it to us by the 19th, which means we have to get it on the 13th or the 12th, how much in advance of the 12th does staff need it? MR. MOSS: Yesterday. MR. BELLOWS: I'd say to give a real good review, he could fit it in in that time. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, that time meaning? Give a date to Richard. What's the drop-dead date that he would have to have stuff to J.D.? You know, you !,'llYs are slow over there right now, there's nothing to do, remember? COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: That's why J.D. wants it tomorrow, so he could have something to do. MR. BELLOWS: The 20th would be perfect. MR. YOV ANOvICH: What number day are we on right now? COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: The 15th. MR. YOV ANOvICH: Tony? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Wait a minute. You want it the 20th of what month, this month? Well-- MR. YOV ANOVICH: To turn it around, we'd have to -- MR. BELLOWS: He said two days before. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No, no, you've got to understand something. Ifhe gives it to you and it hasn't been run through the citizens over there yet and Tony and the way he changes things constantly, and there's nothing wrong with that, but he does, then it changes and you guys get the changes, then you get all upset that the changes weren't run through you. And I don't blarne you for that. So let's -- how much time do you need to review revisions to this? MR. BELLOWS: Well, an official resubmittal would require another 28 days at least to review. Technically wc could put it -- given that this has been reviewed and we're into kind of a-- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: It's been reviewed five times, Ray. MR. BELLOWS: Yeah, I understand that. Page 133 J~~Ace CHAIRMAN STRAIN: If he got it to you by the end of the month, could you have it reviewed and in our packages by the 12th or 13th? MR. BELLOWS: I would just say the sooner, the better. Ifwe can get it by the 26th, which is a Monday, last week of January, that would give us at least a week to review it. And then J.D. has to write any new conditions or changes based on the comments. MR. YOV ANOVICH: And the one, the final thing I have, I want to make sure I don't confuse anybody, especially myself. What version do you want me to say is the clean version that we'll be redlining from? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The one that we worked off of today is the version that we're dealing with. MR. YOV ANOvICH: I know. But this version is a redline of the October 14th version that's in your packet. Do you want me to continue to redline the October 14th, or do you want me to accept the January 9th document as clean and do a strikc-through and underlined from it? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Those portions of the January 9th document that we spent all day working out you need to make clean. The ones that we didn't are the ones you have to strike through and change. We've got a pile of them, like the very first-- MR. YOV ANOVICH: This is clean and edit this document. I got it. Ijust want to make sure. Just make sure we're all on the same page. I didn't want to mess us all up. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Does anybody else have any comments? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, Richard, when would you like to continue this to? What's your request, to the 19th of February? MR. YOV ANOVICH: 19th of February, with the understanding that we'll get on the 10th of March BCC. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's fine. Is there a motion to continue this to the -- COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: So moved. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- 19th of February? Mr. Wolfley. Seconded by? COMMISSIONER CARON: Second. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ms. Caron. All in favor, signifY by saying aye. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Aye. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye. COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Aye. COMMISSIONER CARON: Aye. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion carries 6-0. MR. YOV ANOVICH: Thank you for your time. I know this was hard -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Appreciate the patience of everyone from both the church and the Pine Ridge community, and we will be going through the next meeting again on the 19th and hopefully we'll get to a resolution of some kind. So thank you all. Item # 10 Page 134 UtlJ'115, '6 OLD BUSINESS CHAIRMAN STRAIN: With that, we'll move on to old business. There is none. Item #11 NEW BUSINESS CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And we'll move on to new business. There is none. Item #12 PUBLIC COMMENT CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Public comment? Anybody left have any comments? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: With that, I'll entertain a moment to adjourn. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: I'll make a motion. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion to adjourn-- COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Second. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- Mr. Vigliotti, seconded by Mr. Wolfley. All in favor, signity by saying aye. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Aye. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye. COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Aye. COMMISSIONER CARON: Aye. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion carries. I :00 tomorrow, gentlemen, we'll be here again, and ladies. ***** There being no further business for the good of the County, the meeting was adjourned by order of the Chair at 4:42 p.m. COLLIER COUNTY PLA / ING S07fS!o/t~ /,v~ Ov.)" / 'viVA C,-. ---- MA STRAIN, Chairman These minutes approved by the board on2 - I '1 ~,o 'j' as presented [", or as Page 135 '- J 6 Ja~~ ~5~009 corrected Transcript prepared on behalf of Gregory Reporting Service, Inc., by Cherie' R. Nottingharn. v Page 136 TRANSCRIPT OF THE MEETING OF THE COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION Naples, Florida January 16, 2009 commissioners \30ardofcor~T IT BE REMEMBERED, that the Collier County Planning RECENED MAR 0 <3 2009 Commission, in and for the County of Collier, having conducted business herein, met on this date at I :00 p.m. in SPECIAL SESSION in Building "F" of the Government Complex, East Naples, Florida. with the following members present: CHAIRMAN: Mark Strain Karen Homiak Donna Reed-Caron Tor Koltlat (Excused) Paul Midney (Excused) Bob Murray Brad Schif1er Robert Vigliotti David.l. Wolt1ey ALSO PRESENT: Jeffrey Klatzkow, County Attorney Heidi Ashton-Cicko, Assistant County Attorney Randy Cohen, Comprehensive Planning Director Corby Schmidt, Principal Planncr Page 1 16' .JIlt A 6 V January 1~: 20~ Fiala -IJ ~~ Halas ~ -7 /Z~ Henning Coyle Coletta Misc. Carres: Date: item#: :opies to. J al~''''10A96 ..~ CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Good afternoon, everyone, and welcome to the January 16th meeting of the Collier County Planning Commission. Seems that we just got together yesterday. So if you'll all please rise for pledge of allegiancc. (Pledge of Allegiance was recitcd in unison.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. Will the sccretary please do the roll call. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Commissioner Schiffer? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I'm here. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Commissioner Wolfley? COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Here. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Commissioner Caron? COMMISSIONER CARON: Here. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Chairman Strain? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Here. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Commissioner Vigliotti is here. Commissioner Murray? COMMISSIONER MURRA Y: Here. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Commissioner Homiak? COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Here. VICE-CHAIRMAN CARON: Okay, Mr. Kolflat has some issues that he had to attend to today, so he won't be able to be here. Mr. Midney I believe is the same situation. And also hc's in Immokalee, and it might take him a lot of time to get here today for this meeting. So his is excused. And if you see Mr. Wolfley sitting in Mr. Midney's place, it's bccause IT has not yet fixed Mr. Wolfley's monitor. So that's that. Now I have one other commcnt I want to make. Corby, before you gct rolling. On Wednesday night I got home and I found my FedEx package with these two -- with our RLSA books in it. I appreciate you scnding those to us early. Could somehow your department coordinate better with CDES and rcalize that if we're meeting here on a Thursday you could save the taxpayers a lot ofFedEx money by simply passing them out to us? It's happened numerous times, and it'sjust a waste of money. And we're going -- if you're going to deliver something within a couple of days of a meeting and that couple of days isn't critical, just givc them to us at the meeting. It saves a lot of effort. And with that, sir, we'll-- I'm sure you want to make an introduction. Thc first issuc is CPSP-2008-6, which is the review of the Capital Improvement Element of the Collier County Growth Management Plan. MR. SCHMIDT: Good afternoon. Provided for you was a booklet of adoption materials. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Is the speaker off? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You're not close enough, Corby. Thank you. MR. SCHMIDT: Included in your booklet was the Capital Improvement Element, as recommended by staff; our staff report showing those recommendations, including appendixes. Appendix A, having remarks that were not included in the body of the stafTreport and Appendix B, an itemized summary of differences between this Capitallrnprovcment Element and the last, which was considered late last year and adopted in January of '08. And again included as a schedule of capital improvements for the second five years, ycar six through 10. And of course the covcr ordinance that would accompany the element once it moves ahead. Even though you saw these materials within the last ycar, this in reality is looking at two years or Page 2 Jt~ J!l~20A96 we've looked at two years worth of changes from the la<;t CIE to this. And that's one of the reasons that can be used to explain why there's significant differences. It hasn't been a gradual change but seems more drastic, because there's been that much separation between the old document, or the existing document, and the next, or the one in front of you now. This is really the first time, at least in my memory, that as a staff member we've had to deal with declining populations and lower school enrollment figures. We've looked at the trends in migration of people. And we're dealing with really again for the first time before you and in the CIE diminishing demand for capital improvement projects. Some of those figures that we saw in the 2006 BEBR report that the staff uses to project our populations, those 2006 BEBR numbers were the figures used in the most recent, or your last ClEo So again, we're seeing two years of difference there as well. Well, those numbers, when the staff used them then, gave you results like a projection for population in 201 0 of more than 472,000 pcople. And we were -- and for 2015, more than 566,000 people. And your capital improvements projects and your scheduling were based on numbcrs like that. By the time we finished the 2007 AUIR, we were in the midst of updating this CIE adopted -- or the last CIE adopted in January of last year and we were unable to use the 2007 AUIR figures. So you're skipping AUIR considcrations as well. In that 2008 ALJIR, the population projections had changed and fallen so that the seasonal population for 2010 was now only about 424,000 people, and by 2015 only 487,000. Well, in 2006, the scheduling f(}r capital improvements for the period of2007 through 'I I that was being considered then was just simply meeting the demands of about 490,000 people. Now the 2008, with the changes in figures, fewer than 488,000 people are now projected by the year 2015. And what's happened is the population projections have fallen far enough that you're about four to five years ahead in your meeting the demands. So that's why some of the dra<;tic changes that you're seeing in the schedule of capital improvements and the projects being schcduled. Some of the indicators besidesjust BEBR projections and stafTwork for lower numbers in the county include traflic counts on county roads. Wcll, traffic volume dccreased an average of 10 percent per peak hour trips from the previous ycar. More than 20 pcrcent of the counting stations showed a dccrease of greater than 10 percent. At count stations located at points along Golden Gate Boulevard, first quarter counts for 2008 were down 13 to 14 percent from the prior year. The second quarter counts earlier this year -- sorry, second quarter counts of last year reflected another dccline of about five to 11 percent. Second and third quarter counts declined anothcr 12 to 13 percent from the first counts in '08. Another indicator showing us that wc've got these decreascs are the student enrollments, or the membership counts in county schools. In '05 numbers that we drcw from school records, total of 43,000 some students attending county-wide. The 2008 numbers that we looked at, only about 42,000. Doesn't scem like a large number overall in the county, but certain schools in key areas reported declines of 13 to morc than 19 percent in enrollment. Also, in your most recently approvcd AUIR you had changed some levels of service for some of your public facilities. Your level of service standards f(lr regional parks changed. To put it simply, you simply rounded down for some of the figures. Plus for community parks and regional parklands in this Capital Improvement Element, the projects are transactions through interdepartmental transfers or exchanged with other land holdings for park lands using another method that -- or other mcthods that do not jnvolve capital expenditurcs. Your levels of service also changed for water and wastcwater facilitics. And this was done to Page 3 161'-A6 January] 6, 2009 match the reccntly approved water and wastewater master plans. That, combined with population projections that had fallen, allowed a number of public projects to be pushed further out into the future. Again, we're looking at something two years after the last iteration ofthe CIE, and not one. So that's why again that some of these numbers may seem large or drastic. Well, some of those changes, in fact this CIE, the total amount of spending for capital improvement projects is somewhere around $678 million. That's just about 43 percent of the previous CIE two years back, which was more than $1.5 billion. Some of the areas where the changes are most notable, for road projects, just 73.8 perccnt of what they were in your last Capital Improvement Element. Potable watcr projects, those capital improvements, 13 percent of what thcy were last time. And wastewater capital projects, just 28 percent of what they were last time. So changes that seem drastic, large, vcry ditTercnt, not gradual like they would have been in the past when a year-to-year change was in front of you. ln fact, overall spending for the CIE is only about 98 percent of what it was projected in your AUIR approved last year. So very closc for those projects. I'll pausc at this point ,md allow for any questions on the staff report. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The staff report I am assuming you're referring to is the first tab that goes to the ordinance? Or is that just a portion of thc book you're asking for now? MR. SCHMIDT: Just that portion, ycs. CHAJRMAN STRAIN: Okay. The baek part of the document -- actually the green and red part of the document are excerpts from the whole Capital Improvement Element that is on a separate tab further down in the book. And what I did, and I'll defer my questions for that section till we get to the bigger section, because I havc questions tabbcd in that scction. MR. SCHMIDT: All right. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But that -- whatever way the rest of you may have laid out your questions, feel free. So let's start with the staffreport. The first part of the staff report is actually four pages long. If there's any questions on that, let's start with those and we'll go through page by page. Mr. Wolfley, looks like you've got something to say. COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Ycah, Ijust had a general observation, and that is it almost looks good because we'rc so caught up on things. I mean, you know, between transportation and a lot of the other infrastructure. But in putting some of these projects Jurther out, are we going to get caught in a situation where things -- the economy starts turning around a little bit sooner than most people think, and we might get caught again below the service levels of what we anticipate if we put these things out four years past -- I'm just trying to put an average in here, for instance, the water and sewer and so on. We aren't in a position where if -- again, building start -- homes start going back up, people start moving back, that we aren't going to get caught? I mcan, we're going to bc behind cnough on population that the infrastructure will be able to keep up with an inllux of population in the near future? MR. SCHMIDT: I don't believe so. I think because the staff and the county generally follows longer trends, we don't react to some of those short-term changes the way you're identifying them. And I think Randy wants to add to that. MR. COHEN: For the record, Randy Cohen, Comprehensive Planning Director. I think we have to look at it from differcnt pcrspectives. First from a population perspective. We get preliminary cstimates from BEBR in advance of our April projections, for exarnple, this year. We Page 4 16 I!::ta~ &, 2609 already know that we are going to experience a decrease in population, and how that's projected out is going to be very interesting. We also know that with the arnount offorecJosures and the vacancy rates being what they are that we have to consider the fact that thosc units will bccome occupied again and they will have that demand on the infrastructure that already existed and was planned for, okay? I'll use transportation as an cxample, and hopefully Nick will correct me if I'm wrong. Right now we take a look at trip counts, but they also have -- they have vested trips in their trip bank as well, too. So they can kind of float back and forth sometimes, so that way we don't get caught. The other thing is the direction from the board is that when it comes to major projects, they don't want them in the first two years in transportation, for example, unlcss they're going to be completed or constructed in those first two years. Water and scwcr, thc board has provided direction to plan a few years in advance so we don't run into a problem likc we did before. Wc are going to see probably the greatest swing in adjustments back and forth with this downturn in the economy than when we get an uptick where we're going to have to react accordingly. So you arc correct that there is going to be a point in timc wherc wc start seeing some changes where we move things forward. But the planning that's being clone ahead of time and in response to that is keeping us where we need to be, cspecially with respcct to utilities. COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Vigliotti? COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Another question in general, probably from the other side of the pendulum. We're in a position now that we can have growth without taxing our infrastructure system, our roads, our parks and all thc othcr things thc impact fCcs cover; am I correct there? MR. SCHMIDT: If you're using thc tcrm taxing as in overburdening, yes. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Right, overburdening. So there is a period now moving forward where we can do some development without overburdening the roads? Nick, you're shaking your head no. MR. CASALANGUIDA: For the record, Nick Casalanguida, Transportation. Wc don't use BEBR numbers in population projections. Now, Randy hit it right on vacancy rates. If you assume right now bccause you'vc got in thc Estatcs 20 or 30 percent of vacancy ratcs in the Estates roads, and multi-family developments, 50 percent vacancy rates in some that you're going to prove more development with the comfort level of the traffic counts you're taking right now, that's where our concern comes in. Because you plug in those vacancy rates which could come on-line without any approval at all, someone just buys the home and movcs in, and you've proven development on top of that and you base it on traffic counts, you will bc right in thc sarne boat you were before. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: But all thc impact fees and all the -- everything we had was there already and it was substantial enough to cover all thc vacancies if they're filled up again. MR. CASALANGUIDA: No. No, sir. Because remembcr the backlog. And Norman is better at telling the story than I arn, but I've heard it enough times that I can tell a little bit. Back in the Ninctics you didn't build anything, so you were always behind the curve. So the money you collccted and you borrowed money against your gas tax, you're trying to catch up on your infrastructurc for quite a period oftimc. So you're starting to catch up and you're starting to get that in the urban area a little bit, but you are nowhere near caught up to -- if everything -- every approved unit built out today that's approved in, say, zoning came on-line today, you would be right back where YOll were before again. So now is a lull that you can kind of assess where you are and try and make priority changes. Page 5 ~'ul~'6, ~fj We're also facing that challenge of funding. If there's a cut in ad valorem and cut in impact fees, you will be right where you were before again. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: So you're saying even though there is a lull, there's no possible way to reduce impact fees to help get this thing jump started when it comes back, because when the economy does come back with the impact fees, it's going to be really tough with the new prices, as compared to the old homcs. MR. CASALANGUIDA: See, I think, and it's been shown throughout the states, reduction in impact fees is almost no -- Charlottc County cut them in half, and for the first six months in residential they saw no change. It's a demand function. Reducing the impact fees doesn't make the new homes become more attractive than the vacant homes that are there right now. COMMISSIONER vIGl.lOTTl: I agrce. Right now it's totally -- makes no difference. MR. CASALANGUIDA: Right. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: But when these houses are going to fill up, start to fill up, the development community is going to come back to the table. MR. CASALANGUIDA: That's right. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: And if the impact fees are where they are now, it's going to be tougher for them to get back into the game. Where changc in impact fees now, it makes no difference. MR. CASALANGUIDA: Right. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: But one thing starts the uptick again, that's when I think we should address impact fees, becausc -- MR. CASALANGUlDA: Rememher, your impact fee calculation is at a cost per unit, that widget, that lane mile. to rcplace that as that new unit -- as that dcmand comes on linc. So if you say lowering the impact tees, you'rc going to have to replace that cost. And one of the tasks transportation has been asked by the Board of COllnty Commissioners is for every million dollars you get rid of in impact fees, what would be the ad valorem or millage increase you'd have to put on thc taxpayer to replace that burden? So it's got to be made up somewhere. COMMISSIONER vlGLIOTTI: And I agree, now is not the time to do it. Because if there's no impact fees, it still doesn't pay f()r the development community to build. They just can't do it. But when we start an uptick, maybe it will be addressed. And you're saying it's not even going to work then. MR. CASALANGUIDA: I'm not at all comfortable -- based on a reduction of numbers that we've gone from the AUIR to the CIE, and wc'll get into it when we get into our element -- at all comfortable with projection of revenues and the ability to meet the demand side of that, based on existing approved units and existing units on thc ground. Ifall the vacant units that's alrcady paid their impact fees come on-line, my phone would ring and so would my bosses and say where did thcy comc from and what are you doing about it. Because you would not have the ability to manage that right now if that was the case. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Okay, thank you. MR. FEDER: The way I'll characterize it, and 1 think Nick has said it, but to put it simply, what the impact fee docs, if it's fully implementcd, is allows you to provide the replacement capacity for capacity as it's consumed. So we look at it right now, we've made a lot of improvements on the system, there's no question about it. About the time (phonetic) when things slow down and actually vacancy rates are up, that's what Nick's getting at. So there's a perception out thcre, problem solved. It is not solved. Now, wc necd to continue working at it. Because the fact of the matter is, what we did here in the county in '92 is not implement a full impact fee, not increase that impact fee until 2001, ,md during that period of time we consumed all the capacity plus. And that's why when I came, it was under a transportation emergency. We had 19 projects Page 6 1&Jaf1i6A<69 that we needed to get to. We've gotten to those 19 projects. But in the process of the eight years it's taken us to get there, more demand has come up. And so what we need to do is make sure we don't fall further behind. Because as soon as you don't provide for that replacement capacity, then you're eating into available capacity. And as Nick's pointing out, that perception of available capacity is a bit overstated because of vacancy rates. But there's no question, we're bettcr than wc wcre. But you keep consuming the available capacity and you're back where you were, and it takes you eight years to supply that capacity from start to finish. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Murray? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Norm, please, let me engage you in this issue, because I recognize your needs. Impact fees are tied to cost. MR. FEDER: Exactly. COMMISSIONER MURRA Y: The cost to purchase land, the cost to build the road. But you and I would agree that costs in some cases, perhaps in all cases, have come down. MR. FEDER: They have. COMMISSIONER MURRA Y: Therefore, while there is a lag, inevitably if costs come down and remain down for some time, is it not logical to reduce impact fees which are directly related to cost? MR. FEDER: They are directly related as a component. Understand, where your impact fee is, as I just said, is to replace the lost capacity. What's happening, there are other components to it. First of all. some of our credits have gone down too because of revenue strearns. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Of course. MR. FEDER: So then that mitigates cost. But cost is the biggest part. But yes, it's comc down ideally. And I agree with you, I'd like to see it come down. Everybody expects it to. The other part of that equation, though, is it's talking about what you have to do in the nature of impact. When you had most ofthe development occurring within the urbanizcd area in very short trip lengths, that's the only trip lengths we looked at until we redid the methodology. Everybody told us expand out into the Estates, in our thinking and our planning, and two, use your localized data. Doing both of those, what it's shown is the trip lcngths have gone up appreciably, because more and more the development's occurring out in the Estates. And thereforc, to get to market or to the job is a lot longer trip. So while the cost per unit has decrcascd, the demand of units with new development is grcater. Now, we're working with the board, working with a lot of people. I'm not going to get too far into this. I'm not trying to push the issue one way or another. There's a lot of questions we've been asked, we're going to bring back to the board, and the board will address this issue. But in answcr to your qucstion, yes, the actual cost per unit has come down. Ideally you'd like to see the impact fee come down with that. In looking at the methodology, though, there are other components. It is just that, a formula. And the issue is not just what it cost me per widget, what does it cost me to replace the capacity consumed by that particular development. And the way the development is going, the impacts of that, it's a nwnber of the widgets based on the unit cost that we're dealing with. But we'll work with the board and address it. The thing we're trying to make sure everyone understands, though, is if you decide not to tully refund or provide another funding source, which is the best way to lower that impact fee, then you're not providing the full replacement capacity, you're consuming quote, unquote available capacity. And some of that perception of available capacity is because of high vacancy rates right now, as well as obviously many improvements that have come on-linc. Page 7 l~Ja' ~,4~ 1 COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I would say to you that I understand -- I believe I understand all of that. And it's an interesting conundrum, because we haven't scheduled -- for concern from DCA, we haven't scheduled any additional development activities or associated with development activities, so you don't have anything on the forecast beyond, except conceptually, that you're going to go on VanderbiJt Beach Road or you're going to take care of services further east. You have some projects that you had planned, but I don't see them being progressed. If those are what you're referring to as your expanded need -- MR. FEDER: They are not progressing not because there is not a need. Understand, we don't go on a population basis in transportation. That's the bottom line. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: What I was trying to relate, based on what your statements are, there's never a time, no matter what the economic condition, that impact fees or costs, which go down, can ever go down. MR. FEDER: That's not the case. In fact, although I don't think that's going to happen overnight, if you had -- and I'm going to wait for something to get thrown at me here. If you had more destinations, in other words, if your geo-spatial disparity bctween origins and destinations didn't exist as great as it does, then in fact the cost going down, you wouldn't have had any m~jor adjustments for trip lenlo1h. And theoretically other credits didn't go down, then obviously the formula would have said as we I think would desire and as you're expecting, that in fact if costs Canle down the impact lee will come down. But it's a mixturc of those different components, because you're trying to provide that rcplacement of consumed capacity for whatever that development is. And so it's a unit cost, but it's also how much impact that development has, and therefore how many widgets is it consuming. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I understand. And I do understand. But the interesting thing is you're working with both vacancy and you're working with the projection for the future. And they're all so interrelated it becomes almost impossible for you, let alone the public, to really bc able to respond that there's some end in sight. [ guess -- MR. FEDER: I'll say it a little bit differently, but I think it's making a point. We have come to almost total reliance, at least in transportation, on impact fees. And so it becomes very difficult to address the issues in a single funding source when the market changes. And that's what we're experiencing. COMMISSIONER MlJRRA Y: I think that's a tair statement. Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: We're on the first four pages of the staffreport. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Yeah, Mark, lct me ask? COMMISSIONER MlJRRA Y: Well, I havc one question -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Schiffer? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Norm,just to lollow up. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I'm sorry. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, he's already started. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I'll wait. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: The -- is the planning component of transportation solely fUnded by impact fees? MR. FEDER: The planning component is actually funded by fecs collected, hy ad valorem, and not at all by impact fees, because that's only for capacity. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Thank you. COMMISSIONER MURRA Y: I did -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Murray? COMMISSIONER MURRA Y: Yeah, wcll, it doesn't matter who answers this. Page 8 16 1-. J " January"'l't:, 2~~ In Page 2, staff analysis, second paragraph where it says more than 20 percent of counting stations. How many counting stations do we have that we use the 20 percent number to relate? MR. CASALANGUlDA: We've got about 132 count stations right now. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Thank you. MR. CASALANGUIDA: Now,just to answer, follow up on that. When you say a count station went down or up, there's many factors that go into that. I'll give you an example. Golden Gate Parkway, when the overpass opened up, we saw a huge demand. Now, that wasn't because there's a lot of development on there, it's because the interchange opcned up and the overpass was opened. And you saw an even exaggerated increase because people wcre avoiding it while it was under construction. Yeah, and a decrease elsewherc. So you're going to see certain areas that say wow, this jumped way up, it must have been a big development. No, a road opened up. Immokalee Road and Collier Boulevard, Logan, a lot of parallel facilities. Once one's under construction people say I'm not going to drive it, it's under construction, I'll take the next road over. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Wcll, those are anticipated anomalies that are easily determined. It's the other more static type ofthing that you want to really look at, right? MR. CASALANGUlDA: Right. But that's -- when you see some drastic junlpS, that's where they come from. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Okay. MR. FEDER: And that's why you use long-range planning as opposcd to individual years. Golden Gate Boulevard, as mentioned that went down, the two years prior went up 25 percent and 22 percent respectively. So you can't -- when it takes seven to eight years to produce a project, you've got to look at your long-range planning and your component network, and you can't take anyone year up and down. My predecessors did that. I figured out why County Barn was in and out of the prograrn at least I I times and why [ had 15 differcnt dcsigns started, some of which were seven or eight years old and only halfway through production. Becausc cvery time one went up, oh, we've got to move on that. One went down. oh, that's not that important anymorc. It's not the way you can function in that business. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Vigliotti? COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Gctting back to impact fees in Charlotte County. I think right now it wouldn't make a ditlerence if there werc no impact fees. I think next year whcn we come back to do these, we'd have a better handle on, for instance, DCA numbers, where we're going, how many of those houses actually people are moving back into. And I think ncxt year might be something to keep in mind. MR. CASALANGUIDA: You raisc a good point. And that's why we do this, we look every year. We do either an indexing or a full study, we give you an AUIR and a CIE so you can take that temperature every year and see where we're going with what we'rc doing. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: And to get -- to you, Norm, if we can get some development out in the Estates, that might help. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: To you, Norm, if you try to do that, I'll fight it as much as I can. Mr. Vigliotti, you don't live out in the Estates, and I don't think that was a good statement to make. But anyway, any other questions on Pages I through 4'1 (No response.) COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Nice to know we have a balanced group. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Don't take it personally. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: On number -- I have a qucstion, Corby. The -- our AUIR, wc have multipliers that are made up of cost and the level of service. And I think Page 9 16ltnla~ rt),A~ that's the relationship that somehow boils over into the CIE. How do costs in the AUIR affect the CIE? MR. SCHMIDT: The results ofthe calculations in the AUIR using costs are used in the CIE. It's an indirect relationship. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Can you give me an exarnple of how they're used in the CIE? MR. CASALANGUIDA: I can give you an example of roads. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, tell me. Pick a page. Show me on a page how they're used. MR. CASALANGUIDA: I don't have the AUIR in front of me, but I can tell you, your costs that are projected in your AUIR. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. MR. CASALANGUIDA: We give them to our engineers. We send them out and we say give us your cost estimates. We plug them into the AUIR, and you say road ABC will cost X amount. And we update it just like we're doing for the CIE. When we did the CIE of the past couple of months we went back and said costs are coming down. If they arc, give us revised estimates. So it's not a function of just plugging a number from the AUIR to here. It's -- the AUIR is a snapshot of what it cost us to build the road at that timc and our revenue projection at that time. The CIE is the same thing. Now, the difference, what drives the AUIR into the CIE is your demand component. The AUIR is where you look at traffic counts in detail and say where is our demand component of it. That gets reflected in your CIE. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Well, the example that I was starting to focus on in the CIE is the one on Page 3, the first one where it talks about the level of service for parks. The valuc per acre for parks in the AUIR is $230,000 per acre. It went up right afler '05, '06, where it used to be $200,000 an acre. And it wcnt up and I remember the arguments, that the pricc ofland's gone up. COMMISSIONER MURRA Y: Right. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, correspondingly in '08 the price of land went down, but yet thc number of 230 stayed high. That didn't work for the needs to not have a budget demand for the upcoming fiscal year. And I think what happened, from what I can tell, and I missed the AUIR meeting, and I wished I hadn't, is that instead ofreducing the cost, as everybody in this country cxperienced, parks reduced the level of service to offset the -- so they wouldn't show a need lor the next fiscal year for improvements. I'm just wondering how truthful that is now that wc're trying to put it into a document in the form of a CIE, since we now have been told that the costs do have an impact and are related in the CIE. I'm not surc who you represent, sir, so -- I see you standing there. Arc you with parks? MR. WILLIAMS: Ycs, sir. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Thank you. Then maybe you can answer my question. MR. WILLIAMS: Barry Williams, Parks and Rec. Director. It's a very good question. And it did come up in the AUIR discussion. And just to reiterate, and sorry that you weren't there, the $230,000 per acre, that cost that reflected in the AUIR, we use that as a placeholder. It doesn't reflect the cost associated with thc lcvel of service that we're identifying. As you mentioned as well, the] .2 acres for community parkland, the 2.9 acres for regional parkland per 1,000, that's in cssence what we count and calculate to determine whether we're meeting a particular level of service. The other question about whethcr or not that reflects in the CIE, I don't know that I have a good answer. And I've got some people back herc that might be able to explain the CIE process and the five-year plan that we would put together. It wouldn't -- I don't know that it would reilcct that cost at that $230,000 an acre. More than likcly what we would project out would be the actual cost for a particular projcct, an Page 1 0 16 '~1~2009 estimate cost. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, see, I keep hearing a concern that we're going to have to lower levels of service or do something in order to avoid tax increases. And so that's where we started going. And as the exarnple, parks, that was the first one on the list here. But it looks to me like we could have reduced the cost ofland to its true value and still accomplish the same goal. MR. WILLIAMS: Well, let me -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And also, I have another issue that I might as well-- since Amy's scurrying up here. In the Parks and Rec.'s impact fees revenues, they failed to show any for next year. And in this document they did the same thing. Yet I know they're going -- but this year they had 2.452 million in impact fee revenues through the end of 2008. (Power surge.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's what I get for messing with parks, the power will go off. The parks is going to need, for their debt service, 3.135 million next year -- this year to pay. So they're going to be short already. And the upcoming's going to be short. This CIE doesn't reflect any of that. In tact, if you turn to the exhibit after the Capital Improvement Element, I think it's Exhibit A, for parks, everything is shown as zero. MR. WILLIAMS: That's correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. And I'm just wondering how that ties to the paragraph in the staff report talking about level of service when everything's zero. MR. WILLIAMS: Well, the CIE that reflects the zeros, it reflects impact fees that would be collected and applied for those new projects. And as you can see, there are no new projects planned in that five-year period. So there's no impact fees planned to pay for those projects. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And you'rc doing a lot of property transfers, though -- MR. WILLIAMS: That's correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- through interdepartmental transfers. MR. WILLIAMS: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: What evidence do we have that shows that the other departments paid the 230,000 per acre that you're crediting it for? And I'm just wondering how those transfers are balanced out. Because there's no data that I could find in the AUIR to provide us with that kind of information. MR. WILLIAMS: Could you be specific about a transfer you're referencing? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Sure. COMMISSIONER MURRA Y: It's Conservation Collier stuff CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Under the regional park category of the 2008 AUIR, proposed added value through commitments, leases and interdepartmental transfers, $165 million. And it has something to do with South Florida Water Management District. And under the community park land categories of expenditures, proposed loss of value through interdepartment transfers, a negative $10 million. I know you're going to transfer land back and f()rth, and that's fine. I'm just now curious how you would set a value for it at 230,000, because that's what your unit cost is supposed to be, yet I don't know what those departments who negotiated maybe better prices than that, how that's being accounted for. MR. WILLIAMS: And I understand your point and I think it's a valid one. I think what we're saying with that $230,000 an acre, it is a placeholder. It doesn't reflect market value. It's not the indicator for our level of service for park land. The acreage per thousand is what we count towards level of service. It does distract from this commission. And in the AUlR process it was apparent as well that 230,000, folks were getting hung up in that. And just for the reasons you'rc saying, is that the cost of land has gone down. Page 11 16'fUP~~ 2f>09 For us what's important is get the acreage on the books for us to meet level of service. So in the exarnples that you give, you know, for example, the 640 acres for the A TV park, when that comes to play the true cost market value of that land, you know, it's not likely to be this $230,000 an acre. If you get 640 acres near Lake Trafford, it's hard to argue that that land would be at that cost. So I would ask you to push out that cost per acre. That's not the considcration really that we're bringing forward. I think your other point, though, is with the CIE, which is a valid question to ask, what is the cost that would be related if there were projects on the book for that five-year window. And not having projects to give you an example, it's difficult for me to say. But what we would propose is if: for example, Big Corkscrew Island Regional Park was in that five-year window, a cost of that park might be $8 million. What we would show how funds would equal that $8 million would be based on a projection from impact fees that we had available. If impact fees weren't available for the reasons you're stating, obviously we'd have to demonstrate in the CIE where would tllOse funds come from. But I don't have those exarnples for you. I don't have -- what I have basically is five years of no projects planned, because obviously I don't have any money to spend. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, when I started out my questioning, I asked Corby how the costs relate to the CIE, purposely to find out ifit was a legitimate question to ask at this time. And that's when he said they do. It then seemed to fall back on thc fact that maybe -- I do know when the 230 was increased the arguments we heard. They were legitimate at the time. Prices of land go up, wc have to increase prices. But it should work in reverse. MR. WILLIAMS: It would be just for ease -- as easy for us to bring back to you next year what it cost -- we could arrive at a different figure than that 230 that reflects what the market is for acreage. You know, and you've heard the arguments too about that 230 that reflect land we buy on the coast versus land that we -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Oh, yeah. MR. WILLIAMS: -- buy inland and the differences. I'm sure we've got -- you know, we could work with real estate services to come back with a more accurate number. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: On a global aspect of the county's assets, if we have assets in Parks and Rec. that are figured out to be say the 165 million or wbatever -- I mean, I'll tell you what the total number is to begin with. Your regional parks have a total value 01'$240 million right now, what the current value is. Do we use that number for collateral arguments for any bonds, municipal bonds, class A ratings or AA, AAA ratings for bond counsels or anything like that? MR. COHEN: Let me go ahead and try to bring this into focus right here. And I think the best way to answer -- first of all, I'm going to answer your question. The answer to that would be no. But as far as where do these numbers come from? ! think it would more appropriate to let Amy Patterson address where they come from, how they get adjusted. And you also had a question about impact fees related to not only the CIE, but also debt service. And she can answer that as well, too. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The thing about impact fees is more of a statement. It's obvious that we're in a deficit for impact fees from Parks and Rec. for quite some years to come, the way -- the sheets that I have. MR. COHEN: Yeah, but at the same time, shc can address the aspects of where the figure comes from as well. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. MS. PATTERSON: Amy Patterson, Impact Fee Manager, tor the record. Page 12 ~QulJ~~o~ Regarding the $230,000 per acre arnount that's reflected in the Parks and Rec., the nature -- or where that number started was if you recall a couple of years ago the impact fee study also included a comprehensive land study to develop a cost per acre. And there was quite a bit of conversation at that time about the appropriateness of that number. In the end it was accepted and it translated into the AUIR. With the 2007 indexing, that number was indexed up accordingly with the numbers that were generated for the land component of that particular impact fee, therefore generating the $230,000 number. Part of the reason that it would remain the sarne this year in the AUIR process is that we're in the middle of a full impact fee study, which mcans that that land component will be looked at and will be evaluated for its appropriateness. Now, that study is near completion and will be coming forward at some time in the near future. And then that again will translate into this year's AUIR and adjustment up or down or whatever the appropriate action is at that time. But that is the adopted land value at this moment, based on the impact fee study. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Are you familiar with the bond that was posted to pay for the water park? MS. PATTERSON: I have the debt service inf(mnation about that bond. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: What was the collateral for the bond? MS. PATTERSON: I would assume that it would have been sales tax or something else. Not impact -- it's not impact fces. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, because impact fees are what's being used to pay it off. MS. PATTERSON: Right, they're being used to pay it off: but they're never put up as collateral because of the volatile nature of the collections. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: For those types of purchases where we use -- where we have bonds that are used to benefit whatever, say we don't use impact fees, what are the guarantees for the bonds if none of those fees come forward? Like gas tax has been dropping, impact fees have been dropping. Is there any kind of physical asset to guarantee or back up those bonds? MS. PATTERSON: I'm not certain if they put up a physical asset, but I can find that out and let you know. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I would be interested to know that. Because in the way land's been devalued and the way we're not tracking or accepting the devaluation in the AUIR, it appears as though our values are all as they're stated. And I don't believe they are. MS. PATTERSON: Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So I would certainly like to know how the collatcral is set up. MS. PATTERSON: No problem. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. On that sarne page, the next item that's talked about -- oh, and is it Barry? Is that -- MR. WILLIAMS: Barry, yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I'm sorry, I'm getting old, I forget narnes sometimes. I have one more question for you. Is there some way that you have a listing of a couple transactions that (sic) other departments showing what their purchasc price was and now what you've accepted those properties into the park departmcnt for? You know, like we started talking about, you have $165 million in interdepartmental transfers, and you have another one for] 0 million in community parks. I'm just curious as to where that interdepartment transfer land is, what departmcnt purchased it, when they bought it and what they paid for it. And then -- bccausc I'm curious, if all you've got to do is transfer land interdepartment at the right Page 13 16 , ,- Jl6 January 1 ,200' times and show an increase in value, I'm a little concerned about how legitimate that is and how much the taxpayers are really benefiting from a change in value like that. MR. WILLIAMS: I can answer the question ofthe 47 acres that we have on Randall Curve, perhaps. And with transportation here, if I may, just to articulate that a little bit. We have 47 acres that we sought to develop on Randall Curve. We found that it wasn't useful to be used as a park. You know, the folks that more than likely would use it are the Orangetree community, and crossing Immokalee Road's not a very good idea for building a park. So we've talked about our building Big Corkscrew Island Regional Park in conjunction with the public utilities project. And part of that interdepartmcntal transfer would be for us to give the 47 acres or negotiate with transportation for them to get the 47 acres. The value of that land would be used for us to purchase the land from public utilities for the development of the park next to the public utilities at Orangetree. So all those negotiations, that's our planning, that's what we're moving towards. Of course public utilities and Orangetree utility has been held up because of growth and whatnot, so we're not prepared to move forward with that. But that's been the plan and that's what's reflected in the AUIR. And the values -- and your question is the values and what (sic) we purchased those 47 acres when we did versus when we make this interdepartmental transfer, their changing or whatnot, I don't know that I have a good answer, I can just articulate what our plan is as far as doing that transfer. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I'd be curious to see how much Nick is going to pay for that land. He's known as a shrewd negotiator. MR. WILL.IAMS: He is indeed. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And we'll have to see if he's going to pay 230. Because ifhe isn't, then someone's got a problem. MR. WJLUAMS: I have a boss who's fairly shrewd too that I'm going to bring with me, so -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, Mr. Murray? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Barry, hi. Maybe you do know the answer to this, and perhaps some ofthe others do, but let me just verity something. You acquire a parcel of land. You paid $1,000 for it. You now transfer it to Norm's department. But at this moment in time when you transferred it, it has now a value of$5,000. Would that differential generate impact fee requirement? MR. WILLIAMS: I don't know that I can answer that question. I don't know if Amy heard it. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Well, let's find out, because that's an interesting question, too. Did you hear the question, Amy? MS. PATTERSON: [ don't -- I'm sorry, Amy Patterson again for the rccord. I heard the question but I'm not sure I understand -- COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Well, I'm not so sure that I know whether or not you generate impact fees on a differential and that was the question. In other words, if parks department had required a parcel of land, and we use $ I ,000, and at a later time because of increased priccs on properties the value of it was perceived to be $5,000, would the differcntial between the 1,000 and the 5,000 or $4,000, require the payment of impact fees? MS. PATTERSON: No, because impact fces are only paid on a structure. The construction-- COMMISSIONER MURRA Y: Only on structure and never on land. MS. PATTERSON: Never on land. Except there are a couple of land uses on our fee schedule, like golf courses, where it's construction but it's not a building. There are a couple of those types of land uses. But it generally is always vertical construction that generates tile assessmcnt of impact fees. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: But doesn't Norm collcct impact tees associated with land for Page 14 16 l.,af!" IL Januaty'6,8tQ:J miles that he builds on? MS. PATTERSON: That's the calculation of the impact fee versus the collection of the impact fee. And that's what I was going to get to next is what would happen, actually, with this. And maybe the EMS property is a good one to talk about, the Bendcrson prop -- is that the Benderson? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Yeah, Benderson. MS. PATTERSON: Or the one that's on Santa Barbara, that -- COMMISSIONER MURRAY: No, that's not Benderson. MS. PATTERSON: Not Bendcrson. I can't -- it slipped my mind -- Bembridge, sorry. That parcel is currently owned by EMS. But at one point in time it's been looked at to be transferred to other public facilities that might use it for a difIcrent purpose at one time, the EOC or other things. So thc value of that asset is currently located in the EMS impact fee as a component of how that fee is created, the valuc of the asset. But if it were to be transferred, for exarnple, to a govemment buildings facility, the value of that asset would be removed from the EMS inventory and placed onto the government buildings inventory, if that would be the place for it. So therefore a reduction to the EMS inventory, which could be a corresponding reduction to the overall EMS impact fee and an increase to the receiving department. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: That's what I'm trying to get at. You hit the point I was trying to get at. If there exists a differential, then the booked value, when it's transferred then, there is either a significant hit on EMS and a significant bencfit to the other party, and the impact fee does relate to that, doesn't it? MS. PATTERSON: Right. And it would reflect the current market value, not necessarily what they paid for it. Because if they were to sell it to a private entity, they would still be paying current market value. If parks owned a piece ofland that they decided that they couldn't use, they would sell it for whatevcr the market would bear at that timc. Now, we would remove it from thcir inventory, but they would also receive the benefit of whatever money they might have acquired from selling that parcel. If that makes sense. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Yeah, I got you. What I've been trying to relate to, and perhaps I've been unfair to you, I hope not, but we know that in transactions by law, transactions occur intergovernmental. Permitting fees are paid or allocated to be paid out of the funds, all these other costs for the use of that land are related. And it sccmed to me, at least I wanted to find out, whether impact fees are a part of that sarne set of transactions. MS. PATTERSON: And they are. In multiple ways they are. Not only in the-- COMMISSIONER MURRA Y: But not in a fashion that one might expect. You're saying it occurs later. MS. PATTERSON: It actually occurs a~ part ofthe calculation ofthe impact fee. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Right. MS. PATTERSON: This is actually a methodology issue versus an actual physical transaction. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Yes, but if the value of something has grown, the impact fees consequentially will grow. MS. PATTERSON: Right. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: So a movement ofland to another organization has a potential high benefit in that organization, or a potential high loss. MS. PATTERSON: It does. COMMISSIONER MlJRR^ Y: Thank you. Page 1 5 ~~Jry~6,2A6 1 MS. PATTERSON : You're welcome. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Corby? I guess I left off on Page 3. And this probably won't be yours to answer, but you're the guy up there right now. MR. SCHMIDT: Fair enough. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The water facilities. I have a lot of questions about the 10-year water supply plan that will be coming up. I know this mirrors that plan. But I wasn't understanding in the plan why we've been able to drop 185 gallons pcr capita to ] 70 per person. And likewise, the corresponding decrease in sewage. I'm wondering if people are drinking Icss and using the toilets less, if that's the reason, and how we know that. So that's my ncxt question, because it comes up on Page 3. MR. SCHMIDT: All right, I've got someone looking forward to answering that for you. MR. GRAMATGES: Good afternoon. Phil Grarnatges, Public Utilities Division. The reason for thc drop is simply that we have looked at the actual consumption for the year 2005, six and seven in preparation for the 2008 mastcr plan. Now, we notice that the consumption per capita had reduced considerably. In fhe past we had been reluctant to make adjustments based on such short-term declines in level of service, simply because there are a lot of factors that we have difficulty in properly mcasuring that dctermine the level of service. However, though, we do know that we went through a drought and we do know that we went to restrictions in irrigation. And we also know that typically when we go to a leni,>thy period of time where those restrictions exist, the consumers tend to stick to that new gain culture or new gain habit. So we were fairly confident that those numbers would clearly reflect the consumption for the next few years to come, and we felt that it was prudent to nullify that level of service from the 185 to the 170. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Why didn't you go lower? MR. GRAMA TGES: The average for those three years was 168. Now, the highest number in the -- the lowest number of those thrce years was the first ycar, 2005. That mayor may not reflect that there's now a tendency to increase again. But obviously we want to be conscrvative. The last thing we want to be is find ourselves in a situation where we don't havc cnough capacity. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: What do you think of the other municipalities in the county that are not following your lead in regards to their levels of service for sewer and water? MR. GRAMA TGES: I can't speak f(lf the level of service, but I do tell you that their mixture of multi-farnily to single-family, the size of their lots, the amount of irrigation they have for golf courses is clearly differcnt than ours. It's very difficult to make onc-to-one comparisons like that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, we -- a~ part of your 10-year plan, last time wc had asked that we try to get the information from the other utilities. I know some cooperated with you and some did not. And we'll probably discuss that in detail. But I also know that the other utilities that you tried to get information from for the most part have significantly lower levels of service. And I'm just wondering, if we don't believe that's legitimate, or if we have -- if it isn't practical, how is it that we're accepting that? And I understand the argument I've read in the document, that we don't have any control over them. And we'll disputc that later this afternoon, because I also read the County Attorney's memorandum that scemed to indicate we did have. And at the same time, we are issuing building permits in areas that have facilities that we don't believe may have practical levels of service. And those are all the kinds of things that I would want to understand, because that does dovetail into why our level of service nccds to be so high. So it's just a statement, but I thought I'd make it. MR. GRAMATGES: Well, all I can say is that if you look at thosc other areas like Orangetree and like Immokalee that have different level of services than we do, the composition of those areas is different than the composition of Collier County. And in fact, we sce differences cven between Collier County. Page 16 16nJtatr t~<6 When it comes to water, of course, the level of service, since we are interconnected, is the same for the entire county, but indeed varies. And once again, it depends on the population density and the number of commercial units that may be there. I mean, Immokalee is more of a rural type of city or town than Collier is. And Collier is probably more rural than Miarni-Dade. I mean, it's a very, very difficult number to put your hands around. And that's why we are extremely conservative when we try to estimate it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Is there any way that you have any control over the new franchises that come into the county? For example, in the eastern lands there's proposed to be 22 -- and I'm not going to use traffic centroids, because I think they will be towns. Let's say those towns go into play. Will you be -- how will the COWlty approach those from a level of service? Will they use what's in this CIE and insist that they meet that level of service, or will they end up devising their own? MR. GRAMA TGES: Those areas would be outside of our water/sewer district. We, meaning public utilities, has no direct control over that. I would have to defer that question to CDES and comprehensive planning. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. I thought that you had some control over Collier County, all unincorporated areas of Collier County. MR. COHEN: Let me go ahead and answer that, Commissioner Strain and other commissioners. There's a Collier County Water and Wastewater Authority that regulates -- I don't want to use the word regulate, but monitors, because a lot of that regulation is via special act or special legislation. What I'll do is in light of what your questions are in terms oflevel of service and the county's involvement with that, l'm going to place a call to Janlie French and have him address the county's role in dealing with those private utilities for you later this aflemoon, so he can be here and answer those questions for you. But Phil is correct, Collier County as an entity does not have thc authority to regulate those particular private utilities. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Like I said, I do havc some questions on that specific issue in the next phase of this meeting. And by the way, just so you know, we could save Jamie till Tucsday. We've got to be here any anyway. I understand the advertising wasn't what it needcd to be for today's meeting to come to a conclusion, so we will be meeting here Tuesday at 2:00. MR. COHEN: Whatever your pleasure may bc, Commissioner. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: l'mjust suggesting that we're going to be here anyway, so -- if that's more convenient. That's the only question I had at this time on Page 3. Thank you, Phil. MR. GRAMATGES: Thank you, sir. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody else have any remaining questions on Pages I through 4'1 (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: If not, Corby, I guess you want to move into something else then, huh? MR. SCHMIDT: All right. At this point I'd like to distribute my single handout to you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Oh, it figures, it's Nick's area. COMMISSIONER MURRA Y: I do have -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Murray, you want to grab your mic. so she can pick you up. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I'm too heavy for her to pick mc up. On Page 4, going back -- I apologize, but I had to reread my question. Page 1 7 16.JHJr'115,A<8~f'~ If you wouldn't mind -- I'm looking at the top there on Page 4, the level of service standard for the North County Water Reclarnation Facility decreased from dada, dada, dada, dada. My question to myself is would that generate rcduced rates? And here's what I'm really focusing on. I happened to have overheard or been a part of a conversation wherc people were concerned with -- that they pay for evaporation, or they claim evaporation during the summer months on their pools, but they're being charged for sewer that they believe is inappropriate. So if in fact we are -- and I use that as a single exarnple; therc may be hundreds of others. If that's the case, are we in a position at some point then to offer reduction in cost for those folks, all the folks that utilize this? Or do we just offer information? MR. GRAMA TGES: Once again, Phil Gramatges, Public Utilities Division. The answer clearly is no. Evaporation is water. We don't treat water, we treat sewage. The loading in the plant -- the plant has two types of loading: It ha~ hydraulic loading, which is the number of gallons that goes through it, and it has -- COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Phil, excuse me, I was referring to water reclamation. MR. GRAMA TGES: That's right, that's the waste treatment-- COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Is that sewer? MR. GRAMATGES: Yes, it's the waste treatment plant. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: And my cxample was about the people are being charged for sewer MR. GRAMATGES: That's correct. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: -- for the water being consumed. MR. GRAMATGES: Yes. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Their argument was that they see a lot of evaporation in their pools so they put -- have to fill it up again, but they're being charged for that use of water, reclaimed water coming at you. They're being charged for that water, evcn though it's evaporating. You've reduced. You've said now it's no longer this, it's this. My question is, should there be a reduction associated with it if you are going to reduce the amount of work that you have to produce? MR. GRAMATGES: Well, but my answer is no, we don't have to reducc the arnount of work that we have to do. Because all that is doing is concentrating thc impurities that are coming in that flow into the plant. So in other words, what you have is a stronger strearn coming into the plant. The arnount of chemicals that you have to use, the use of thc equipment that is there is not going to change significantly due only to hydraulic loading. Hydraulic loading, meaning thc total number of gallons. If the percentage of impurities within those gallons increases but the total number of impurities remains the sarne, the work that the plant has to do pretty much remains the same. COMMISSIONER MURRA Y: So if we were to decrease the loading significant, you'd have to have additional plant redcvclopment in order to deal with it. MR. GRAMA TGES: As a matter of fact you're absolutely right, sir. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: And the other side of it is then we should encourage everybody to use as much water as possible because it's cheaper then [or you to process it. MR. GRAMATGES: I think that that is -- it's not an argumcnt that could really hold weight. I mean. what -- COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Or water. MR. GRAMATGES: -- they would end up doing is -- what they'd end up doing is increasing their water bill. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I guess what I was trying to get at is -- and every opportunity that I as an amateur, and I certainly arn an amateur whcn it comes to you folks, try to find ways that we can make Page 1 8 1 ~Ju~' 1~~9'1 a reasonable effort at reducing costs where they are appropriate. And of course the issue is every question that is asked always has an answer that never makes it possible to reduce costs. And it's very frustrating to us and I'm sure it's frustrating to you too. MR. GRAMA TGES: Let me just say that reducing costs is a 24/7 effort for us. We need to do that, not only because our rate payers demand it, but simply because common sense demands it as well. And I believe that the reduction that we have madc in the level of service both for water and wastewater also implies with it a reduction in cost. Every time we do a master plan, we do a study, a rate study and an impact fee study. And based on those studies, wc determine what the rate will be for the following three or four years, depending on when the next master plan will come to be, and we determine therefore what the impact fees will be as well. So we are continuously and constantly looking at that number, yes. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Can you tell us when the last time therc was a rate reduction or-- MR. GRAMATGES: There was a reduction in impact fees at the time of the last review on the master plan for 2008. COMMISSIONER MURRA Y: Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, that's a little -- there's a little twist to that. You did reduce impact fees, but then you turned around and increa~ed another fee that you have that carne out of the blue that was almost equal to the cost of the impact fee and it wa~ the AFPI fccs. So I'm not sure anybody carne out ahead on that one. In fact, [ think the AFPI fees were probably more broadly collected than the impact fees would have been. So I'm not -- I don't know if there was a benefit to the public in that process at all, Phil. I just wanted you to know that, Mr. Murray. So even though the impact fees may bc said to have been reduced, therc were other fees that went up to offset it. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: And I appreciatc that you and I share that view that we try to get at some way we can get a cost reduction. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, I guess we're back up with Corby. And Corby, we left off on Page 5 through, I'm assuming 21, but those pages are repeated back behind another tab in this document, so -- in a morc complete manner. MR. SCHMIDT: Yeah, at this point it's up to you, if you'd like to go through the Capital Improvement Element itself at the other tab, page by page, or stick to the format in the staff report. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I would rather go through the format in the staff report, although the Pages 5 through 25, because they are repeated in morc detail, behind thc fourth tab that says Capital Improvement Element, if the rest of the Planning Commission wishes we can wait and tackle that one when we get to that, because thcre are other questions leading up to it, that works fix everybody. MR. SCHMIDT: All right. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And if that's the case, then on Page -- right after Page 25 there's a report, staff report, Appendix A, Collier County Planning Commission, January 16th, 2009. MR. SCHMIDT: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Corby, do you want to tell us what that is and then I'll ask to see if we have any issues on that. MR. SCHMIDT: Certainly. Because the staff report has an established format and again we were trying to add additional infonnation this year, again because of the two years since the last CIE, the age of the information and the kinds of changes that you're looking at, tried to explain some of those with comments from staff. In Appendix A there are some general statements and remarks addressing some of those changes. Some to do with levels of service changes, some to do with projccts specific and so forth. And Appendix B, and I'll go there when you ask, but Appendix B was meant to be project specific. Page 19 16Jjnl~~~ CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, are there any questions from Appendix A or B? Which is still prior to the ordinance tab. It's on the first tab of the book. Those are past the blue pages in the back of the book. (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Corby, under your solid waste projects, under the tab, I think it's the first blue tab which is your first blue Appendix A, I know that the solid waste billings are a separate item on our tax bill. I know that when I pay a tax bill, Ijust send one check in and pay the whole bill. So it doesn't matter to me ifit's a separate item or not, it's still a cost that comes out of my pocket. In visiting other municipalities I find that there are different ways to address trash pickup. And it doesn't -- and the reason I'm bringing this up, I think it would have an impact on how we're thinking in regards to twice a week with those big cans. Right now we have Waste Management contracted for twice a week pickup county-wide. And they give us cans that are big enough to drive my truck into and park it. I don't generate that much waste. I don't know anybody that really does. There might be some people that do. I've been in othcr municipalities where I have been looking and talking to the neighborhood and watching how they've brought their trash out. On one day in the neighborhood that I was visiting the trash goes out, so do the other neighbors, and that's it. He only does one day a week. But yet I saw his neighbors a few days later bring a trash can out. And I said, do you want your trash taken out that day? And it was an older gentleman. He said no, we don't have two-day service. I said, how do you arrange that? So I went down to the municipality and found our their contract allows for one or two-day pickups; one being the base, you all pay f()r that. And if somebody wants a two-day pickup, they actually pay extra and they get the two-day pickup if they want to generate that much trash. It does save money. Their rate was less. And I'm just wondering, have we looked at that? And I know it's a diftercnt tax base, and that's the argument I get all the time is oh, it's only 100 bucks, who cares? Wcll, it all adds up and it comes in the sarne tax bill. So have we looked at that, and is this process that we're going through today an avenue in which that could be suggested? I see Phil wandering behind you, so -- MR. SCHMIDT: And he may be just the man to ask. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: He gets everything. He gets water and sewer and solid waste. MR. GRAMA TGES: Hi. It's Phil Gnunatges again, Public Utilities. The problem with this is that we can't determine -- well, let me back up a little bit, if I may. As you said, some people will need twice a week pickup, some people will need once a week pickup. It would not be economically feasible for us to send a truck to pick up only one garbage can in the whole lot -- in the whole neighborhood. I mean, if the truck is going to be therc, it is to evcryone's benefit for the truck to pick up everybody's garbage. And besides, the amount of garbage that you use may vary from week to week. During the holidays, for exarnple, the garbage generated generally, at least in my household, is more than what that container can support. So therefore, we have standardizcd two pickups a week. Now, I can't give you any more details than that. I do know that we have looked at that and we have determined that it is for us financially more effective to do two pickups a week than to do one. You remember as well that we pick up recyclables only once a week. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. And the party or the municipality that I was dealing with is up in Ohio. They were using a difJerent -- a competitor of Waste Management. Bearing Ferris or Browning-Ferris, something like that. They have different color trucks. It just seemcd odd that they could do it and we hadn't maybe -- have we ever priced such a Page 20 1644'f6A69 scenario? Have we looked at competitive pricing, the Waste Management contract, to see if we could get a better price for an alternative such as one-week pickups? MR. GRAMA TGES: I can tcll you that we have looked at that. I can't give you any more details than that. I wasn't prepared to answer that question fully. But I do know that we have looked at the possihility of picking up only once a week, and we did not find that to be advantageous. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, thank you, sir. Any other questions that we have on the blue page, appendices to the staff report? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Nick, I had one question of you. Sorne of the pricing on here is tor landscaping or talking about roadway landscaping that's bcen deferred. Some still on the books. I think there's one -- you guys just got approved for some landscaping components. Is there a reason that landscaping for neighborhoods that particular want it, since it only benefits generally the neighborhoods that it's close by, that we couldn't convert to MSTU's to take care of landscaping? Because not only is the initial cost high, but you also end up providing ongoing maintenance forever. So landscaping is really like an anchor around our neck, instead of just the -- I mCan' I know a lot of people think they need beautiful medians. but I'm just wondering how much they're willing to pay for them. And at the same time, I'm not willing to pay for them, so -- MR. CASALANGUIDA: While I'd like to answer that, I know this topic is near and dear to my boss's heart, so l'lllet him talk about it. MR. FEDER: If I could, Mr. Chairman, first of all, I think your point is what we discussed with the board this last cyclc. We did get 1.8 in turnback to try and address three segments that were estimated at one time about 2.9, and we're seeing what we can do with the 1.8 in bid. What we noted to the board was in acquiring that 1.8 for over 10 miles of additional landscaping, that that was going to result in about 500,000 of ongoing maintenancc demand, and that we would rather defer that till later. But the desire was to move with the turnback money, and we are doing so. I think the issue that you raised is one that we raised to the board as the cost. When you talk about I think an MSnJ issue, say, you arc in effect using a county-wide MSTU, which is the MSTD Fund III. That is what is funding landscaping. It has in the past and continues to with the maintenance. So in effect you're doing it through an unincorporated county-wide MSTU called MSTD. But the decision on continuing to pursuc landscaping without any increase or possibly reductions in that millage is putting us in a situation where we were relying on a portion ofturnback for maintenance of the 4.9 that we had for the 100 miles we had previously landscaped, before this 10 is being raised. And that's already been reduced by 1.3 million. A portion of that provided back in turnback. But next year I'm starting with 1.3 million less than my cost needs for maintenance, plus another 500,000 for the additional 10 miles, if in fact that 1.8 can do the capital for those three projects. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, if we've got an MSTD that produces the tax county-wide for landscaping -- MR. FEDER: Unincorporated, yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Unincorporated, which means even though in the area I live in, as an example, there's no landscaping. I certainly made sure that the coastal community had it and I'm pleased with that. Isn't there a localized way to tax for people that insist on having landscaping in front of their areas? MR. FEDER: Well, first of all, for folks that arc not on an arterial where we've gone to the ultimatc lanc standard, typically six lanes. That was a dccision some years back in the landscaping master plan that Page 21 1 fttlilr~~9 ' those facilities that had gone to the ultimate lane standard were a benefit county-wide, and whether they be a gateway into the community or utilized by people out throughout the community. I do have many areas, somewhat as you're saying, where there's been a decision locally in Golden Gate City and Lely, in Immokalee, in Bayshore, where there have been MSTU's set up for landscaping where I don't have a project, I've just widened the arterial that evcrybody around the county uses to six lanes, and they want it landscaped. They form their own separate MSTU and landscape some localized road, some cases two-lane roadways that they landscape, sometimes otllers. But not ones that were on the landscape master plans. So the distinction is I'm talking about major arterials brought to their ultimate standard. And the concept was I'm developing these arterials from demand, county-wide drivers, and coming closer to homes and businesses. And the idea was to take those six-lane facilities and turn them into three-lane boulevards to a degree that landscaping has done that. It's an added value to evcryone county-wide on those six lanes built out to capacity arterials. When it's not those. we haven't been doing the landscaping. Now, having said that, with the crunch that we're in right now, we've been recommending the last two years, as you're aware, pull-back. And last year we recommcnded to pull back totally. And then the decision was that we had some turnback funds. let's do it. But that does raise a maintenance issue for us once those are on board. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you, sir. Appreciate it. Are there any questions up through the ordinance tab? In any of the ordinance tab from the Planning Commission? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: After the ordinance tab we actually get into the Capital Improvement Element, and that one is where we probably will spend a little bit more time on the specifics of that element. It's 2:17. We were going to take a break at 2:30. we probably could take one now and then come back at 2:35 and go for another hour and a half at that point. I think the day's cut-ofj~ ifit's okay with everybody, will be 5:00. Is that okay? Okay, let's come back at 2:35 and resume. (Recess.) MR. COHEN: Mr. Chairman, you have a live mic. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. We'll resume our meeting on the CIE. Where we left off, we were starting to discuss the capital improvement tab. And typically we take thcse page or two at a time, and we'll probably follow through with that today. On the first page is the table of contents and introduction. So let's go through Page CIE-I. Are there any questions from the commission on those? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I hate to have a question about a table of contents, but I have to. The addition, and it's because of transportation, as you -- as unexpectedly could happen. You added the East of 951 bridge report. And Nick, as I had mentioned to you, I'm concerned because in your introduction you talk about the CIE must identify public facilities that will be required during the next five years and that those facilities, up to -- including -- to get to the acceptable levels of service. I'm trying to understand how that bridge report impacts -- is impacted by either of those statements, or are those statements impacted by the bridge report? Because you already have a level of service established without the bridgcs in place. so you don't need them in the CIE for that. Page 22 16 ja1~ A, ~o; And I'm not sure that you need nor want to do them in the next five years or want to be under the burden of having to do them with the economy the way it is. So is there an advantage to putting that in the CIE as a reference that is economically -- is there an advantage to it? Couldn't we just do it without it being here? MR. CASALANGUIDA: There's no economic advantage to having it in there. We've got the bridge report adopted. In your AlJIR you have an allocation for bridge improvements with a priority on maintenance first. And then as long as the board adopted the bridgc rcport, having it in here wasn't an issue for us. We wanted to include it, but-- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I'm just more worried about locking the community into a program because it's referenced in here, someone making that kind of argument, versus if you can do it or not when you want to now. I think your flexibility is better off being that way based on thc arnount of money you got coming in. MR. CASALANGUIDA: Sure. And, you know, we havc operation improvements in there as identified. Again, I'll say this: Putting it in here doesn't hurt us or help us. I mean, it's okay if it was out of here. There's no specific bridge identified as a capital improvement in here. It's just a prioritization that the board adopted through the report. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, if it docsn't hurt us, all I'm trying to make sure is that -- we've got a tough few years coming up in Collier County. I would hate to see us inadvertently put a document into this GMP that we're stuck with because we can't change the GMP and all of a sudden DCA latches onto it and says, oh, no, we're not going to let you remove it now. Mr. Murray? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: And doesn't the ORC Report require that -- I read something in there about for the next 10 years that they're pretty strong on saying that we had to. If you're going to have something in there, you've got to be able to show it's financially feasible, et cetera, et cetera. MR. COHEN: We're required to have the first five years being financially feasible. And we have to show them the next five years. But the next five years do not have to bc financially feasible, unless you were to adopt a financially feasible concurrency management system, which some govemments have chosen to do. But our govemment Board of County Commissioners is set on the two-year concurrency management system. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But see, Randy, when the board accepted the bridge report, however they did that, by resolution, ordinance or whatever, they can then change it locally. They can make any arnendments, they can changc it. I'm worried that if we lock it in here, it's even harderto change. And if you guys are comfortable with it, then fine, but I thought I'd raise the question. MR. COHEN: You did raise a good point. Because one of the comments that we've gotten with respect to taking out some items is that they are self-modifYing. And by that is that they would be modified by the board and they wouldn't go through the DCA review process. And if it's not totally necessary to be in there, your suggestion is a good one, sir. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Mark'? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Schiffer? MR. CASALANGUIDA: On your Exhibit A up here doesn't identifY specific bridge improvements other than the Northbrook project, and it's not really a bridge improvement. So there's nothing in your five-year CIE that locks you into a committed bridge. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, again, ['mjust trying to point out, I don't want to see us trapped by DCA or anybody else. Page 23 \, A6 ' lqLat, 16,2009 Brad? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Yeah, my only concern is that it might be associated with some emergency management things. I know that one of the benefits of the bridge is fire response times, things like that. So if it's not hurting anything to be in here, somebody else might be referring to it someplace else. So I think it would be great to leave in, but before you take it out I would look for whether it's being referenced someplace else. MR. COHEN: With respect to fire response time and those emergency management functions like sheriff, arnbulances, obviously the fire trucks, they're not regulated by the state, they're in your AUIR process, so there's really no reason to put the bridges in there with respect to emergency services. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I think it would be safer, Brad, if we still had the same coverage and the sarne impact but can change it more locally than having it in herc. I'd just as soon we not mess the prof,'Tarn up by having it here. Is that going to kill you guys? MR. CASALANGUIDA: No. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Does anybody have a heartbreak? COMMISSIONER CARON: I just wanted to check with the County Attorney and see if they see any issue one way or the other. MR. KLA TZKOW: Well, part of the problem we've historically had with our compo plan is we put too much stuff into it and then years later we find ourselves handcuffed. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Right. MR. KLA TZKOW: So that -- you know, I'vc always been in favor of taking as little as possible to put into the compo plan. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, Brad~ COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Who put it in and why? MR. CASALANGUIDA: I didn't put it in, I think-- MR. SCHMIDT: Yeah, staff chose to put it in for a number of reasons. In the Capital Improvement Element most of those things listed as appendices are unadopted reference documents. And for whatever upcoming projects that we could see in the future that derive from that, from the bridge prograrn, that's a good source document to have. And it simply catalogs it, libraries it and tells us whcre to find it. MR. CASALANGUIDA: Let me add to that, maybe a reason not to take it out. And I've thought about it a little bit more. As long as you haven't identified a specific bridge in your five-year CIE, having it in there by reference is good, because your document's going forward. When you go to build one of these, they're going to be referenced in your compo plan. One of the reasons DOT is having a hard time with the 1-75lEverglades PD&E project is because our CIE doesn't reference the long-range transportation plan, the 2030 plan. So it may be a problem later when we want to bring it in. People might want to say why, it's not in your compo plan to have bridges. Fiscally since it's not noted as a spccific bridge location in our five-year Exhibit A, it doesn't bind us to build a specific bridge within that five years. So I think maybe it's a good idea to leave it in. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Norm? MR. FEDER: If I could, Mr. Chaim1an, in reinforccmcnt of what Nick just said to you, the other part of that equation is we went through that study, because we do have actually an unusual situation in Collier County. We have a grid in the Estates. Unfortunately it's cut up by a lot of canals. And part of what we're doing out there is trying to acknowledge that while we need some major arterials still in the system, we don't need to address it like we addressed the urbanized area. We need to take advantage of that Page 24 16It"..'" January 16, ~0b'9 two-lane grid as much as we can, and that's why we carne up both from a safety perspective and an overall transportation statement that I think is important to the folks in the Estates, that we're not looking at trying to establish an arterial grid out there, we're tf)~ng to utilize the two-lane grid and we're going to have to augment it with some roadway work in the future. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I have a question. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Murray? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Are the bridges -- Norm, are the bridges to be paid for with impact fees? MR. FEDER: Bridges right now aren't (phonetic) to be looked to be paid for. They're being paid for out of gas tax. They could theoretically, if we make the argument on capacity, but we've had so much capacity improvement in the past and now so few impact fees it's probably still going to stay in the bridge prograrn. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I know, but let's assume for the sake of argument that, you know, it was -- MR. FEDER: Could they be? The argument could be made if you're utilizing and expanding your overall capacity by lowering trip lengths and times and service, level of service. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Then the next logical question would be, based on the sheer lack of numbers out there in terms of people and therefore property, is the value sufficient to generate the money that you would need to do those things? MR. FEDER: Basically I don't think it's a lack of people out there. At least it wasn't up until just recently. It was growing so rapidly. What you're trying to do is take advantage of a two-lane 6'Tid both for the Estates and everything east of 951, rather than having to try and build more and more expanded facilitics. COMMISSIONER MURRA Y: So are you saying then that there's a radius, if you will? Because I know there's various bridges, I saw that document. So there's a radius of those homes that would end up -- MR. FEDER: Yes. You're serving a catchment area with differcnt bridges. What we figured out after 13th -- and don't use that as your model, folks -- was you don't put in a single bridge. You've got to put them into multiples and we've got to do it in a manner where we don't take anyone street and overburden it. So that's why we went through the study and went through -- and it's also to recognize that we need to utilize that two-lane grid. And so that's why I think keeping it in here, especially when you don't have any bridges defined in your dollar assessment, is still viable in your compo plan. But again, we don't think it's a make or break. Obviously we'll go by -- COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Not to beat it to death, but in that radius ifthere are a lot of homes built, those homes have already paid impact fees, you're not going to charge them again, right? MR. FEDER: Yeah. And again, as I said, this is through gas tax. And as Nick noted, we've got about five million a year, which we had, we can maintain it. First for bridge repair/replacement as is needed, and then the balance of that in any year towards building these new bridges. A bridge is somewhere about a million and a half apiece. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Corby or Andy, is there any reason we can't add the entire east 01'951 infrastructure study report then? The reason I want to do that is because it clearly says in there, and it was voted on by the Board of County Commissioners, about the infrastructure needs in the future. And if you'rc going to justify your bridge report, then you might as -- then that thing should be justified the sarne way. And that report clearly says no watcr and sewer past 95 I. So why don't we just put that whole report in there then, if we want to go that route? And then we find a few other reports we can dump in there before today's over. Page 25 ~~. A I.. t~IJ6, 2009 And Mr. Klatzkow's argurnent about cluttering the GMP, we'll make sure we do it real good. I still think this is a bad idea. MR. KLA TZKOW: I think it's a bad idea, too, quite frankly. I'll talk with Nick and I'lJ talk with Randy. Unless they can come up with a compelling reason why it should be in there, my recommendation is going to be to yank it out. MR. COHEN: In one of the other justifications I can give you for, in Jeff's words, yanking it out, is that in the past we obviously have this data and analysis and it really wasn't reviewed by DCA that often, but because we're kind of a focal point for them, I know even this past year the AUIR, they've been reviewing every aspect of that via the Internet. And with the RLSA, they've requested every document that we've put before the RLSA's committee that's been reviewing that particular item, and they've been reviewing that. So the argument to take it out is not a bad one. MR. CASALANGUIDA: One last comment on that. If you seek funds, federal or state funds for it and it's not in your compo plan, it becomes a problem. That's the only -- why I bring it up. I'll leave it at that, but we'll meet with the County Attorney and we'll -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Wcll, if the road system's in the compo plan and you make the road system complete, you have to have a bridge, it gocs without saying that that's part of the process. So I'm not sure why a specific bridge report is a necessity all of a sudden to say you need a bridge and a road that crosscs a canal. MR. CASALANGUlDA: You know what we'll do, and maybe this will solve it? We'll do an LRTP update and we'll hring the bridge report into that and problem solved. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That would probably be better. Okay. Thank you. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: What's an LRTP') CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Any other questions -- pardon me? MR. FEDER: Long-range transportation plan. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: What's an LRTP update, Nick? MR. CASALANGUIDA: Long-range transportation plan. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That moves us on to Pages --let's do two at a time -- CIE-2 and CIE-3. Are there any questions there? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I do. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Schiffer'! COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And it's on the addition of "and wastewater". Is the intent to create a second category or is it to renan1e the existing one? In other words, in the appendix you call sewer-wastewater, here it's sewer and. So what is the intent? MR. SCHMIDT: The intent is to provide a year of transition between old terminology and new. Almost all the documents used by water and wastewater are just that. And in an effort to refer to some documents that we cannot change now while we're doing the CIE, such as those individual sub-elements that already have titles relating to sewer. And when we do get to those next time, we'll make that complete transition and move to wastewatcr, for instance. It'sjust a mattcr of moving from one term to another. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And you're going to eventually drop the word sewer, I guess. MR. SCHMIDT: That's correct. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. Do you think it would be better off hyphening it? Because you are describing two things rather than -- I mean, you hyphen it in the annex, cveryplace else. So I would just hyphcn thc "and" that way. Because it looks to me like maybe you're trying to split up the scwer lines Page 26 ~iW6,2~6 1 from the wastewater treatment plants, so -- MR. SCHMIDT: I follow. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Murray? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Just clarification. Where does reclaimed water come into it? Because I know we have capital potential for ASR's in the future and so forth. Does reclaimed water end up being wastewater? [s that where it will be treated? You have clear -- you have sewer, and I don't know how much of sewer is totally reclaimed, whether it's 80 percent, 60 percent or whatever, or if it's differentiated. And that's I guess the question I'm asking. And as long as you can tell me it's not differentiated, then my question goes away. MR. GRAMATGES: Yeah, Phil Gramatges, Public Utilities. It is not differentiated in this case. Reclaimed water is contained within wastewater in this -- COMMISSIONER MURRAY: So any capital associated with wastewater will also be relatable to any ASR's or any of those type of activities? MR. GRAMATGES: Yes, sir. COMM[SSIONER MURRA Y: Well, that expands that beyond -- okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, we'rc on Pages 2 and 3. Any further comments? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Corby, on Page 3 -- I was waiting for Brad to pick this one up, too. And if you notice C, you already talked about the sanitary sewer and wastewater treatment, but then you've got drainage and storrnwater management. Are they one in the same and you're doing the same thing with them? And if that's the case, shouldn't we hyphenate that too? N orrn says yes. MR. SCHMIDT: We can, yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Why isn't that particular reference in the paragraph that Brad started asking his questions about? MR. SCHMIDT: There's the situation where the terrnino[ogy has already changed and we were simply making up for what we didn't revise last time. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Well, over there you're using surface water management systems, and here you're using storrnwater management system. Surfacc water would be, I'm assuming, sheet flow and collection. Storrnwater management might simply be pipes and more. So may you want to be consistent with those somehow? MR. SCHMIDT: We do, we may and we will. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Do, may, will. Okay, let's move on to Page 4 and 5. Any questions on Pages 4 and 5'1 (No rcsponse.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: On Page 5, under roadways, A-2, we're stating (sic) the level of service in county and state arterial roads and collector roads. Are we ablc to just sct their levels of service? I thought I saw somewhere we could other than 1-75. Is that a true statemcnt? MR. CASALANGUIDA: No. SIS facilities are set by the state. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So thcy set D? MR. CASALANGUIDA: They set 0, yeah. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. And we set above that E. MR. CASALANGUrDA: That's correct. CHA[RMAN STRA[N: So on thc segmcnt of951 that keeps going from -- you're driving down a road, one minute you're on a state road, then you're on a county road, then you're on a state road and then Page 27 16ayury 16~~9 i you're on a county road again. The times we hit the county road we can say that section can be E, but when we hit the state road it's got to be 0'1 MR. CASALANGUIDA: That's correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, that ought to be fun to do your studies on. MR. CASALANGUIDA: It gets even more fun when you get grant money. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Is there any advantage to suggesting that since D's allowed by the state on one section that that ought to really match ours and we ought to coordinate with that until such time the state lowers theirs? MR. CASALANGUIDA: If you --the state will set their standard at D and they won't go below that right now, even though 1-75, what I'm told, is going to 0, which actually they're lowering it. We want to keep ours at E. You would not be able to maintain level of service D as a capacity, so we won't go there. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: How does the state do it then? MR. CASALANGUIDA: They don't. They just don't. That's standard. And if it goes over, they'll budget it. And when it gets there, it gets there. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, how do we approve additional impacts then if we're beyond the threshold oflevel of service that was set by the state? MR. CASALANGUIDA: We don't. We let the state right now be more active in reviewing projects that affect any of the SIS facilities. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. If we set E, which is as bad as you can get without failing, doesn't that become the target as a standard? Instead of -- I mean, it becomes more or less a goal. And I'm just wondering if that's a smart thing to do. But I understand -- I now understand your argument. If we don't do that, we're doomed. MR. CASALANGUIDA: Right. You go to, you know, C, 0, or one of those other categories. CHA1RMAN STRAIN: Can we have an E plus and E minus, maybe, something like that? (Laughter. ) MR. CASALANGUIDA: You can go to Lee County's standard which is E plus plus plus plus plus and, you know, 1.5 E over C and that's okay. Hope they're not watching this. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, questions? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Let's go to Page 6 and 7. Any questions on Page 6 and 7? (No responsc.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I guess this is where my concern comes in over the differences in potable water systems. And I really would want to know, and I guess Phil, I don't mean to belabor the point, but I need to ask you. If we sign up for 170 gallons a day, has anybody looked at to how Orangetree, which is probably an inferior system because it's had so many DEP citations and other things compared to the way you run your system. Immokalee Water and Sewer, I don't know how professional they run their operation, they may be fine. I know Florida Government Utility Authority has some issues with the residents out there that you may not have in yours. And Ave Maria is brand new. They're all much, much significantly lower than we are. And you're saying that's bccause of the mix of housing that's there that's that greatly attributed to that? MR. GRAMA TGES: Phil Gramatges, Public Utilities. That's the only factor that I can use to deterrnine that that number makes sense for them. I do know that the density in Orangetree is different than it is for Collier County overall. Now, Ave Maria is a different story, but that's a brand new utility. Very difficult to draw conclusions based on something like that. [ know that eventually they are going to have a lot of residential Page 28 16Jtnr'16A2~9 I units there, but right now they have none, or very few anyways. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, your density issue, you mean Orangetree beeause of its high density or low density? MR. GRAMA TGES: I would think that because they are high density, they would have less eonsumption per capita. Remember that one of the biggest faetors in the eonsumption is irrigation. And when you talk about irrigation within Collier County, you take all the water that is used within the water/sewer district and you divide by the population. That takes into account golf courses, that takes into account parks, that takes into account a lot of things that I can assure you do not exist in Orangetree. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Have you ever asked or have they ever provided studies to show how they arrived at their level of serviee, like you have, as to why it's acceptable? MR. GRAMATGES: As part ofthc 10-year water supply plan, we've requested inforrnation from them. Some of them were more willing to provide the inforrnation than others. But the inforrnation was limited. And we need to understand of eourse that it costs them money to produee this. And some of them are reluctant. In fact, some of them have said that they are not going to provide any more inforrnation unless we're paying for it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I read that. And we'll certainly have a discussion on that when we get into the I O-year plan. Because if this county is allowing these zoning impaets to take place, they need to be cooperative with the requests such as we've asked of your department. Or maybe we need to look at a different way of changing things, especially with the upcoming RLSA. I think we can havc an impact on that issue. I hope so. Mr. Schmitt? You're pretty casual today, sir. MR. SCHMITT: Well, I'm sitting in the back and it's Friday. I'm incognito. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I'm not uscd to sceing you likc that. MR. SCHMITT: I'm going to have Jamie French come up to explain to you what's going on, because I know Phil can't explain a lot of this regarding the private utilities. And for the record, I want to make sure folks understand. Orangetree, maybe the water/sewer plant has had some problems, but the Orangetree water plant itself is deemed to be pretty -- well, in full compliance, and is found to be prctty dam good water. But I'll make sure. I want Jamie to come up to talk about what he can do from a regulatory function, and then maybe he can provide some inforrnation in regards to the operational aspects of the utilities. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Jamie's position in the county for utilitics is -- what can he oversee or do? MR. SCHMITT: Jamie works for me. He is the -- he runs the -- thank you, Collier County Water and Wastewater Authority. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You forgot what he did, huh? MR. SCHMITT: Well, these operations are regulatory management. But he's the regulatory -- provides regulatory oversight ovcr the private utilities that are under thc auspices of the County Water and Wastewater Authority. Now, that's different than the Board of County Commissioncrs who sits as the utilities water and wastewater authority for the utilities that arc owned and operated by the county. There's a separate board-appointed authority, Collier County Water and Wastewater Authority, that oversees the private utilities. By statute, they cannot be connected with or in any part related with thc public utilities organization, because for all intent and purposes they are perceivcd to be competing resources. And Mr. Page 29 16 ':~arA 62009 DeLony cannot have any regulatory oversight over the private utilities, because in fact they are a separate entity and can be deemed to be a competitor. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But couldn't Jamie -- MR. SCHMITT: All he does, though, is he evaluates the rate studies and provides the rate studies and analyses as part of the regulatory oversight. And that's all that he has the authority to do. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I read the E-mail that you had with the Barron Collier folks and their response to our request for inforrnation on Ave Maria. We weren't being specific for Ave Maria, we just said all of the private facilities. And out of all of them, I think theirs was the most -- or seemed to be most uncooperative for the future. MR. SCHMITT: Yeah, they basically said you want the analysis, you pay for it and we'll let you do it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And with Jamie's background and knowledge of what is needed, has he reviewed the new language coming up for the GMP changes to the RLSA? Because ifhe hasn't, at some point when the data and analysis of those changes come into play, Jamie's input would be valuable to make sure a policy is written so that there's -- without that cooperation, there's no morc approvals out there. MR. COHEN: Let me go ahead. And we're getting off on a lot of issues with -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No, we're getting off -- I'm trying to understand how these utilities gct away with having different levels of scrvice if we can't do it. MR. COHEN: Well, I hadn't finishcd yet. What I was going to tell you is he's on his way to address your question. So that way we could -- you know, obviously thc specifics of what he has and has not done and what his regulatory authority is, we can have him specifically address those items. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, we'll wait until he gets here then. Page 7, docs anybody have any questions? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Can I ask Phil one question? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Sure. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Phil? Quickly, you know, one of the concerns in some of these districts is they don't provide the same pressure levels that Collier County has as a standard, essentially the 40-psi and the nodes. Is there any way we can make them do that, or is it purely a gallons per day game we play with them? MR. GRAMATGES: I don't see any way in which we as part ofthe public utilities for Collier County can have any -- exercise any authority over them to have them increase their pressure, no. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Because our requirement is above state code, they're staying at state code -- state level? MR. GRAMATGES: The state level requires a residual pressure of20-psi for firefighting purposes. As long as it stays there, they have met the requirements of state law. We go above that. But we cannot force them to do what we do or to do anything different, no. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Except that they are under our domain or not, I guess. I mean, they're independent and we can't put our standards on top oftllem? MR. GRAMATGES: I would have to defer that qucstion to Jamie French, who is a regulator for them. But I would doubt that he can do that too. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Where I was going though, Brad, is that if we can write GMP language for new areas that have to come to us for rezoning, we can cstablish policies that they'll be cooperative in the future tor any utilities that they would be installing. That might be a way to look at it. COMMISSIONER MURRA Y: That's a good idea. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And get where we should have gotten with Ave Maria in the first place, if they'rc the only ones objecting. Page 30 l~tJr2tf> And I'm a little surprised they would. If they got such a good system, they -- I mean, I don't know why they wouldn't want to brag about it, but -- MR. GRAMATGES: If! may, the one that objccted the most was not Ave Maria. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, we only have -- the E-mail that was in our package-- MR. GRAMATGES: Sure, I understand. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- reflects that one. What's the other one? MR. GRAMA TGES: Well, we had some difliculty with all of them, but especially with Orangetree in order to get the inforrnation. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But you did get inforrnation from those -- MR. GRAMA TGES: We did get inforrnation eventually, yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. Okay. Thank you, sir. Move to Page 8 and 9. Does anybody have questions on 8 and 9'1 (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, Pages 10 and I I. There's our school concurrency was added. Mr. Schiffer? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Just one thing. On 9, Corby, everywhere we said the sanitary sewer and wa~tewater, you're going to fix all ofthose, we assurne, correct') MR. SCHMIDT: Yes. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: We don't have to stop and point them out? MR. SCHMIDT: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. MR. COHEN: I wanted to point something out on Page 10. In Policy 4.2, the December 1st reference right there that mimics the statute? There's no way that this governmental entity can meet that deadline, which is the case also with many other governmental entities. And I know DCA is looking at having the legislature push that on out, but we incorporated the date from the statute itself, with the realization that DC A doesn't have a problem, as long as we're working with them on the cIE in its transmittal to DCA. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Mr. Murray? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I have a question on Page 10 having to do with the school system and the lettering in red. And it says, the adoption ofthe school district's capital improvement plan does not obligate the county in any shape, manner or forrn to provide financing for any off-site capital improvements for new schools or the expansion of existing schools unless mutually agrccd. I recognize that there's concurrency requirements and so forth. Is that the Senate Bill 360 -- is that the result of the Senate Bill 360, or is this simply an assertion that we're making? Because it seems in contradiction. What I'm thinking is that the school district, a~ a developer in this context, wants to put another school in. And the county has to be able to support that in concurrency. Does this assertion negate that? Is that what that's intended to do? Did I -- MR. COHEN: Let me go ahead and answer that for you, Commissioner. This particular issue of providing scrvices and capital infrastructure for schools is a bone of contention between counties and county school boards throughout the state. Right now there's some ongoing litigation. It's in the appeal process. At the same time, the legislature is looking at thcir rcvicw of potentially conflicting language in Chapter 163 of the Florida Statutes and Chapter 1013 of the Florida Statutes. In the meantime what we are trying to do as a county is protcct thc financial interest of the county, Page 31 16rln~ 1A 609 just like we would do with any other developer. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: And I thank you, and I appreciate it. That's what I thought this assertion was about. I had forgotten that there were some ongoing issues. And I could see them as potentially very expensive. I thank you for that answer. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, we're on Page 10 and 1 I. If there's no questions, we'll move to 12 and 13. Anybody have anything on 12 and 13'1 (N 0 response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, Pages 14 and 15. (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That takes us to the end of the text and into the cxhibits. MR. SCHMIDT: And at this point I'll refer to the handout that I passed out earlier. It is meant or intended to replace the first page of your five-year schedule of capital improvcmcnts. On it you'll see three areas that have been highlighted. The first one a small change from what previously was indicated as a landscape project to a right-of-way acquisition project. But the two highlighted portions on the page, the project list for Green Boulevard, as well as the note at the bottom of the page relating to it were added. Those are signifIcant, and I can explain those to an extent, but it looks like Mr. Casalanguida will do so as well. MR. CASALANGUIDA: The first highlight was just a change from that Santa Barbara project, 60091, where we corrected it. It said landscaping and we changed it to right-of-way, which is what the appropriate phase was. The Green Boulevard extension, it's a project that we are acquiring right-of~way for a PUD commitment for impact fee credits from a prcviously approved PUD. And we have an cxisting DCA that we're working with the county attorney's offIce to modity. And both of those require those to be noted as a project in the ClE. No county dollar amount has been allocated to that project. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Page 17, any questions? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Nick, on your -- I notice that your Oil Well Road extension is in for '09 for 46 million. Is that road as congested and as crowded as Collier Boulevard is that isn't going to be done until '12 and'13? MR. CASALANGUIDA: You love asking those questions, Commissioner Strain. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I'm -- fIrst question, Nick. MR. CASALANGUIDA: First section of that road, the two-lane road as a congestion oflevel of service issue is. The eastern portion of that road probably is not. But we are undcr contract 10 comrnit that project by a certain time trame. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And that 46 million has been funded? MR. CASALANGUIDA: 46 million has been set aside for that projcct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Was it from impact fecs, from the projects that werc supposed to contribute the impact fecs to it? MR. CASALANGUIDA: Not all of them from that project. But per the agreement, the adjacent districts as well, too. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: More reason why DCA shouldn't be written prior to the project's known impacts on our facilities, so -- but that's another issue for the RLSA. Any questions on Page 18 or 19'1 COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Let mc just ask-- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Schiffcr? Page 32 16atup1l6, f~ COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Nick, what's the reason for carrying some of these projects with all zero funding for the next five years? Just to -- MR. CASALANGUIDA: They've either been encumbered or they're not being -- coming out of your -- some of it's done by turnback. Your Vanderbilt Beach Road landscaping is a turnback fund, so it's not revenues, it's money that was brought to us. So there's a zero dollar amount in the sense in our budget for it. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: But they're still current projects then. MR. CASALANGUIDA: They're current projects. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, 18 and 19, any questions? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Randy or Corby, this is the 000. If you look at the revenue key, revenue source, impact fees? Showing zero. I understand because I just wa~ explained that the AUIR shows -- or the way it's written is it's impact fees uscd for new -- I guess new purchases or new acquisitions. But is that the way the ClE is supposed to be writtcn? Because the CIE and the AUIR -- if the AUIR is a local document and it can be modified in the way it's spelled out as to how the impact fee revenues are spoken, which means if you're not going to spend money for new acquisitions you don't have to show your impact fees, which I think is a little misleading, is this document to he equally misleading? MR. COHEN: Commissioner, the way that every element has to be structured is financial feasibility. And as a result of there being no expenditures, where you sec the OOO's, we do not havc to show any revenues associated with something that we'rc not spending for. So that's why it's zeroed out. And during that five-year increment, what we're actually doing is paying off debt service with impact fees. And there's no new projects there. In the future when projects do get added, you'll see associated revenue from one or more sources. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Likewise, when-- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Go ahead, Mr. Murray. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: When a project is completed and there's no more repayment of impact fees from whatever sourccs, that project is removed from there. MR. COHEN: It will be removed, just like in transportation where-- COMMISSIONER MURRA Y: So it's like -- MR. COHEN: -- projects have bcen rcmoved from the CIE when they were completed the prior year. COMMISSIONER MURRA Y: So this is like a memo item, basically. MR. COHEN: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I was more wanting to make sure that there was full disclosure. And when we know therc's impact fee revenues and there's a shortfall, it seems to me to be fair we ought to show that shortfall. MR. COHEN: I think DCA is more concerned with your ability to pay for something that you're showing more than anything, and that's the requirement of the statute. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, any questions on Pages 20 and 21'1 (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And this may be a similar answer. Under your revenue key, the water systems, there were -- there's rcvcnue in the water system. Of2008, the impact fees for water was 5,922,000. And 2008 wasn't a good year, so we can assume it's going to be somewhere around there and continue to be low for a while. Why doesn't all that show up under the revenue key where it says WIF, water system devclopmcnt Page 33 161r' A6 January 16,2009 fees/impact fees? It's 620,000. That's significantly less than 5.9 million. MR. SCHMIDT: l'lllet Mr. Gramatges address that. MR. GRAMA TGES: Mr. Chairrnan, ifl may, Phil Gramatges, Public Utilities. Could you please repeat the question? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: In 2008 your impact fee revenues to water were 5.9 million. MR. GRAMATGES: Correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: In 2009 we can probably expect them to be fairly close to that. I doubt if they'll go up much; if anything it will probably go down. But it's going to be millions. Your revenue key on Page 20 refers WlF; it says water system development fees/impact fees. It only lists 620,000 for 2009. Why is there a discrepancy between the impact fees coming in and the ones shown on this document? MR. GRAMATGES: All I can tell you is that the impact fees have been coming down considerably from what they were in 2008. I'm afraid I can't give you any more details than that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Could you by Tuesday? MR. GRAMA TGES: I'm sorry" CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Could you by Tuesday? MR. GRAMATGES: I'm sorry? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Could you tell us more by Tuesday? MR. GRAMATGES: Yeah, I should be able to. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Because we're going to meet again Tuesday-- MR. GRAMATGES: Yes, we are. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- and that's an important number. Because it's 5,300,000 off this year's impact fees, and I don't think you're going to lose 90 percent of your impact fees in '09. You may lose more. But if you still have any at all, I'm just wondcring why it's not more relative to what we've already collected. MR. GRAMATGES: No. However, though, we need to keep in mind that the number of projects that we intend to finance in 2009 is considerably reduced from 2008. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes, sir. MR. GRAMATGES: So -- and that's an estimate of the fact that yeah, impact fees are coming down as well. Yeah, l'll be more prepared on Tuesday. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I've got a question. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Go ahead, Mr. Murray. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Just as a curiosity. When you've come before us in the past we talked about the long-range projection and you're from eight to 11 years out in your planning. Are any of those design, or any of the work that has been put into that, is that salvageable at all? Being that you're deferring those projects now bccause of the reduction in population. MR. GRAMATGES: Oh, absolutely. If you look at thc AUIR and if you compare the 2006 AUIR especially versus the 2007 and 2008, you will see that those projects are moving very fast into the future. We are not reducing any projects in the sense that when the population comes in we're going to have to have the capacity. But the dates where those projects are supposed to come on-line have been deferred. COMMISSIONER MURRA Y: You've moved them out. MR. GRAMATGES: Ycs, sir. Give you one example, the Northeast Water and Wastewater Treatment Plant, which was originally scheduled to start operating on 2012 is now deferred to 2018. That's the biggest project we have on the books right now. Page 34 161 ,~ A 6 January 16, 2009 COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I guess what I was poking around at was that there's a certain amount of preparation, planning, design and then ultimately construction. MR. GRAMATGES: Yes, sir. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Construction and perforrnance are way out at the end of this thing. Are all of the -- everything -- I didn't realize that you were going forward with it. I guess I'm trying to understand whether or not -- you should be ahead of the game theoretically if things pick up. You'll pick up your impact fees, you should be ahead of the game then, right, in terrns of dollars available? MR. GRAMATGES: Let me make sure that I can answer this-- COMMISSIONER MURRAY: This is a shell game here. MR. GRAMA TGES: -- answer this correctly. As far as the impact fees is concerned, we collect impact fees in arrcars. If plant A is up to capacity and there is one other development coming on, we have to open plant B in order to be able to feed that development. The planning period for a new plant is eight years. So eight years before we can estimate that that plant will be necessary we'll begin to spend money. We will not be collecting impact fces against that plant until the time that the plant starts. And even when it does, in order to make it -- in order to take advantage of economies of scale, the plant has to be of a certain size. So the plant will be under-utilized the day it opens. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Yes. MR. GRAMATGES: So the impact fees are going to come after the plant is in operation and more than eight years after we start spending money. So we need to borrow money in order to be able to do the work. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I lost sight of that, actually. And I think it's backwards, but okay, I understand that's the way the construct is, and that's okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Phil, before you leave, what is Fund 411'1 MR. GRAMATGES: 411 is impact fees for water projects. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Do you borrow against that fund? I mean, is that how much you've got coming in, or is that a debt service or is there a debt service related to the -- MR. GRAMATGES: There is debt service related to that money, yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. MR. GRAMATGES: Yes, if you can -- if you look at this list here, you have impact fees coming in, but you have debt service as well. You have 4,380,000 in water capital -- let me now try to explain something that belongs to our financial group. But the truth of the matter is that wc do borrow money to be able to pay for these expansions. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. MR. GRAMATGES: I just explained to Commissioner Murray, those impact fees come in in arrears of us spending the money. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Understand. MR. GRAMA TGES: So we need to borrow in order to be able to do that. And we need to pay for the debt service for that money as well. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. Well, in 2009 you have to pay 4.6 million in debt service to Fund 411. And I wa~ just curious what that was. And now you've described it and I appreciate that. Thank you, it helps. MR. GRAMATGES: Sure. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, are thcre any questions on Page 21 '! Twenty-one is the landfill. (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Page 22'1 Twenty-two is wastewater. Page 35 16 I P!~' A 6 January 16, 2009 And Phil, the same question. You don't have to get up and answer it, but it's the same question on the impact fee revenue versus the amount shown on this document. So we'll just defer that until Tuesday for explanation. And Jamie's here and he's anxious to move Corby out of the way and talk to us about the PSA and all of the things he does. MR. FRENCH: Which hat am I wearing? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I'm not sure. I think we probably can-- MR. FRENCH: Is this about Comcast? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No. We wouldn't burden you with that. You don't even want to know about Comcast. MR. FRENCH: Just checking. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Just out of curiosity, are we going to gct a better channel and the fuzz going to go away? MR. FRENCH: You know, ifyou'rc interested, I'll tell you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Sure. You better identify yourself for the record, Jamie. MR. FRENCH: Okay. My name is Jamie French. I scrve as the -- in this particular capacity I serve as the executive director for thc Collier County Water and Wastewater Authority. But I also am Joe's operations manager and I am the local franchise administrator as well for all the private utilities. Well, with Comcast, there are certain requirements that they have. And if anyone chooses to give them a call, if you're receiving a weak signal on Channcl 97, they'll come to your home or your business and they'll check the signal coming into the home. And if in fact there's signal leak in the house, in your home, they've told us that they will actually go and make the repair. If it's in the business, there may be a cost for them to go inside of a business, because primarily what happens with signal leak is that a lot of folks, they buy those cheap splitters and they allow for interruption into your cable system. The problem with Channel 97 that we found is that there is a lot -- there's a lot of interference. There's a number of FM stations that operate on the same band width. And so what's happening is that if you've got an unshielded cable or a poor splitter, you're getting that interference in there. But they have come. I know they fixed Building F here. And they've been out to CDS. And they've actually showed me, they've measured the signal coming in and it's clear as a bell. But we've got issues throughout some ofthc older parts of our building down at Horseshoe where I believe we may have some signal leak. But if you've got a problem in your home, make sure you call Comeast, they'll come out, and it's no charge. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, Mr. Wolfley wants to address something, then I will address your question. COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: I almost take it as a slap to the county to jam us up in a channel that nobody looks at. I mean, we were on a great channel for a while, what was it, 11 or something when I was with another company. Clear as a bell. Down where, you know, the other govcmmentaI channels were. And, you know, the real estate channel? Come on. I mean, put us in a place -- MR. FRENCH: I don't argue with you, sir, but I would tcll you that there was legislation that I came before thc Board of County Commissioners with the COlmty Attorney's Office and we fought that legislation in 2006, and we were defeated by morc than two-thirds of the House and the Senate to allow the cable industry to become more deregulated than it ever was. COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: So now we're penalized. MR. FRENCH: Well, no, they think -- I would tell you, the industry has the option to put us in the digital tier. And the local Comcast affiliate has made the -- and what happens in the digital tier is that Page 36 161pJIIA6 January 16,2009 anyone that wanted to see the government channel, they would have to actually subscribe to digital service and rent that equipment in order to be able to see the channel. Now at least we're still in the analogue lineup, so most televisions can receive Channel 97. But they wcre by the book. I will tell you that their attorneys are pretty sharp and they know what the FCC requirements are, as well as the State of Florida as what the new ord -- or as the new statute reads. But-- MR. KLA TZKOW: They wrote that statute. They're not that sharp. COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: That was going to be my next question. MR. FRENCH: Well, I'm going to tell you, when you can afford to throw about $18 million at lobbyists and that industry, compared to what we did, 1 don't make nearly a fraction of that. Just in case you wanted to know. I lost. So it's a -- I got beat up by the digital version ofMa Bell. So -- but to answer your question -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: We appreciate your comments, that's helpful. MR. FRENCH: Well, and 1 know it has nothing to do with this. But I'm happy to answer. And you caught me a littlc off: I just happened to catch this on TV at the office. It was a little fuzzy, but I did hear it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You had a fuzzy t.v. MR. FRENCH: But good audio. But what are your questions now about the -- my role and the role of the Collier County Water and Wastewater Authority? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: There's a clause in our GMP that requires us to I think -- and Randy, you can probably help me with how --I don't have it in front of me because 1 didn't prepare to argue that point. But we have to report the levels of service and different elements involving all the utilities in Collier County. And when the transmittal came up for this 1 O-year plan, we noticed that the other utilities in Collier County, Immokalee Watcr and Sewer, Orangetree, Ave Maria and I think Florida Cities, and there may have been one other one, didn't provide the reporting data. They didn't supply the supporting data. We asked Phil what the problem was, and he said they had no authority to get it from them. We suggested that based on the GMP they were to provide it. So he went out and after some stressful points in making them do it, he got all of them to at least this time provide it, although it was clear they're not going to be so cooperative in the future. We're wondering two questions: Number one, how can they get away with that, since they're under the umbrella of the overall county ordinance, which I have, for the water and sewer utilities that went up to the legislature. And I think it was House Bill 0849. We actually seem to have some control over the whole county, even though they're a part of it. And while we may not be able to go back retroactively, we'd be also wanting to know if there's language that can be put in place in the GMP, especially with the new GMP language coming up on the eastern lands that would require them to bc more cooperative. MR. FRENCH: Okay. And I'm going to try to answer your question and hopefully within three parts. First !'II address Immokalee Water and Sewer District.lmmokalee Water and Sewer District was a district established by spccial act by state legislation. They are in and of itself their own governmcnt.1 do not regulate them. They don't -- they have their own board. Their board is either elected or appointed, but primarily they are their own scparatc entity. On the other hand, so was FGUA. Florida Governmental Utility Authority is in fact its own governmental utility authority adopted by special act of the Florida Legislation. Howcver, FGUA, when Page 37 - 1J6ult~~ A>6 they bought out Florida Cities Water, they did enter into an interlocal agreement with Collier County that said they would provide us with those numbers on an annual basis. And if I'm not mistaken, FGUA did submit -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes, they did. MR. FRENCH: -- and if we did not have that interlocal agreement, we would have had no -- we wouldn't have been on high ground on that one. We could not have forced them to do it. Now, with the private utilities, you have five private utilities in Collier County. They're either privately held or they're investor owned. They provide a private service. And what happens (sic) is that in 1996 the Board of County Commissioners clcctcd to take away the powers of the Florida Public Service Commission when it came to regulating private water and wastewater facilities, simply because there was no local oversight. You had utilities that are now FGUA that were at one time Florida Cities Water that were receiving two and 300 perccnt markups in their rates. And if you as a citizen or as a customer of that utility wanted to say something about it, you were stuck driving to Tallahassee to appear before the Florida Public Service Commission whenever it appcared on the docket to voice your concerns. But Florida Public Service Commission are appointed seats by the Governor, and so you really have no local representation. So at the time the Board of County Commissioners elected to exercise their right under home rule authority to take that powcr back. And that's where they established the Water and Wastewater Authority. The Board of County Commissioners is the ex officio. They arc the Water and Wastewater Authority. But in this particular case they've appointed a five-member board, quasi judicial, that are three technical experts and two lay members. Primarily what we look at is we look at customer service where we regulate their service base. And we also regulate rates to make sure therc's legal sufficiency or rational nexus behind the number. In this particular case there was no enabling ordinance that we're aware of or no state statute that requires them to provide this data to you. They were glad -- they would gladly provide it to you, but because these are private companies that arc for profit, most of their employees, and like an engineer for instance that would do this type of study, that's a contract employee. It is not built into the rate calculations, it's not built into thc rate base, and they havc a right to pass this on to the rate payer. Staff~ me, I would not allow that to be a recoverable expense unless there was legal sufficiency behind that cost. So T could bring this to the Water and Wastewater Authority, but unless there is an enabling ordinance or unless thcre is a state statute, or if it's tied to their consumptive use perrnit, I can't let them recover the cost. And my recommendation to the -- and it's not up to me, it's up to the Water and Wa~tewater Authority. But staffs recommendation in that case would be not to grant it. So Ave Maria said, hey, we'll do it. And I think I got a copy of the letter that you had referred to earlier from Rose, Sundstrom and Bentley. Rut they wanted to get paid, because they wanted to make sure that that's a cost that they can recover. Now, the thing about these utilities are, if you know anything about the utility business, especially in the private utility busincss, you never make money. And so anything you do, you try to recover. They don't have the ability to charge impact fees. So anything they have to do as far as capital improvement projects or any type of expansion gcnerally goes through a refundable advance agreement with the developer who fronts that money, or they get thc -- they recover through rate base. And that's the rate cases, and that's what we do. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Wcll, Randy, when we went back with the 10-year plan to DCA and they came back with their comments, weren't thcy telling us we had to get some of this information? And I'm Page 38 16It.A~ January 16, ~M not into that -- I have the plan -- I don't want to ask my questions too early, so I haven't opened it all up, but I thought there was some reference in that regarding that issue. MR. COHEN: The ORC Report that came from DCA that included those comments pertaining to the private utilities was based on comments that DCA received from the Water Management District. The Water Management District wanted that inforrnation in our lO-year water facilities supply work plan. And obviously the corresponding numbers in thc ClEo We had cooperation from Immokalee and cooperation from FGUA. We anticipated having cooperation from Orangetree and Ave Maria in our initial talks. Those broke down at the last minute, which was very unfortunate. Contacted the Water Management District to let them know what was transpiring, as well as not having -- enabling legislation or an ordinance that would require them to provide us with that inforrnation. The ironic part about it is, this is the first instance where they've had a governmental entity, a county where they had privatc utilities, that did not provide the inforrnation to them. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Why is that happening here and nowhere else in the state? MR. FRENCH: Well, and I would tell you, I can't speak for anywhere else, but we have thc same powers, and Collier County has the Florida Public Service Commission. The Florida Public Service Commission would not require them to do this. And that's why their law office, which is based out of Tallahassee -- and I would tell you that their rcpresentation, it's the samc law firrn that represents Orangetree and Ave Maria, they're probably one of the single best in utility law. They specialize. Bill Sundstrom is who heads up that firrn. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah, I've worked with him. MR. FRENCH: And he has appeared before the Florida Public Service Commission probably hundreds of times. So he recognizes what our authority is. And it wasn't -- I don't know how things work between staff, but as a regulator I would tell you that I did question them. They came back and they said, gee, Mr. Regulator, are you going to allow us to recover these costs? And I said sure, show me where it's legal sufficiency -- or there's legal sufficicncy behind that cost. They pointed out there is none. It's not tied to their consumptivc usc perrnit, it's not tied to their franchise, and it's not a requirement of the Florida Public Service Commission. So I don't know that from the regulatory standpoint in tying this rcquirement to their franchise that we'rc even going to be able to do it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, but the second part of my question was we are making some major sweeping changes in areas that would most likely have a request for a new private utility, such as Ave Maria. MR. FRENCH: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And that one's over and done with. Whatever rules they applied, we have to live with the rules and each side should live with them accordingly. But we also have a rcqucst from another town out there, Big Cypress. Could we build into the GMP a requirement that those areas provide these annual reports as -- or whatever time frame they're required, and that givcs you the legal sufficiency to tell them that they can go ahead and utilize them? MR. FRENCH: Ifit was tied to their development, absolutely. Because we do recognize local ordinances. That's not a prohlem. But I couldn't -- I guess my point is I see no way that I could tie it to the franchise. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Understand. MR. FRENCH: But if there was another enabling ordinance or enabling law that mandatcd that they provide that, that's a recoverable expense that they could factor into their rate base. Page 39 l6ul~: 216 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, all the infornlation that you have provided and others over the course of time builds up to the time when we have the ability to enact new laws through GMP policy. And that's coming up here very shortly. So the timing is good to know this inforrnation. Because if we want to, we can suggest that as a recommendation to the BCC. MR. FRENCH: Right. Well, I do know that the utilities did provide us with what their average daily consumption is based off of local operator. And I can tell you, if there's any questions while I'm here about any of these utilities, l'll be happy to answer them for you. I know that there were some questions about Orangetree earlicr about service quality, as well as with Ave Maria. And I can -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, the question was the different Icvels of service. Right now Collier County is dropping its level of service from 185 to 170. MR. FRENCH: Right. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And the concern was that why are we at 170 when four different utilities aren't even close to that? I think the highest of any of the four is somewhere around 109 and I think -- or 110, that's Ave Maria. So if Ave Maria, a brand new and probably a very well run facility, can do it at 110, Orangetree is at 105 I think and Immokalee 100, and thcn Florida Gulf at 109, yet we're still at ] 70. I'm not saying we're wrong or they're right, I'm trying to figurc out why there's such a big difference. MR. FRENCH: Well, what the difference could be is when you'rc -- you don't have -- with Orangetree, at least, and I can't really speak for Ave Maria, because there's only about 200 connections in Ave Maria. But with Orangetree -- and I know Phil mentioned it earlier -- there's zero reclaim. They've primarily got zero drops going on the ground. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: What is that? MR. FRENCH: What I mean by that is that every home out there has been issued a consumptive use perrnit for an irrigation well, or through the Swiftmud agreemcnt they'rc pulling off of the irrigation. Their irrigation is coming offthe lakcs. So they have zero treated water that is really going through. In fact, they'rc using their own reclaimed water to water their golf course at Valencia Countryclub, because it just so happens to be owned by the same guy who owns the utility who is the president of the master association, Mr. Boldt. So, so far as I know, they are piping water to that area, bccause some of this was -- you know, originally when this was dcsigned, the rcclaimed wasn't a requirement back in 1985, 1986 when they created this community. But now as they cxpand their consumptivc use perrnit, and this utility is using-- boy, I want to say they're about 10 million gallons a month on potable watcr. With the expansion of their consumptive use pcrrnit, I know they are putting some reclaimed water on the ground in that area. But thcy do a good job as far as with any of their 1&1 issues, much less any of their leaks that they find throughout the community. I mean, private utilities just don't make a lot of money. I mean, they're only guaranteed the right to make up to 10 percent return. Anything over 10 percent they have to refund back to their customcr base. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Today isjust the -- we're getting into the CIE, which is a limited exposure to some of these issues. But probably not today but most definitely Tuesday we're going to be working our way through the I O-year water supply plan. I don't know how many of the others, but [ know that I havc still a lot of questions about the inforrnation provided on the private utilities. So I don't know if that helps for your timing on Tuesday or not. I don't know which -- MR. FRENCH: l'll read through it and l'lI try to get as up to speed as I can. And I'm happy to come along and answcr any questions you might have with me. Page 40 161 '~A6 January 16,2009 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: We're going to be here at 2:00 on Tuesday. MR. COHEN: And I'lI work with Mr. French. Because some of that inforrnation that is in there came from the Water Management District itself, and I'lI clarily that with him. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you, Jamie. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Ijust-- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Go ahead, Mr. Murray. MR. FRENCH: Yes, sir? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: What I think I discern from that is that South Florida Water Managcment District wanted the answers to questions based on consumptive perrnits and they went to the DCA to require the county to get that inforrnation; is that the -- MR. COHEN: The Water Management District is, by law, by statute, a commenting agency. And in their comments with both respect to the CIE and also to the IO-year water facilities supply work plan, in particular the water supply work plan, they raised the issue of the private utilities operation and also their future demand with respect to consumptive use. Those were the primary interests. And whether or not they could documcnt the operating function today. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Okay. What I want to drive at is that the way I suggested that they went around going to DCA to come to us. Docs not the South Florida Water Management District have its on regulatory function? Doesn't it have its own means of obtaining that information, since they issue the perrnit? MR. COHEN: Exactly. And that level of service -- we had initial talks with the private utilities, and they verified that level of service based on operation. What they needed to verity was -- through an cngineer obviously, was I think the reliable capacity and how things worked. And that's where we ran into a problem in getting that inforrnation. When they go for the expansion of their consumptive use perrnits, which a lot of them will have to do, they're going to have to demonstrate, just like the county would have to demonstrate, the need for additional water, what type of additional water, and what their existing operational function is in terrns of level of service. COMMISSIONER MURRA Y: So thcoretically thesc semi-autonomous facilities or operations can defer until their consumptive use permit becomes necessary, and then they have to provide the inforrnation to the party that wants it in the first place, right? MR. COHEN: I think the key here is, and I think Mr. French hit the nail on the head when he talked about maybe an enabling ordinance that gave additional authority to the county, possibly. Or when we go through the review process for future large projects with private utilities versus out in the RLSA, that we address it in the DRI development order, the SRA that's associated with the town, or some other document that is affiliated with that development that goes forward. And that way we can get it up front. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I guess from my point of view what I would think is that if they really wanted a good exercise of responsibility, they'd provide the county through the regulator with the opportunity to perfi)rrn fully and get that infonnation and provide for whatever recovery of costs are necessary. But it looks like I tell my cousin to tell my brother to tell my uncle to do something. That's what it gets to be. MR. FRENCH: And I will say -- again for the record, Jamie French. But I will say that -- and I know it wasn't sworn testimony. My group has had talks with Ave Maria. And I don't know if they've spoken with the planning staff or Randy's group, but thcy are in the middle of their consumptive use perrnit and expanding their capacity. And I believe this was a rcquirement of the state bcfore they would be granted. Page 41 161 TIFI" ' January 16,20l)9 That study is due out sometime in the future. And I know that they said that they would provide this, but in the event that we wanted anything additional, they were going to need to be able to recover those costs. So I'll also check. I'll go over the comments before I return on Tuesday. I'll have some conversation with the private utilities and see if! can confirrn some of the numbers for you, and happy to answer any questions that you -- COMMISSIONER MURRAY: The South Florida Water Management District unfunded mandate. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You may want to look at the document that we were looking at on Tuesday. It has a section in it with some letters from the attorneys. MR. FRENCH: Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Attorneys for the utility as well as attorney -- our County Attorney on the application of how we can request these things of those utilities. It might give you some background. MR. FRENCH: Certainly. MR. COHEN: And Commissioners, your point is valid, because what concerns us as a staff is that if the Water Managcment District, you know, issues a strong objection again, that it turns into an objection that DCA raises and we're found not in compliance as a result of something that we have no control over. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you, sir. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Mark, I have a question. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes, sir. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Jamie, one quick thing. When you're looking it up, we'll talk about it next week, but is the concept of the pressures that we require in Collier in the municipal -- or in the county system versus what's provided in the municipalities? MR. FRENCH: The pressures as far as what, sir? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: In terrns of -- I mean, where it came up is in fire flow. We have parts of our town that are on other municipalities' districts that are t~\f inferior and thus the ramification of that goes all the way into building materials before -- MR. FRENCH: I do know that there are concerns in the FGUA system. And again, as their own government they are working on that. I do have their capital improvement plan tor this year. They just went through a pretty hefty rate increase. And based on the agreement we have with them, we have no veto power or setting rates. We do have some regulatory authority over their customer service and how they bill. But thcre are concerns there, but as far as the other utilities, I am unaware of any fire flow issues. And the water pressures are mandated by the State of Florida through the DEP as tar as potable water servIce. But fire flow is a requirement within their -- within the DEP's guidelines, so far as I know. And I can go back and double check that. I may stand to be corrected, but I've not heard of any concerns from either the fire districts or from the utilities, other than FGUA, that there were fire flow concerns with pressures. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Well, you know, in the fire task force, City of Naples and some of the areas, like for example, Bayshore, had some concerns. But the question really is of Collier County, thc county-wide systcm has a higher standard than the municipalities serving within the county. We have no authority to makc them meet that. MR. FRENCH: You would probably have that over the private utilities, because they're not a government. You wouldn't have it, as you said, over the FGUA or the -- or Immokalee because of -- the Immokalee Water and Sewer District, because they're both special districts. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: But how about City of Naples, would we have -- Page 42 IJ6ulJ.l~ ~~A 6 MR. FRENCH: I have no authority whatsoever over any municipality or township. In fact -- if in fact it was the Town of Ave Maria that owned the utility, it would be an unregulated utility. It's just, simply put, they made the decision to go private, and cities -- the regulatory authority can only be handed down to a county, not a municipality or township. It either goes to the state or it stays with the county, and that's it. That's as far down as it goes. So we have no authority over the city as far as a regulatory matter or regulatory body at all. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: All right, thanks. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you, Jamie. The next page we have to get to is Page 23. Before we get into that page, I need to find out how the AUIR as approved ties into the ClE. Because Exhibit A on Page 23 is not consistent with the evaluations provided in thc AUIR, and I would like to know why and how that's possible. MR. SCHMIDT: There's a few explanations that were included in your staff report appendices, changes that may have occurred between the preparation or approval of the AUIR and the preparation of this document. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. But I think, Corby, what I'm trying to find out is if the Board of County Commissioners approved an AUIR, did they approve every number in there as being what they wanted to use? And if that's thc case, how do we changc and modify something that the board previously approved as a year-long document for the three-month adjustment to now be put in the ClE? MR. SCHMIDT: I think the direction that the AUIR gives us is the basis for the CIE each year. It is not a -- not staffs intention to give you a reproduction of it with the CIE. And so you sec the useful parts of that AUIR, and that basis being used in the CIE herc and the rcsults of that prcparation. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So whcn the AUIR says that there will be a -- I think transportation is one that was -- I don't mean to pick on Norrn and everybody all the time, but it showed a five-year impact fee revenue of$170 million, and this document's showing 147. 147 is obviously more conservative. I'm not --I don't think that's wrong to be more conservative, but I'm wondering, what does this mean in regards to the needs for the Board of County Commissioners if they thought they were approving funding with $170 million revenue stream from impact fees that are now going to be more or less used at 14 7? How does that play out? MR. FEDER: Mr. Chairrnan, first of all, the AUIR represented a significant reduction from thc prior year's AUIR, as you realize, under impact fees. And what you've got here, the AUIR is a snapshot in time to try and dircct what projects we need to bring in our program relative to our concurrency management system. We identified that in the AUIR. At that time wc anticipated that we would have about 35 million in impact fee collections for this year. Based on the way we're tracking, we're not going to be therc. As you see in your current one, you've got 25. Now, the importance there is I was at 72 million the prior year. So we thought we were being very conservative in going down to the 35 and carrying that on out. As you see, we've been more conservative, that's why you lost ovcr 23,24 million trom even the AUIR. Having said that, we have a discussion, we had some of that today. Thcre's a possibility impact fees might be reduced in transportation. If they are, the first inclination, at least onc thing that was raised to us, is not to put the trip length in. And that 24, 25 million that we're expecting this ycar will probably be reduced to about another six million. And if that gets carried over in time, you can see that six million in one year is 30 million over five, all things being equal, and they're not, but adjusted throughout. So cssentially what I'm saying to you is we havc to react to that picturc and that point in time. And we're in extremely volatile timcs, and that's why at the beginning of the meeting I said to you, if you allow Page 43 Wr!i6: 2~6 ., me to say definitely maybe to some of your questions, I can answer them. And this is our best estimate of where we'll be when we did the CIE for you. But based on last board meeting and depending what comes out of those discussions, we may be having to adjust it again. What does it mean? It means obviously that our projects get delayed, some get pushed out. For instance, if! had that six million totaling a little over 30 million, then you can look at my CIE and probably the net result is some things will get shifted in years and then eventually one of my 213 -- year '13 projects will be moved out of the five-year program. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Well, my concern, and I know why you answered it, but I just wanted to make sure that there was the latitude once a document like the AUIR is reviewed and approved publicly and the values in that are approved publicly, that we can modity it for the CIE when the CIE I thought was supposed to be based on that document. MR. COHEN: Fundamentally the CIE is based on the AUIR. But it's incumbent upon us as a staff, when we see that there's like a gross deficiency in revenue projections, to provide that to the board, not to mislead them in moving forward with capital improvements in the associated planning. Likewise, there are some items that sometimes we include in the AUIR. But in terrns ofregulation, they're not required, okay, to be regulated by the state. And that transpires. An example would be the landscape medians with the arterial roads. Another example would be the smaller drainage projects that you see in the AUIR. But historically this county has only carried forward the major drainage projects in the ClE, which is acceptable to the Department of Community AfTairs. So when we say that it's there, it is there. But at the same time there are a few changes in which you recognize the changes in impact fee revenuc. And that is a major concern as we move forward. And also at the same time, we've seen a decrease in some of the demand since the AUIR as well. So we've tried to address that. And also, by showing DCA where that decrease in demand has occurred, to allow us to even possibly move some of those projects out furthcr. And next year I'm anticipating with Norm as wcll that you're going to see that -- some other items pushed out because of the population figures being what they are, which usually will result in decreased demand. And if our vacancy rates stay wherc they're at, as well as the workers not coming into Collier County, his traffic counts are probably going to stay down, which will give us some documentation as to why we can move some things out further, which benefits this county when we go through the budget process. MR. FEDER: I would say it just slightly different, but mainly yes. While we have some traffic counts down, the impacts aren't being fClt right now and so we don't run into the problems. But we don't do it on a population basis, we do it on a long-range planning of which we have a shortfall even in thc long-range planning, as does every othcr county or area in the state. And so we're trying to proceed on the projects. And a lot of this is revenue gcncrated as to what we can deliver. But it is true that we have some lower demands right now, and so we're able to work with that in the five-year program. MR. COHEN: And one of the keys that we have, when Norrn says revenue generated, you know, he looks at the perspective of providing things from a long-range transportation planning process, and I have to look at it from the CIE standpoint, which is making sure that it's financially feasible. So when the Board of County Commissioners gets the CIE and certain projects are included in there, that they don't have to go to an alternative revcnuc source, which would be ad valorem taxes. So we have to be a steward with respect to also protccting with regard to the upcoming budget and also the budget ovcr the five years, especially during these volatile times. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, I have a follow-up question, but Ms. Caron has one as well. Page 44 16 ~mlary 16A269;1 COMMISSIONER CARON: Well, go ahead and follow up and then I'll ask. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Based on what you just said then, if you go to that Exhibit A and go down to solid waste projects, it shows landfill tipping fees at 10,923,000. Yet the AUIR showed landfill tipping fee revenues at 4.01. Why would we have such a discrepancy like that if we're trying to be more conservative? MR. GRAMATGES: Commissioner, Phil Gramatges. The numbers that you have here, and looking at Exhibit A, Page 23 -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes. MR. GRAMATGES: -- do match the numbers that we have in the AUIR.I really don't understand where you see the discrepancies. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, well, here, I'll show you. Here's the AUIR, if you want to see it. Do you have it, Corby? If you turn to Page 70 in the land -- solid waste landfill capacity for the AUIR, it shows landfill tipping fees at 4.0 I. Is that not right then? MR. SCHMIDT: It's not that it's not right, it's that there was a new arrangement with Waste Management since the preparation of the AUIR, and the schedule for the construction of cells and so forth, and I think there's an explanation in one ofthe staffreport appendixcs. If not, I apologize. But that was one of the clearer ones where there had been a recent change in the contract and the schedule for the construction of the cell's landfill has changed so the costs havc changed. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, wait a minute, now. If we had 4.01 lor tipping fees and the tipping fees are now going to be 10.93, who's paying for that difference? And do we have an authorized increase in tipping fees as a result of this new arrangement that the board's approved? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I think they raised the rates. MR. WIDES: Good afternoon. For the record, Tom Wi des, the Operations Director for Public Utilities. I was monitoring on TV and I heard a number of questions, not just this one on the tipping fees. I'd like to try to address all those for you, rather than waiting till Tuesday and then have to refresh it in everyone's mind, if we could. Would that be acceptable? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, you can address -- but I mean, to be honest with you, Tom, the 1 O-year water supply plan, I have questions, numerous questions on many pagcs that I can't get -- we won't get into today. But you can address any issucs you heard today, certainly. MR. WIDES: Well, let me go with the one that's on your minds right now. Okay, first off the AUIR is done in a point in time, the CIE's are done in a later point in time. We have the opportunity to see the status of projects. The reclamation of cells one and two at thc landfill, that project has moved faster than we expected, okay. We show you the revenues in these plans that we'll need for those projects, for those capital projects. In addition, we bring in revenues for the operating fund, which is really not part of this effort. So yes, 1 don't have the exact four versus 10, but you also have ~m operating contract that those same funds have to go to fund. So again, ifl may, we use what we need for the capital side out of the landfill tipping fces to support the capital projects. But then you have a whole operating side of the business, including the contract with Waste Management, just to administer the work at the landfill. Those tipping fees also pay for that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. And I don't -- and Tom, I'll give you guys plenty of time. On Tuesday we're going to meet again. But let me -- on Page 70 of the AUIR, so you have a reference to look at between now and Tuesday, it talks about the landfill ccll construction. cells A-3 and A-4, phases one and two, total capital expenditures. Page 45 161.IMAL January rt,2(fMJ And then it says landfill tipping fees as part of the landfill operating agreement, and it provides a number. If that number isn't the total landfill tipping fees, and if that's the explanation, then that's fine. But the way it was presented by the A UlR from my reading of it -- and I didn't attend the meeting, so this could have been asked and I just missed it because I wasn't there -- I assunle that was all the tipping fees. And if there's more than that, then so be it. MR. WIDES: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But that's why the question was -- and if you could look at that by Tuesday, if someone can respond, that would work great. MR. WIDES: Absolutely. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. MR. WIDES: Absolutely. Could I just take one moment -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Sure. MR.WIDES: -- to cover your water and wastewater topic, or would you rather we wait? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: It's up to you. I'm still going to have questions, because I haven't -- MR. WIDES: Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I haven't asked them all because they're in that other book we haven't even got to yet. MR. WIDES: Okay, fine. Then we'll wait till Tuesday. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ms. Caron had a question. I'm not sure of who. COMMISSIONER CARON: Actually, it was ofNorrn, and he walked out, so-- MR. WIDES: We did that on purpose. No. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I'm sorry. He left completely? Did Norrn leave for the day? COMMISSIONER CARON: No, he'll probably be back. MR. WIDES: I think he just stepped out for a moment. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, when he comes back we'll ask it. And Tom, thank you for trying to providc the answers, and we'll hit it again on Tuesday on that one. MR. WIDES: Very good. Thank you, sir. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: There may be more today, but I just don't know until we finish this book. MR. WIDES: Very good. Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you, sir. Anybody else have any questions on Page 23'1 (No response?) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You know, Cherie', I bet you could use about 10 minutes. Would that work for you? Okay, well, let's come back here at 4:10. It will be actually 13 minutes. We'll give you a little more time. We'll come back at 4: I 0; we'll take a break tor now. (Recess. ) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. Welcome back from our break. As we said earlier in thc mccting, we're going to end today's -- we're going continue the meeting at 5:00 to Tuesday at 2:00. So we've got about a little less than an hour letl to see if we can get through this first book, at least, and go from there. Before we go into it, a clarification. I was talking during break to Randy, and there was a clarification that might be needed to explain that the numbers shown in the CIE are locking us in. But there's an opportunity to modify those if revenues decrease as a result of less impact fees. And Randy, could you explain that process? Page 46 16nla~'16, ~c6 MR. COHEN: Yeah, I wanted to go on the record again pertaining to the statute itself with respect to financial feasibility and how DCA would interpret that. Once you put a project in the five-year window of your CIE, it's considered to be financially feasible. And you've identified a revenue source that's going to pay for that. And if that revenue source was to evaporate or not come through, you have alternative revenue sources that can be used to replace that identifiable revenue source. You can, however, take projects out of your CIE based on other data and analysis. And if you looked at the existing CIE and the one that you have today, you will see that we have pushed a tremendous amount of projects out into different years out of the five-year CIE based on either declining population, reduced demand, which we've been able to gather data on, a lot of the things that Corby discussed earlier in his introduction. So those are items that we would provide to DCA to show why we were able to push projects out. A lot of times decreased revenue sources is associated with decreases in demand or decreases in growth as well. I know next year we're going to show a decrease in population and how those population projections actually are projected in the future is going to result in pushing out projects in a lot of different areas as well, too. So that is something that you have to consider every year when we go through the CIE process. And we need to provide you with that data and those demand factors that show you why things are being pushed out. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Question? CHAlRMAN STRAIN: Okay, thank you. Go ahead, Mr. Murray. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Randy, are there any projects that have now been pushed out beyond the 1 O-year envelope? Or have you decided to just push the current five-year out into the next -- MR. COHEN: What I can tell you is this, is some of the projects that were in the I O-year window obviously are going to get pushed out, okay? And you're going to see more in the AUIR because we go further out in the AUIR.I think we go out 20, 20 years, I believe, or 25. You're going to see a lot of those projects that had been scheduled sooner get pushed out way later. For example, with solid waste. If we have a decrease in population and demand just like this past year, your capacity at the landfill is going to be pushed out more years as well. So that's kind of what we're going to be looking at. And possibly in the future if we have a big spike, you know, then things may collapse a little bit more. COMMISSIONER MURRA Y: I'm just concerned. The reason I askcd that question, I was concerned with the DCA, whether or not it would try to push issues. And I guess you have control of that still, right? MR. COHEN: One of the things that we did, and I had Corby sit in with me, is talk to them with respect to the type of data and analysis we were providing in the demand category to show why we were pushing things on out, and to make sure that what we were going to provide to them was -- COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Real. MR. COHEN: -- what they were looking for. And I believe we have an understanding of what we're doing. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, we let! ofron Page 23. Anybody have any questions on Page 23 remaining? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, we'll move on to page -- well, 24 doesn't exist in my book. Page 47 1(,+1(116, ~e MR. SCHMIDT: Just a matter of page numbering. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. So Page 25 is a single paragraph, so let's look at 26 and 27. Anybody have any questions through those pages? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I do. Page 26, the footnotes. It refers to Appendix I, or L. I can't tell which it's supposed to be. It's either a capital I or a little L. Where is it? MR. SCHMIDT: It is an I. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, but where is it? MR. SCHMIDT: Oh, where is it? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah. MR. SCHMIDT: It was an attachment to your last version of the CIE. We prepared it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: What do you mean last version? MR. SCHMIDT: I'm sorry, you saw it in December of'07 and it was approved and adopted by the board in January of'08. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Do we have a new version? I mean, if we're approving it as part of this document and it's referred to, don't you think we should have got a copy of it? MR. SCHMIDT: The appendix is a collection of the documents referred to in appendix H. So if we have the funding sources listed, those grants, those loans, those DCA's, Appendix I is a collection of the pertinent pages of all those funding sources. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Do you have a website where all this is listed? I mean, how do we -- a lot of the references all say --I mean, the whole page refers to Appendix I. So where can we get that? Where can we see that electronically? Do you have it available electronically? MR. SCHMIDT: I do. I do not believe it's at our website, however. Those are scanned images from a number of sources. Each of those documents are houscd or sourced in individual departments where those projects are. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Ms. Caron? COMMISSIONER CARON: But aren't all of these things just acronyms anyway? They're not -- I mean, this isn't anything -- MR. SCHMIDT: For these footnotes, yes. They're explaining their use in the table above, or before. COMMISSIONER CARON: Yeah, before. But what's here, if we're approving it and we're not approving anything -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But see, it says itemized revenue source explanation. That's what the Appendix I is. And so would that have answered my questions about the sources of revenue for the things I've been asking Phil about, for example? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: No. MR. SCHMIDT: It would. Not all concerns, of course. It's just copies of the documents. He'd be -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, let's go back and look at Page 22 and let me show you an example. Page 22, if you go right back to the one I've been focusing on, which is impact fee revenue. It's in the second table. MR. SCHMIDT: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: F-09 shows Zero. F-IO shows nine million, F-ll shows 9,400,000, et cetera. Those are very unrealistic compared to reality of today. In fact, with a near five million deficit Page 48 \6' l' A6 January 16,2009 funding, they have a Fund 411 -- actually, 413 is a -- requires a 5.6 million debt funding every year, starting in '09, or a little bit -- it changes each year by a small amount, but it's 5.6 million in '09. Plus the impact fee revenues for that particular category in 2008 were only 5.3 million, which doesn't even meet the debt needs. When you go into '10, 'II and '12, you have the same kind ofratio. So I was hoping on Tuesday we'd get answers as to why those numbers for impact fee revenues are being shown so high in this CIE, when I'm not sure that's really attainable, from what the numbers I've got that were provided to me by Amy Patterson's department. So -- MR. SCHMIDT: With regard to your-- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But see, that was what I was hoping would have told me in Appendix I how they came to these numbers. MR. SCHMIDT: Appendix I won't do that for those specific numbers, Mr. Chairrnan. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. MR. SCHMIDT: Appendix I is -- is again a collection of the individual funding sources for like those series 2006 bonds where there are -- the individual documents or certain fund loans, that type of thing, not the impact fees where calculations were made by the county, as they do in-- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I don't want to sce your department have to generate reams of needless paper. If you have these in some electronic forrnat that you can easily e-mail to us just to look at electronically, could we at least understand what you're saying by looking at that Appendix I so we got a handle on it? Or not? Is that too difficult to do? MR. SCHMIDT: lt is not. They're scanned and they're on file. CHAJRMAN STRAIN: Okay, would you-- MR. SCHMIDT: Now, you'd be looking at last year's, because we haven't begun to accumulate the individual documents for the next transmittal to the DCA. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But the ones that would be going with this transmittal are the ones you'd send to us. MR. SCHMIDT: I can attempt to do so. I haven't acquired them all yet from the individual departments. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, they may not be documents that are that important. I just don't know, not having seen it. I can't remember -- MR. SCHMIDT: I'lI share with you -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- from a year ago. MR. SCHMIDT: l'll share with you what we have. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Murray? COMMISSIONER MURRA Y: Yeah, okay. But if the source document doesn't give us the result of the calculation you show us, where did you get the result of the calculation you show us? You expressed a concern. MR. SCHMIDT: That's correct. The source document will show you that. It's just that we haven't got those documents in total yet for that appendix. We've used them as our resources, and from where we derive these figures we just don't have them scanned into the system to create that appendix. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Oh, okay. Because you said they were last year's data. MR. SCHMIDT: Yes. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: But last year's data is perfectly okay to use as your basis for this presentation. Page 49 161~~, 2009 MR. SCHMIDT: For many of these projects and for many of these revenue sources, that's true. There's going to be new sources ofrevenue with some of these new CRA's, developer contribution agreements and so forth, grant arrangements or whatever it may be. Those will be new. But many of those from the last time around are still ongoing and usable inforrnation. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Okay, I guess the next logical question is, can you -- and you have to do the work. Can you and all of us rely upon the projected dollars on our continued basis? The revenue coming in the way that this projects it, can you rely upon that? I mean, it's a projection, is it not? Don't we -- aren't we projecting downward instead of upward? MR. SCHMIDT: For some ofthese they are projections. Some are fixed amounts based on existing agreements. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: So what you're saying to me, that if you lost revenue source A, out here in left field is revenue source L, that you're going to avail yourself in order to keep a constant on the projected item. Is that what I understand you to say? MR. SCHMIDT: Yes. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I mean, just answer me yes or no, can you -- MR. SCHMIDT: Yes. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: -- realistically do that? MR. SCHMIDT: It's not what we've done, but the people working on the project have, yes. MR. COHEN: Let me ask a-- COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Do you understand the root of my question? MR. COHEN: Let me ask a question of the commission and I think maybe this is probably what you're getting at. The question is, based on the downward trend in revenue -- COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Yeah. MR. COHEN: -- Appendix I as of the last transmittal had certain figures in it, and more than likely there's been a reduction in revenue streams associated with that downturn. And as a commission, you would like to see the modifications to Appendix I in conjunction with the CIE. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I think the DCA would ask for that if we didn't. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, Randy, because it's referenced and we're here to approve this, I think it is needed. MR. COHEN: And that's what I wanted to make sure. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Even number five, the gas tax revenues projection, that would be an important thing for us just to know for our background reference for not only this ClE, but any other elements coming through the county as we rcview them. I mcan, those are important things to know. How much of a funding source problem are we going to have? These documents would reveal that. So I'm not sure it's bad inforrnation for us not to have, so -- MR. COHEN: The point is well taken. And you want consistency with respect to the revenue stream and the references within the other aspects of the CIE. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Wouldn't this be on line with the CIE that's attached as the compo plan section of your website right now? When you pull up the comprehensive plan, you've got all the elements listed there. Ifwe were to click on the CIE element, would we bc able to see the Appendix I as an attachrnent for last year or not? Or is it -- MR. SCHMIDT: I believe it is. If it is not, it is again a reproducible electronic version that I can provide for you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. And the other problem that Mr. Vigliotti I think touched on a little bit is that we've got a holiday on Monday and we're meeting Tuesday. I'm not sure how we can get this in Page 50 16IP'Jj~ January n, '1009 time to review it by Tuesday. So -- COMMISSIONER CARON: It's on line. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Are you guys working? MR. SCHMIDT: I don't sec the impediment. There's adequate time in the first part of Tuesday to prepare that inforrnation. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. Okay, we'll look forward to it then. Let's move on. Page 26, 27, 28 and 29. Anybody have any other questions? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Twenty-eight I do. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Sure. Go ahead, sir. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Corby, what's the intent of the development order? You're adding the public school facilities. So are you trying to say there that building pcrrnits for public school facilities? I mean, is that what you're excluding? Or are you excluding the impact fees for public school facilities at the perrnit -- building pcrrnit stage? MR. SCHMIDT: I'm sorry, I'm not sure where you're referring. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I'm sorry, development order review up at the top. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Page 28, number one. MR. SCHMIDT: I see. This is not a change being proposed now, but the cxplanation simply that the public schools are exempt from these requirements. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. Okay, so [think we've got -- because you could read that that -- or maybe [ can read that, that there could be the impression that at the building perrnit stage, all buildings don't have to worry about compliance with the public school facilities. Do public schools have to worry about the final site development plans when they're building public schools? Becausc if that's the case, maybc you could put it up with applications, say as part of review of all applications, paren., except for public school facilities. MR. SCHMIDT: Well, [ believe that the requirements are found at a different point in time than for building pcrrnits or development orders or plats. Schools have a different trigger besides these. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. MR. COHEN: Right now there's a school board review process that's in effect for different stages of the review of how schools transpire. It's also sct to expire, and it's under rcnegotiation at this point in time. So as far as how schools are reviewed in the process, it goes by that particular instrument. At the same time, if you look at the public schools facility element, we have a little time to renegotiate that particular agreement, because the next new school I believe is not planned until 2014, or 2016, one of the two. So it's something that we're currently renegotiating right now with the Collier County School Board. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: What I'm just -- to make this clear then, maybe the paren. should come after that, rather than before that. Because here's what I don't want the impression to be, is that somebody applying for a building perrnit, let's say for an otlice building or a residence doesn't need to deal with public school facilities at that level. Just a matter of I guess legally or in English where to put it. And it's usually odd to have a paren. ahead of something. Nominally they follow what it is you're addressing. MR. SCHMIDT: If! can still clearly indicate that I mean only the building perrnits, yes. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Right. So I think that it would be better and building perrnits and then say except for public school facilities. Page 5] l61n6,Ac69 Because when you lead off with the paren., it's like you're saying except for public school facilities, building perrnits. MR. COHEN: Corby spent a lot of time in Wisconsin in his planning career, and they do things different up there, so -- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: That's Pennsylvania Dutch I think the way he did it. MR. SCHMIDT: Yeah. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And I guess Heidi, I mean, this is a legal thing. Wouldn't you put the -- do you see where I am as the paren. is following the word and? So you're actually addressing and, not the building perrnit. MS. ASHTON-CICKO: So you want to put it after the word building perrnits? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I think it would read clearer. COMMISSIONER CARON: I think that may not be true. Because then that would say that public school facilities are exempt from site plans and final plats. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: No, I'm saying you would -- applications for final site development, final plans and building perrnits except for public school. COMMISSIONER CARON: Yeah, you've just said -- now you've exempted them from everything COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Well, if it's -- COMMISSIONER CARON: -- as opposed to just-- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You guys, one at a time now, please. COMMISSIONER CARON: Sorry. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No, that's okay. She can't type as fast as-- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: It's a grammatical thing that maybe legal should work out. I mean, you're right, there is a list. And the illusion might be that it applics to the whole list. Anyway. COMMISSIONER CARON: I agree. MS. ASHTON-CICKO: We can work with Corby to make sure the language is clear. MR. SCHMIDT: I believe that's the reason it was structured the way it is, but we'll look again. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Murray? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Yeah, my question relates to concurrency, then. I know these are -- or at least this one particular piece is to makc an exception, one exception, the way I read it, building perrnits. But in concurrency they're required, aren't they, to be a participant in development with us, with the county? I'm trying to understand why -- 1 mean, is it only building permits that we're talking about? MR. SCHMIDT: It is only building perrnits that wc're talking about. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Okay. So we're saying that cverything else they have to be concurrent. They have to stay with us. And building pennits because they're another governmental entity? MR. COHEN: Can we -- MR. SCHMIDT: The answer is yes. And for other reasons, yes. And there are other government entities with other kinds of exemptions, but this is the one we're referring to here. COMMISSIONER MURRA Y: Okay. MR. COHEN: But with respect to overall concurrency, if you don't mind, let us take a look at Chapter 163 to see if there's an exemption in there. I think there's some -- MR. KLA TZKOW: They're all concurrency requirement. They have to put schools in. When there are enough students out there, they have to put a school in. It doesn't matter about the roads -- MR. COHEN: I think -- well, that's what I'm getting at. MR. KLATZKOW: Yeah, it's -- they're required to put the schools in to meet their concurrency. Page 52 16jln~ A,6009 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, if we're done with 28, let's move to 29. (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Page 30'1 (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Let's move to Appendix H. And Appendix H is the meeting the requirement to extend the CIE out for another five years. Is that generally the idea? MR. SCHMIDT: It is. If you do not have a long-terrn concurrency system, you should at least show them a long-terrn schedule. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. And it's obvious that this one was faked, because all the numbers every year thereafter are all exactly the same. MR. SCHMIDT: In fact, DCA does not require us to show a revenue stream in the out years, but we try to do that in order -- for ourselves to give us an idea. But we do show you a predictable project list. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, predictable. Well, I mean, I think what you're saying to DCA is well, you want it, here it is, it's phony as all get-out but this is what we're going to give you, so -- And if you turn to the -- not the first elE-I, but the CIE-2 of Appendix H, how can you have no impact fee revenues again? So you're not -- so parks is going to be in debt forever. Boy, that water park cost us a lot of money, didn't it? Because they got zero impact fee revenues and zero community -- we're not going to buy anything for 20 years in this county -- for 10 years, I mean. Is that what this is saying? MR. SCHMIDT: It is. Another worksheet that this derives from shows us that the first time a paid for project appears is after these 10 years. MR. COHEN: One of the things that transpires in the AUIR is that the county is getting additional community parkland through interlocal agreements with the school system. So there's other things that are in there that make up for some of the deficit. MR. SCHMIDT: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Well, I mean, I understand what you did. I'm not sure it's the right thing to do, but you did it that way, or somebody did. Then the fifth page, we get into the favorite subject of landfill tipping fees. So we do away with tipping fees in the future. That's good to see. Is that what I would derive from that? MR. SCHMIDT: The same thing could be derived as we have from parks. There's activity going on, but there are no tipping fees going toward a capital project during that period of time. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I understand. MR. COHEN: If they were going to do cell construction during that time, they would allocate tipping fees for that construction. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. MR. GRAMA TGES: If I may, Mr. Chairrnan. This is Phil Gramatges again. All it means is that the tipping fees that we collect are going towards the operation ofthe landfill, not towards any expansion. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Got you. MR. GRAMA TGES: And of course that can change. That's way, way out there in the future. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. And anybody got anything else for the balance of the book? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: No. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, I do not think it's a good idea to start the next book with less than 30 minutes left. If someone feels the same way and they want to make a motion to continue to Tuesday at 2:00 in this room, that would be a good thing. Page 53 l~ah"t, Ac6 COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: So moved. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: So moved. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Wolfley, seconded by Mr. Murray. All in favor, signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Aye. COMMISSIONER MURRA Y: Aye. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye. COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Aye. COMMISSIONER CARON: Aye. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The meeting is continued. ***** Page 54 16'.' At.. 'anuary~6, 2()t)~ There being no further business for the good of the County, the meeting was adjourned by order of the Chair at 4:33 p.m. COLLIER COUNTY PL;l:I :1Mp~ MARK TRAIN, Chairrnan These minutes approved by the board on corrected 2 .- ( "l-O '7 as presented ~ or as Transcript prepared on behalf of Gregory Reporting Service, Inc., by Cherie' R. Nottingham. Page 55 16 J'1 lAory 20, 2009 / TRANSCRIPT OF THE MEETING OF THE CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT ELEMENT OF THE GROWTH MANAGEMENT PLAN COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION Naples, Florida January 20, 2009 LET IT BE REMEMBERED, that the Collier County Planning RECEIVED MAR 1 7 2009 Commission, in and for the County of Collier, having conducted Q03rd . 'C' '- u, ,.OUMj l.;ornmissb/'e 0 . '0 business herein, met on this date at 2:00 p.m. in SPECIAL SESSION Fiala in Building "F" of the Government Complex, East Naples, Florida, Halas Henning with the following members present: Coyle Coletta CHAIRMAN: Mark Strain Karen Homiak Donna Reed-Caron Tor Kolflat (Absent) Paul Midney (Absent) Bob Murray Brad Schiffer (Absent) Robert Vigliotti David 1. Wolfley ALSO PRESENT: Jeffrey Klatzkow, County Attorney Heidi Ashton-Cicko, Assistant County Attorney Randy Cohen, Comprehensive Planning Director Corby Schmidt, Principal Planner Thomas Eastman, Real Prop. Director, CC School Dist. (absent) Mise eorres Date: 't.em#'.._ Page 1 cPles to 16 I r:t!anM>20, 2009 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Good afternoon, everyone. Welcome to the continuation of the Planning Commission meeting to review the ClE and the potable water sub-element and the public facilities element of the Growth Management Plan. The meeting started on January 16th, 2009; was continued to this room to 2:00 today. If you'll all please rise for pledge of allegiance. (Pledge of Allegiance was recited in unison.) CHAlRMAN STRAIN: Okay, will the secretary please do the roll call. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Commissioner Eastman is absent. Commissioner Kolflat is absent. Commissioner Schiffer is absent. Commissioner Midney is absent. Commissioner Caron? COMMISSIONER CARON: Here. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Chairrnan Strain? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Here. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Commissioner Vigliotti is present. Commissioner Murray? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Here. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Commissioner Wolfley? COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Here. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: And Commissioner Homiak? COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Here. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. We have a couple housekeeping matters. The first one I wanted to mention to you is we all received books in the mail last week for the rural land stewardship area that's going to be discussed next Wednesday morning starting at 8:30 at the CDES room at developmental services. Now, it's very important that as many of us can be there. Hopefully we'll have a quorum. Because we had polled everybody prior to that day. And that datc was picked because we could have a quorum. So it's important to be there. It will be, though, over at developmental services on Horseshoe Drive starting at 8:30. We're scheduled for Wednesday and Friday. And based on the reading of this document, I would think most assuredly it will take all of at least those two days. However, in reading the document -- and I wanted to suggest this to everybody who has not read it yet or maybe has read it but where you can maybe focus your efforts, it's broken down in a series of phases and sections. We've already had some of those presented to us in a previous meeting. The most important thing for this board is as the land planning agency of Collier County, it's our duty to review all Growth Management Plan amendments. This is a presentation of a committee report, so it's really not a review like we would do on transmittal or adoption. It's just simply their report. We're going to get familiar with it, we're going to ask our questions, and then it's going to move on to the Board of County Commissioners. But our portion of the report would really and should be focused on the Growth Management Plan amendment section. There are two sections: One is what they call substantial changes and the other are just general changes, including the substantial. I think to save anybody that is interested in reading time, you may want to focus your attention on Phase II, section two of the book you received. It is the complete GMP amendment section. It contains the insubstantial and the substantial, it contains the ones that weren't ch,mged, it contains everything. And as the LP A, our goal would be to walk through the language in that section and ask questions Page 2 1 6 ~qparA~ 2009 and make changes or recommendations or suggestions based on what we read. The rest of the book and the other book that was with it is more of backup to how they got to the changes. But I would suggest to everybody on this board that our methodology to get through this most effectively would be to focus on the changes of the GMP language in that Phase II, section two of the book. And I think if we do that, we're going to get to everywhere we need to be and we'll actually accomplish what we're supposed to be doing in regards to just the GMP focus. So that's a suggestion. I do have a hand-out, although it's jammed up at the copy machine next door. So during break or whenever, l'll pass it out to you. DCA has -- is processing a new section of9J-5. 9J-5.026. And it's to deal with just RLSA's. It is not finalized yet. And Collier County is not really under that, because it came out -- Collier County was initiated before the state came up with this plan. But I just thought for background it would be good inforrnation to know that when RLSA's are forrned in the State of Florida, they'll be forrned more consistent with this document that when I get all the copies l'll pass them out to you and l'llleave one to the record. And you may want to read it for background reference, if you run out of reading. So that's -- COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Yeah, I'm worried about that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I did. So I started reading that and Florida statutes and all kinds of stuff. So it all was -- it all comes together, though, next week. And Mr. Wolfley, did you want to say something? COMMISSIONER WOLfLEY: Well, Chairrnan, I'm sure you read my mind or I read yours. You took most of the steam out it. But I just wanted to let everyone know that this is the last place we got to go in Collier County and where we're moving, and we have to pay attention to this. The details here are critical. And as Commissioner Strain said, we had -- I'm on that committee, by the way, and have been, and we went over reams and reams and gigabytes of computer work to get to where it is. I agreed with some and some I didn't. Regardless, this is important. This is very, very critical how we approach that. And I'm going to have a lot more to say when it comes -- when we start on Wednesday. But this is our last bash in the Collier County, let's try to protect it. And that's alii wanted to say. Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, with that, let me -- where we left offlast week was a review of the ClE. It was CPSP-2008-6. [believe we completed most of that review, subject to what may come up as we review the next item, which is CPSP-2007-6, and that's the potable water sub-element and the public facilities element. In reviewing the first one, we noticed that there was an appendix missing, which we now have gotten in front of us. During our break at 3:30 today, I'd like to ask the members of the Planning Commission to review the -- it looks like maybe 35 to 50 pages ofinforrnation.lfthere's anything in here that requires more detailed review than just an acknowledgment of what's here to have a complete package, then we'll have to postpone some of our voting on these until we can come back and have time to review these. But if the Commission is comfortable with looking at the package and realize ifit isjust supporting documentation and it's nothing that needs any additional time, we can finish hopefully today with our votes on the matter. So with that, Corby, I think the next thing we probably are going to move right into is the water sub-element. Is that in agreement with your ideas of what we'll be doing today? MR. SCHMIDT: It is, Mr. Chairrnan. MS. VALERA: Good afternoon. Carolina Valera, Principal Planner, Comprehensive Planning. Page 3 16 , It~A~o, 2009 We heard hearings on this proposed GMP amendment back in September of2007 before the Environmental Advisory Council, this board, the Board of County Commissioners. We then sent a draft of this amendment to the Department of Community Affairs, DCA, for their review and comments. We received back a letter that -- it's in your binder with our comments in regard to that draft. Most of the comments has to do with the methodol-- population methodologies that we used. As you know, we used at the time the latest inforrnation that we had. But that population methodology we used was not what was adopted in the CIE. And so we received comments back in regard to that. Our potable water has to be consistent with our adopted CIE. Since last year we had been in talks with staff from the Department of Community Affairs. And finally, and as you know, after thc board adopted our new population methodology, they suggested to us, send this plan when you send the revised capital improvement element and the new methodology. So that's what we're doing, and so here we are today. We are in the second phase of this amendment, the adoption portion of this amendment. And hopefully now we'll have solved the consistency issues in regards to population methodology consistency in regards to the projects that are mentioned in the I O-year water supply plan and that are -- that will be recorded and in our adopted CIE. Some ofthe other comments from the Department of Community Affairs, as you know, have to do with private utilities. In your binder you've seen communications from county staff with the private utilities. We tried as much as we could to obtain inforrnation from them. We -- for the most part we did. And to the point as you saw in couple of the letters that are in your binders, those conversations were halted by two of the utilities, the Orangetree utilities and the Ava Maria utilities. So we tried as much as we could. We even met with stafffrom the South Florida Water Management District. We told them about those letters from the attorneys from these utilities, and their comment at that meeting were if you demonstrate to us that you have tried, that's what we're looking for. That's what was said verbally in the meeting. So with that, I think we're ready to respond to your questions. As you know, Phil Gramatges is here from public utilities. I have to thank him and his staff. I mean, it's been I believe a long journey to get to here, so I appreciate their work and all their efforts in this matter. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. If it's okay with the Planning Commission, I'd like to suggest we move through this book tab by tab where the relevant tabs start. Then we'll just do as we always have done, couple pages at a time. The first three tabs, the ORC Report, the ORC Report response letter are back enforce without a lot of things that you may want to question, but the ORC report document is where we start getting into some meaty issues. So let's start by asking in the first two tabs the -- well, the first item is not tabbed, that's a staff report. Then we have the ORC Report, and then the ORC Report response letter. Those are fairly generic. The first real document is the ORC Report response document. So up until the ORC Report response document, does anybody have any questions? (No response.) MS. VALERA: And if! may, Mr. Chairrnan, and just as a matter of housecleaning, there's a binder for public view outside, if anybody needs to look at it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: By the overwhelming quantity of public here today, is --I don't know if one binder will do. Page 4 161.1 J~5ry'l20, 2009 MS. VALERA: I just needed to say it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: As someone said to me, this is one of the most important things we do, and this is the one that nobody shows up for. It's like this year after year. Well, the first page of the ORC Report response document, and we'll take the first page, then we'll take every two pages after that. Anybody have any questions on Page I? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: If not, let's move to Page 2 and 3. Are there any questions on Pages 2 and 3'1 (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Carolina, in the fourth bolded paragraph on Page 2, I read the various documents that talk about the consistency. It says provisions of Chapter 163, Florida Statutes, regarding the consideration of regional water supply plans and the adoption of comprehensive plan amendments do not require the consistency but coordination with South Florida Water Management District. And of course that's where a lot of the writing is about. South Florida disagrees with our position, and we keep insisting we don't have to be consistent with them, we have to coordinate with them. Why wouldn't we want to be consistent with the agency that's giving us the perrnits? I mean, because where I'm going is in the same relationship we seem to be having with sorne of these smaller treatment plants that are out there that won't respond to you, if they don't want to work with us, then why are we giving them perrnits? Why don't we just stop issuing building perrnits until they are? And I'm just wondering why -- what happens with South Florida, we get to a point where we basically say no to them, where does it go? And maybe -- Phil's standing behind you, maybe he wants to answer that. MR. COHEN: Yes, Mr. Chairrnan, it's important to understand the statutory difference between consistency and coordination, and it would be appropriate for Mr. Gramatges to answer that question. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. MR. GRAMATGES: Good afternoon, Mr. Chairrnan, Commissioners, Phil Gramatges, Public Utilities division. Simply means that we take orders from them or we coordinate with them. That's really what it comes down to. And in fact, I would say that we consulted with an outside counselor on this, and this is the kind of response that they provided in West Palm Beach, specifically. Because if we are consistent with what South Florida Water Management District tells us to do, then we are going to be following precisely what they tell us to do. In other words, they are going -- by inference going to be running this utility from Tallahassee. And that's probably not something we all want. Definitely the public utilities division does not want that. Now, we need to consider what they tell us. We need to try to make sure that we are as consistent as we can be, but we cannot commit to doing precisely what they tell us to do. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, are you telling me that by being consistent with them we would end up -- they would set the level of service, they would tell us how many pumps to put on, what the efficiency rating is of our system, what kind of systems to use? MR. GRAMATGES: That's essentially the implication, yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So all of all utility facilities would be in their control just because they were trying to be consistent with their water supply plant? MR. GRAMATGES: Essentially they would dictate to us what it is that they would want us to do. And we would have to follow along and put the plants where they wanted to be, we would have to use whatever facilities they wanted to use. I mean, it would take us down a path that will eventually lead to that Page 5 1611~1I1.. January ~,~009 conclusion. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The plan that they are talking about, is there a -- can we see that plan? Do you have a copy that you could e-mail to us? I mean, if this plan is that bad that it gets in and talks about how many pumps we havc to have, what our level of service is, I want to see the plan. I'm curious -- MR. GRAMA TGES: No, I'm sorry, sir, I'm not implying that they're doing that in this particular plant. But what I'm saying is that indeed if they were to go to that detail, being consistent would mean that we would have to do just that. Obviously they are not going to try to go that far, but if they are going to give us a plant that we disagree with, we have to have the option or we have to have the flexibility to say no, we disagree with you. Let me givc you one good example, sir, if[ may. They want us to rescind a request that we have for consumptive use perrnit for potable water, for freshwater. They don't want us to put through a request for that consumptive use perrnit. We have disagreed with them. We have scientific data that demonstrate that using that freshwater will not do any harm to the freshwater aquifer. But they are refusing to accept that, they are refusing to accept our science, and they're pushing it aside and asking us to go away. We're not about to go away. Consistency would mean that we would take that and we would run with it, and we're not about to do that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ms. Caron? COMMISSIONER CARON: That's a good example, Phil, but -- so what happens? They're telling you run along, little boy, and you're saying no, I'm not going anywhere because I know what's best for my county. Who solves that impasse? MR. GRAMA TGES: Well, ultimately in any impasse, the ultimate arbiter would be an administrative law judge. I'm not implying -- COMMISSIONER CARON: Bccause South Florida is the one who has to grant the perrnit. I mean MR. GRAMATGES: That's correct. COMMISSIONER CARON: -- it doesn't go to an administrative law judge. MR. GRAMA TGES: That's correct. But they cannot act unilaterally. In other words, they have regulations that they have to abide by and they have statutes that they have to abide by. They cannot write law as they go. COMMISSIONER CARON: Right. Thank you. MR. COHEN: Let me -- if I can add something-- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Go ahead. MR. COHEN: -- to the difference between consistency and coordination as to why Phil's department and public utilities feels this is very important. The lower west coast Florida water supply plan specifically -- and it gets into absolutes with respect to alternative water supplies and docsn't allow them the flexibility to pursue and document why they may want to use freshwater, if it's available. And the science proves that. If they had to be consistent with it, they would be not left with any choice and they would have to basically do with something that's a lot more expensive alternative, as well as something that may not be necessary in this county. And they need that flexibility. So that's why the consistency issue comes on up and the statute specifically says coordinate, it doesn't say consistency. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Well, there's going to be more on that issue as we go through this, so maybe we can get more clarification as we go along. Thank you for that. Any questions on Pages 4 and 5'1 (No response.) Page 6 16 falla~ 6, 2009 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Under Page 5, the fourth paragraph says, for privately held or investor owned utilities in Collier County covered by this plan, Collier County has limited regulatory authority by which to require private held or investor owned utilitics to provide inforrnation. Now, first of all, does the PSC have any authority to demand inforrnation that we could use that advisory board to obtain? MR. GRAMATGES: We don't have the authority, but obviously others do. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. The reason I'm asking is because we do -- I thought we did have authority. And let me read you the House bill that established the Collier County Sewer Water District. There's quite a few points in there about what we can and can't do. Well, let me take that back. !'II have to find it during break or as we're talking. Jamie, maybe you could answer the question about the PSC. If we're having trouble getting inforrnation, can't the PSC demand inforrnation? Because we do have to issue building perrnits that are supposed to be based on knowledge about levels of service being sustained in certain areas, and if we don't know that they are, why can't we get the cooperation from these utilities to -- in the future? I understand the issue about the cost of the report, but to me that should be a built-in cost. And !'II try to find where that was referenced in one of the documents I have. MR. FRENCH: The levels of service are established by the utilities themselves. And that's tied back to their exclusive franchise that they received from the board. Public Service Commission has no authority over Collier County when it comes to private water and wastewater matters whatsoever. We -- under 367, and I may stand corrected, but I believe it's Chapter 367 that establishes the rules of the PSC. A county can basically take that authority away from the state. In the event that we give that authority back to the state, we give it back to them for no less than a I O-year period of time. And then again it goes back to my discussion last week where you have no local representation other than you've got a governor appointed board that makes decisions out of Tallahassee for your local county on your private utilities. But no, sir, unless it is a -- the PSC would have no authority over that as far as a local code goes as far as supplying their water supply numbers. As far as your question regarding why do we allow them to continue -- why do we continue to issue building perrnits, I'm only assuming, and maybe I'm wrong, but I'm only assuming that you're saying building perrnits within their franchised area. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Correct. MR. FRENCH: Because it is up to the utility to make the deterrnination whether or not there's adequate capacity. And we grant that to them within their franchise. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So we accept a letter from them saying they have the capacity, although we don't accept any -- when we can't get any evidence or any calculations from them, we can't demand the backup to show that their letter is valid. MR. FRENCH: Couldn't demand it, because there's no enabling law that requires them to provide it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, maybe after next week and after the process of the next RLSA, there will be a policy put in the GMP that would require any new facilities in the RLSA area to require those reports. I don't know why we couldn't do that. But it's a good lesson to learn here today, thank you. MR. FRENCH: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ms. Caron? COMMISSIONER CARON: Yeah, I had a question on the paragraph that precedes that. The paragraph talks about us using the mid-Hawthorne Aquifer, and it says here that South Florida Water Page 7 161l~rA62ob9 Management is giving us some grief about that based on a lack of historical data. Is it the county's place to give South Florida Water Management that data? MR. GRAMATGES: Correct. COMMISSIONER CARON: Okay. So if this is something we want to use, why wouldn't we have been providing that to them? MR. GRAMA TGES: We have been providing that to them. We have at least two water consumption -- water use perrnits that have been submitted to South Florida Water Management District about two years ago. And we have been going back and forth with them in these submittals for that time. We have provided science that indicates that these aquifers will not be damaged by us drawing from them. And they -- they haven't really outright refused to accept that inforrnation, they simply keep asking questions about questions and about questions. And it is expensive for us to do that, it's time-consuming and, quite frankly, we are going to need the water some time and we need to get that perrnit. COMMISSIONER CARON: So we're sort of at a position where it's who can wear who down before 20 II, right? I mean, that's what's happening here, they're trying to throw questions back to you to just throw monkey wrenches around and you keep throwing data back to them that costs the county, you know, a lot of money to figure out and conduct. MR. GRAMA TGES: I certainly will not try to pass judgment on their motivation or their methods, but the truth -- the effect of those questions is that they don't seem to stop. We continue to answer them and more questions come. The type of studies that we have to conduct in order to be able to prove our point gets continuously more and more expensive and lengthy. And fortunately for us we request these perrnits with enough time to anticipate these delays. But we've had meetings with them. I personally have visited their headquarters in West Palm Beach to try to push these perrnits along. And we're paying consultants both from a technical point of view and from a legal point of view, plus our time as well. This is, once again, not only frustrating, it's expensive. COMMISSIONER CARON: Has this happened across the state? I mean, I understand South Florida Water Management isn't the controlling body, but -- MR. GRAMA TGES: I would have to say that -- COMMISSIONER CARON: Do the other districts do this? Do the other districts cause this much aggravation for their -- MR. GRAMATGES: I don't know if they have more or less than we do, but the truth is that they do have some of the same concerns and they do have some of the same problems trying to obtain perrnits. COMMISSIONER CARON: Okay, thanks. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Phil, the act that codified the Collier County Water/Sewer District, are you familiar with the boundaries in which that act applied to? I mean-- MR. GRAMA TGES: Somewhat, yes. I deal with that every day, so -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Is Ave Maria and places -- and Orangetree within the boundaries of that legislation; do you know? MR. GRAMA TGES: Ave Maria is not within the boundaries of the water/sewer district, no. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So the legislation, even though it went farther than the current district, it didn't include the whole county, it just included -- MR. GRAMA TGES: No, not at all. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, that's what I needed to know, thank you. Okay, move on to Page 6 and 7. Are there any questions? (No response.) Page 8 16 .~62009 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, 8 and 9'1 (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: 10 and II? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Phil, at the bottom of Page 10 there's a statement that talks about Plantation Island, Seaboard Village and Copeland that are served by Everglades City. Everglades City has a package plant, does it not, or a processing -- a centralized sewage and water plant, or they -- how do they process their water? MR. GRAMA TGES: I am not sure, sir. I would have to speculate. They most likely would have a package plant, I would say, given their size. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Because in the last line it says, these areas are analogous to the Golden Gate Estates portion of Collier County which is served entirely by self supply for which the county is not responsible for providing service. The only thing I wanted -- I don't disagree with that Golden Gate Estates is self supply and the county's not responsible, but it is not similar to the services that you'd get from a centralized plant that I know Everglades City has. So I just thought that was an odd comparison to make. I don't know who wrote it up, but it didn't seem to be comparable. MR. GRAMA TGES: But it's analogous in the sense, sir, that they are -- they have their own utilities. So from that point of view, they have self supply. Obviously Golden Gate's self-supplied in the sense that they have their own individual wells per household. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Absolutely. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, Pages 12 and 13, anybody have any question? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: 14 and 15'1 (No response.) CHAlRMAN STRAIN: And the last page is 16. (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Phil, in the middle of the paragraph on Page 16, the following sentence, should the water and sewer district read a request by South Florida to pursue alternative water supplies while traditional water supplies can still be utilized but no adverse impacts to the environment. Then it goes on, we would have -- further have to increase impact fees charged for new connections. We do have an adverse impact currently on the environment from our water withdrawals, don't we? Otherwise we wouldn't be having water restrictions. Our water table's getting lower and lower and the more water we use, the lower it gets. And I would think that's an adverse condition to the environment. MR. GRAMA TGES: There is no science to demonstrate that we have harrned any of these aquifers with our draws. None whatsoever. Be it the freshwater aquifer or the brackish water aquifer. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, when you have different phases of water restrictions, the phases get more increased in intensity, dependent upon the recovery tirne at which it would take the aquifer to recover. When we went into a Phase II, and I think last year we evcn got to a Phase III, it was because the aquifers couldn't recover within one season. That's the signal between the different phases. If the aquifers were acknowledged to go into that phase as not being recoverable, then how is it we're not having impact on them? MR. GRAMA TGES: These regulations, these restrictions are imposed by the South Florida Water Management District, and they apply to an area that is much larger than just Collier County. So what Page 9 16Jlnt; 2A 609 they're trying to do is trying to avoid damage to the aquifer and try to provide actually not state-wide but southern part of the state-wide restriction to keep this from happening. I assure you that we have no indication that we have caused any damage whatsoever to any of those aquifers, be it during the wet season, the dry season, or during the last drought. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Under goal 20, it says Collier County employs interlocal agreements as appropriate. Do we have interlocal agreements with Everglades City and Copeland to service the areas that are between -- there's areas serviced out there that I don't know if they're in our district or not. But are they -- how is ( sic) those interlocals between them -- MR. GRAMA TGES: We have interlocal agreements with the City of Naples, with Marco Island. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And those are the only areas that touch the Collier County Water/Sewer District boundaries? MR. GRAMA TGES: As far as I know, they're the only ones. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Mark? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes, sir, Mr. Murray? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Just for clarification on it. Going by the Chairrnan's point, in his mind he sees over time as population increases, water availability, natural water availability may decrease. At what point -- you have good science, you indicate, that you use, you test, you verity that there's no harm. Let's get on the record, how do we do that? How do we make sure that we have no degradation? I understand the anomaly of the season where we had -- and we have I think now recovered, that's my understanding, I don't know if it's true. But you can answer that, please, what is it that we use to verity that we're not in trouble? MR. GRAMA TGES: We simply drill monitoring wells, and we drill testing wells. We draw water from those wells. We monitor the levels on the monitoring wells in order to deterrnine the effect that that pumping rate would have in those monitoring wells. We put the monitoring wells around our own well-field just to be able to deterrnine what efTect our well-fields are having on the aquifer. And whenever we want to put new wells, which is indeed what South Florida Water Management District is requiring us to do, we put test wells. When we pump those wells, we check the monitoring well and see what effect those -- that pumping has on the aquifer. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: And so you can read that part of it. And then what about on the environment itself, on draw-down, the result on trees and other landscape that may be at their natural growth. Is there any check on that, or does our -- do our environmental people do that? MR. GRAMATGES: No, certainly. I mean, we have environmental consultants that do advise us on the effect that we may have on the environment. I need to point out, however, that none of our aquifers, none of the aquifers that we're utilizing for production are part of the water table. And the water table is the one that has the effect on the vegetation __ COMMISSIONER MURRA Y: Right. MR. GRAMA TGES: -- on the wells out in -- the private wells out in Golden Gate Estates and all that. We don't touch that. We are below that aquifer. The freshwater aquifer that I'm referring to is the so-called Tamiami Aquifer, and that is separated by hydrogeology from the water table. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: And so basically as far as the open environment is concerned, that's dependent entirely upon rainfall and that barrier, and that will sustain the growth above. There is no pulling down of that water; is that what you're asserting? MR. GRAMATGES: There is no indication that ifthere is pulling down of that water, it is significant enough for us to be able to detect it. COMMISSIONER MURRA Y: Thank you. Page 10 1 Rnt' ~A'9 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Wolfley? COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: I'm going to try to say this without being too strong about it. But when we say no adverse impacts on the -- I mean, it's in here and you just said it -- on the aquifers, I mean, that's impossible. I mean, there has to be an effect. Every breath we take has an effect on something. And it's almost offensive to see that there's no adverse effect. Maybe there's little adverse impact, but there's certainly not no adverse impacts. MR. GRAMA TGES: It depends on your definition of adverse. Adverse effect means effect that would be damaging to the environment and damaging to the aquifer. So there's no significant effect. COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Okay, that would be more palatable. MR. GRAMATGES: Well, there is a -- in my view, adverse and significant are interchangeable for these purposes. Because if it's not significant enough to exceed the current established limits, then it's not adverse. COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Okay, let me ask this then: If the -- where does the Tamiami Aquifer end up? Where does it go beyond -- MR. GRAMA TGES: Out to the sea. COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Okay. So our taking of minerals and elements, water out of the aquifer doesn't have any adverse effect at all on its ultimate destination? MR. GRAMA TGES: No, it does not. COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: It sends chills down my spine to hear that. MR. GRAMA TGES: You can visualize this as a river that is flowing to the sea. And in our case that river is very close to the sea, as you well know. So we are taking that water just before it goes on to the saltwater. COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: So if we triple the population in the area and we take three times as much water, that will not have any adverse effect? MR. GRAMA TGES: I haven't said that, no. I'm saying that our current withdrawals and the withdrawals that we have planned that are covered by the request that we have for water use perrnit have not caused an adverse effect, and we have science that shows that the additional withdrawals will not cause adverse effect. That's not to say that if we double the rate that there will not be any adverse effect. We don't have any science, because we really have not analyzed that scenario. So I cannot tell you whether it will or not. CHAlRMAN STRAIN: Well, I think-- COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: South Florida in the straits there-- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Dave, with Phil's background in utilities, I think the questions that you're asking would more warrant an environmentalist who has hydrology study to -- I'm not sure we'll get anymore out of -- COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Right, right. Well, I would hope that they would be employing those types of professionals. MR. GRAMATGES: Yes, sir. And I am not proposing that my answer will be agreed to by the Audubon Society or by any other such environmental group. I don't intend to do that. All I'm telling you is that we have science that demonstrates that we have not caused any adverse effect on the aquifer. And we do not -- COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: As far as you know. MR. GRAMATGES: We will not cause any adverse effect with the withdrawals that we have requested. COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Okay. Page 11 1 eat'-~ ~09 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The next item in our book, besides the advertisement section, is Exhibit I. Exhibit 1 is the beginning of a series of letters from attorneys, and these are attorneys specializing 1 believe in water utility perrnitting and items like that. They're short exhibits, so let's just take them here. The first page is after Exhibit I. Anybody have any questions on that page? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Phil, that page indicates that Collier County's trying to reach its ultimate goal of achieving a SO/SO split between traditional water and alternative water supplies. I don't see Collier County getting there with that split. Does the fact that -- where did he get this inforrnation from that we're going to have a SO/SO split between the two water supplies? MR. GRAMA TGES: That doesn't say that we are going to obtain it, that says that that is our goal. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Do you have any idea when the goal can be reached? MR. GRAMA TGES: Whenever we get this approval on the water use perrnit, indeed. But as the population growth continues beyond the planning horizon of our master plan, we may need to have more both brackish water and more freshwater withdraws in order to maintain that SO/SO split. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And the reason the SO/SO is important is the blending of the fresh with the brackish produces a less expensive way to process it; is that a fair statement? MR. GRAMATGES: That's a fair statement, yes, sir. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Because in 2018, according to your water supply report, we're going to have a ratio of84.3S mgd of alternative to 2S.2S from traditional, which is beyond the SO/SO split. And I'm wondering why we're doing that. MR. GRAMATGES: Well, that is if they do not -- if they refuse to approve our water use perrnit for the freshwater that we have requested. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. And how much difference -- what will that mean for the rate users? Is that a huge -- what kind of cost; do we have any idea? MR. GRAMA TGES: Well, the only way to treat brackish water is with reverse osmosis. Reverse osmosis is considerably more expensive than lime softening or membrane softening. Plus on top of that reverse osmosis removes all minerals from the water. We would have to add that back somehow in order to make the water more palatable. It just makes the water too soft. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And that is the least etJicient system. MR. GRAMATGES: Reverse osmosis? Yes, indeed. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ms. Caron? COMMISSIONER CARON: Just before you move on, in the future you're talking about having high pressure RO. Is that more efficient than the standard that we're using now? MR. GRAMATGES: Quite the contrary. Less efficient. COMMISSIONER CARON: Yeah, it's even less efficient. MR. GRAMATGES: Yes, ma'am. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, any on Pages 2 and 3 of the attorney's letter? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Pages 4 and S? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And then Pages 6 and 7. (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Now, the last three pages are 8, 9 and 10. And 9 and 10 are particularly important because they talk and recommend strategies for dealing with an issue that's going to be coming up with the Picayune Strand and South Florida wanting to turn it into a proposed reservation. And because of that our chances of being reduced by our fresh water perrnitting allocation is increased. Is that a fair Page 12 1 Otd~~ 24 609i assumption or fair statement? MR. GRAMATGES: Yes. If the Picayune Strand reservation continues the way it is, that would preclude us from getting any more fresh water at any time in the future. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Then the strategies laid out in the attorney's letter I imagine would be important to consider, because they're supposed to be strategies that the attorneys think might help offset that loss of freshwater. Are we moving forward with those? Because there's a series of them in here, and there's one providing public inforrnation, which I'm sure we can always say we do that. Supporting a so/so goal. But I think that's only doable if you get your current perrnit, if that's applied for. MR. GRAMATGES: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The third one is the county needs to press the district for a decision on its pending water use perrnit applications. Where are we with those current perrnit applications; do we know? MR. GRAMATGES: We have had several meetings with the South Florida Water Management District at their headquarters in West Palm Beach. We have requested an audience with their governing board. We are continuing very aggressively in trying to pursue the approval of this water use perrnit. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, the attorney seemed to believe that the impending water reservation would be about a year from the time he wrote the letter, and that would be on June 10th of'08 -- or July 10th of'08. Do you think your perrnitting will be completed by then? MR. GRAMA TGES: I can't really tell. It depends on how successful we are in convincing South Florida Water Management District that we have the right science or, for that matter, even the right lawyers. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The last item is most critical of the entire bunch, and it's about the agricultural interest in landowners who have perrnitted withdrawals currently. Apparently those are going to be grandfathered in to some extent. Your attorney says that the water transfer process is the only realistic mechanism available to the county for increasing future freshwater supplies. What have we done to meet that goal? MR. GRAMATGES: What he is suggesting is that whenever agricultural land is taken out of cultivation, that we take advantage of that additional water that would be available. And he used that to compensate or to demonstrate to the South Florida Water Management District that we can compensate for that withdrawal. Agricultural withdrawals of course are much higher than the kind of withdrawals that we need. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. And the ratio of irrigation for sod and other things, and lawns and other items like that is reduced. So when you actually have a consumptive use perrnit from a farrn, your conversion gives you a lot less that you show you need when you go to developed areas. The reason this could be important is we're in the process of rezoning the entire eastern area of the county where most of the agricultural if not all of it is. All those massive water use perrnits and consunlptive use perrnits are in place out there for tens of thousands of acres of currently existing agricultural. It is being looked at to be -- a lot of it to be transferred into development. In that transfer process there will be a lot of excess consumptive use gallons left on the table. The county is at a unique position right now with the RLSA program coming up for revicw and going into a GMP amendment next year -- or this year, actually. Page 13 16J!n!try 2A ~09 Have we -- has your department looked at putting language in the RLSA area to address this issue and try to get as -- because I've read the entire language and I'm not finding anything that would even indicate this is being looked at. MR. GRAMATGES: Well, we are working very hard with our outside counselors in order to try to do what we can in this area. We need to remember, though, that as far as the South Florida Water Management District is concerned, they don't think -- they believe that the people in Florida indeed own that water. So it's not a very easy process to take water that was for agricultural use and transfer it into consumptive use. Not at all. They're two very different things as far as the South Florida Water Management District is concerned. Now, I'm not familiar with the details of the language that you're referring to, but I can assure you that that's something that has been discussed extensively and that we are pursuing. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, since I know your department is very keen on obtaining well fields everywhere they possible can, and I understand why, as long as the mechanisms are properly put in place, I think that's great. And that's what should happen. Will you between now -- and maybe Randy can answer this -- between now and the transmittal of the RLSA be looking at that policy structure for that area to be adding language that can either provide the well fields that you need and utilizing those well fields lor the excess capacity between the conversion of agriculture and development? And Randy, you haven't done your data and analysis yet, and the program -- and the book that we've got is severely lacking in analysis, so I am assuming some ofthis may come out between now and the time you're ready for transmittal? MR. COHEN: Mr. Chairrnan, what will transpire is after your review and the EAC's rcview of the second phase of the RLSA report, the board will either direct or not direct, based on requests from their RSLA committee, for staff to undertake a special cycle ofGMP amendments related to the RLSA. At that time it's my understanding that the GMP amendments that are in the RLSA Phase II report would then move forward through the process and they would need additional data and supporting -- data and analysis supports what's being proposed. I would assume that there's probably going to be some additional data and analysis be provided from the outside. Where it's lacking, we will address that as well with requests for additional inforrnation to see whether or not it can be generated in-house. The other thing we will be doing is routing the RLSA GMP amendments to every division of the department, including obviously public utilities, where they will weigh in on the impacts of the transforrnation of the proposals of specific agricuIturallands and sending arcas where the use of water changes obviously from agriculture to possibly to consumptive use perrnit in the future and what those impacts may be and how that would benefit thcm in terrns of a less impact on the Tamiami Aquifer. And that's what we would expect them to comment on and utilize also in their perrnitting process. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I'm sure during transmittal these kind of questions will come up again. So if the departments are looking at them, I hope that we're locking in with those kind of issues that we need to address. So that's good. That's the end of that first letter. There's a letter from the county attorney's office that's on Exhibit 2. This particular letter on Exhibit 2 on the last page has a conclusion that I'm not sure if it means we can demand things or it just says we have that right but we can't enforce it. Are you familiar with the in conclusion comment? MR. GRAMA TGES: I have certainly seen the letter. And the author of the letter is sitting in this room now. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, the boss of the author of the letter. I think Margie Student wrote it, Page 14 161"fA6 January 20, 2009 and she's not here. MR. GRAMATGES: Okay, that's right. She sent that to Heidi. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Jell; would it be better if your department needed to take a look at this and see if there's any clarification needed, since we now have a differencing of opinion on some of these issues? MR. KLA TZKOW: We're going to look into the issue. One of the -- one of my concerns is how do you compel it, when you come right down to it. I mean, we can pass whatever rules we want. The question then becomes how do we go about compelling it and then whether or not it's even worth the bother to go through that process to compel it. But I understand the concerns that the commission's raised and we'll take a new look at this. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, part of my concern is if when we send this report back to DCA, while we could show them that we tried to get this inforrnation, they may not be satisfied that we didn't get it and may say well, you've got to get it. And if they do, then what does that do for us? And that's kind of why I keep pursuing and hammering on it. MR. KLATZKOW: Oh, no, I understand that. And I'm not all that concerned, because my response to DCA would be well, go to the legislature and pass a statute to compel them to do this, I mean, if you have a problem with it. You know, why are you throwing it on our shoulders. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Then the assumption would be that there isn't anything in the statutes that currently would -- MR. KLATZKOW: I don't think there's anything in the statutes that would compel them to do that, no. I think it's a legislative oversight, quite frankly. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Anybody have any questions on that memorandum? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: If they don't, we'll move on to Exhibit 3, which is a lot of correspondence back and forth between the various authorities in Collier County, trying to establish the levels of service and the inforrnation needed for the report. Mr. Cohen? MR. COHEN: Mr. Chairrnan, I was just going to add that Mr. Yonkosky is here at this time, and if you wanted to go back to the CIE and address those bonding questions at this time while you're going into another section, it might be appropriate to do that, if you'd like to. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Fine. Good idea. Is that okay with evcrybody? Thank you, Phil. We're going to give you a break. Good morning, John -- or afternoon. MR. YONKOSKY: Good afternoon, sir, how are you all today? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Good. How have you been? MR. YONKOSKY: Grcat. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You've been one of the people that have been here a long time. MR. YONKOSKY: As have you, Mr. Strain. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I don't see many from the old days. We had a lot of questions last time, and I'm trying to remember exactly what originated the question. But it started to do with assessed values and values on -- I think it was per acre values on things like Parks and Rec. and established values on facilities. Parks and Rec. as example has a price on a per acre acquisition of $230,000 per acre. The question came about is we have bonds at Parks and Rec. that are fixed on a value that are used to support a facility. And let's take the North Naples Regional Park. Let's say the bonds were 20 million. I'm not even Page 15 l~I'.A6 January 20, "iG09 sure what they were. But that bond had to have a -- we're trying to understand what kind of collateral and security was attached to the bond. Because part of the question that originated this whole line of thought was why are we stuck on this consistent high number for acreage when that's not consistent with -- may not be consistent with today's assessed or appraised values. And we're trying to figure out that reasoning. So part of it may be because our bonding has an established collateral need and the number's high for that reason. And that's kind of where we led to you, so -- MR. YONKOSKY: For the record, John Yonkosky, budget director. The North Naples Regional Park was acquired as part -- or was financed as part of a sales tax bond issue. It is one element of several capital facilities that were purchased with that bond -- those bond proceeds. I do not think that there's a direct relationship between the actual bonding of the sales tax and the per acre value. The -- we have several large bond issues that are sales tax oriented. The biggest bond issues that we have are sales tax and gas tax. The sales tax issues were not for a specific purpose, other than refunding and taking out some smaller loans to take advantage of a better interest rate. So that capital facility was one of several capital facilities that were funded with that bond issue. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, well, I know that municipalities receive a certain bond rating, AA, AAA, whatever they call it. Are any of the ratings that we would receive in order to get a preferred interest rate on bonds, say, or preferred status, are any of those related to the valuation of our facilities that are publicly -- public facilities in Collier County? MR. YONKOSKY: No, sir, they are not. We, with all of our bond issues, or the majority of our bond issues, purchased bond insurance. So we have a AAA rating on all of the bond issues and all of the bonds, because that makes the bond more -- I guess it's more moveable in the secondary bond market. Because we have a series of people that have committed through the insurance purchase, surety purchase, that have committed to make the debt service payments, in addition to Collier County. So if Collier County didn't make a debt service payment, someone else would make that payment. And that's the reason that a lot of entities have bought insurance. We have what is called an underlying rating in Collier County, and it depends on which of the three major rating agencies review it and what they're reviewing it for. But we have underlying ratings of AA, AA minus, AA plus, and that's very good for our market. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Then basically, in simpler terrns, we don't have a mortgage on our public facilities, morc or less. MR. YONKOSKY: No, sir. And that's a legal question that Mr. Klatzkow can answer. But my understanding is the Florida constitution does not provide or allow you to mortgage a building. Because then somebody would foreclose on it -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, yeah, I didn't mean mortgage in the true sense of the word. I mean that they weren't used as collateral as support of -- MR. YONKOSKY: No, sir-- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- some other financial document. MR. YONKOSKY: -- they're not, but that's a-- MR. KLATZKOW: No, you can't mortgage the courthouse. You just can't. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Well, that's the only question I think originated from the meeting that we wanted to ask you about. Does anybody else have any follow-up on it? (No response.) Page 16 1 ~ l~~O~9 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you, John. MR. YONKOSKY: Thank you, sir. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Good to see you again. MR. YON KOSKY: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Murray? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I'm fine with that. But what we have shown now is that there is no correlation to that number that is used as the placement holder. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. Which makes the number less needful. Except for some other reason we haven't discovered yet. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: You're working at it. You're trying. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Nick away at it piece by piece. Ms. Caron? COMMISSIONER CARON: But that's why we did go this year to using an acreage as opposed to this dollar figure. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I thought we had -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: We had both. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: We had both. COMMISSIONER CARON: I know both are here, but as was in the discussion during the AUIR, the focus was that this $230 (sic) is really a mcaningless figure to us. COMMISSIONER MURRA Y: You're correct. You're correct, that did happen. That's because-- COMMISSIONER CARON: Absolutely, because-- COMMISSIONER MURRAY: -- the questions we asked-- COMMISSIONER CARON: Right. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: -- made that evident that they said no, that's not meaningful. So I don't know why it's there, quite frankly. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Well, we'll find out next year. Because ifit shows up again, there are going to be reviewed questions about it. Okay, the next document is our Exhibit 4, which is a copy of the public facilities element from the Growth Management Plan. Any questions on Page 2 of that -- I or 2 of that plan? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And Randy or Phil, Policy I.3, it talks about potential water sources to meet the county's 202S water demands include raw water from the Hawthorne zone one aquifer and the lower Hawthorne Aquifer identified in the 200S water master plan. The county shall use these water sources as well as alternative sources, as perrnitted by the state, to meet the county's needs. Now, it's saying as well as alternative sources. And I would read that to mean that we're not considering the lower Hawthorne or the Hawthorne zone one aquifer as alternative sources. But yet your report seemed to indicate we consider them alternative sources for this SO/SO blend we're trying to reach. MR. GRAMATGES: I believe that there is a confusion ofterrns here, ifl may. I think that in the context of what you're reading right now, alternative sources mean sources other than Hawthorne zone one and lower Hawthorne. As far as the South Florida Water Management District, those two aquifers, if you draw from those they're considered to be alternative water sources. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Pages 3 and 4, any questions? Page 17 lQa!u~~~)9 (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Policy 1.7, the county shall reference the water supply guidelines of the most current version of South Florida lower west coast. Why do we reference them? What's the purpose of that -- why do we even bother referencing them if we don't really want to follow them? MR. GRAMA TGES: I would have to assume that it is in order to demonstrate that we are indeed considering the input that we'd receive from the South Florida Water Management District. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. So the fact that we just referenced them means we're considering them. And the fact that we're considering them meets the intent of the statute. MR. GRAMATGES: Correct. MR. COHEN: The choice, Commissioner Strain, would be we either reference it or accept it. And if we accept it, then we run into that consistcncy issue. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I understand. I'm just trying to figure out all the reasoning. Policy 2.3 is an interesting one. Ordinance No. 96-6, it says regulates the operation. How does it regulate the operations if we can't even a~k for an annual report? MR. GRAMA TGES: I would have to defer that to Jamie French. But indeed we do regulate them, but our regulation authority is limited. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: It's like having a dog on a leash but the leash is a little bit weak. CHAlRMAN STRAIN: Well, Jamie, ifregulation means -- MR. FRENCH: The annual report that we do receive does not -- they provide us with all of their financials. I have the right to audit and I have the right to make sure that the levels of service are to the franchise terrns. However, the watcr consumption or the amount of water that they've made, they do not turn those numbers into us, and it is not a condition of their franchise. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, if we go on with that same paragraph, the second sentence says, all such private sector potable water supply service providers are required to meet the county's adopted potable water treatment level of service. It seems pretty meaningless since none of them do. So is that another error in the GMP? MR. FRENCH: Sir, that's news to me. No one has provided me with those numbers, staff nor has the authority. In the five years I've been with the authority have they received the consumptive use numbers. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, if you read on with that whole paragraph, it just elaborates more about basically what we've been looking for and how we're supposed to be getting -- and I guess this goes back to what we talked about in the transmittal is we're not getting it and why didn't we. If the County Attorney, in their future memorandum would take a look at that policy and if we need to be looking to change the GMP to correct these inconsistencies for lack of coordination, I'll use both words that the statute used, maybe we can get better language. And if we can't do anything, we shouldn't be telling everybody we are, so -- Questions on Page 5 and 6'1 Thank you, Jamie. (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, Pages 7 and 8. (No response.) COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I have a question on -- just for qualification on Page 5. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Page 5, okay. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Yeah, where we talk about facility capacity and we have that number that we've used for a long time, the 185 now drops down to 170. Page 18 16 I [., A 6 January 20, 2009 MR. GRAMATGES: Yes, sir. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Will any future document reference that facility capacity will be 170, or will we maintain 185'1 I'm trying to understand how this is referenced here. Is it really a true capacity or is it just -- MR. COHEN: That's the existing figure that's there. And then in the next set ofGMP amendments where we make updates that are staff initiated, those numbers will be changed. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Okay, but that talks of facility capacity. I find that interesting in that the capacity of the facility is certainly greater than the number that you place. You're able to make more water than you're talking about. This is consumption. It's a level of service standard and it's one that is deemed to be consumption. So it's not facility capacity. Am I correct? MR. COHEN: We'll make a note also to look at the title of that section as well too in the next section -- during the staff amendments that we do make as part of the 07/08 cycle. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: If you drop that down, your level of service is going to be there, thcn you're going to look like your plant capability for the long terrn is a lot further out. And you guys have been telling us it's not. MR. GRAMA TGES: That's correct, Commissioner. Yeah, the capacity of our facilities is much larger than 185. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I think that's important to relate there. Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Pages 7 and 8'1 (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Phil, there's Policy 5.2, or actually maybe it's Randy or Jamie, I don't know. Let me read you the last sentence. No existing private sector or potable water treatment systems shall be pennitted to add customers unless all levels of service standards, LOSS, are met and operations are in conforrnance with all FDEP standards. Now, this seems to work well with the Policy 2.3 saying they're required to meet our standards. And in here it says if they aren't, they can't add any customers. And that's kind of where I was going with -- COMMISSIONER MURRA Y: Perrnits. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- trying to get cooperation out of these facilities. But again, I don't know how much teeth this GMP has in regards to oversight on the private utilities, and so we'll just have to wait till thc county attorney's office looks at that policy as well to see if there's anything there. COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Commissioner? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes, sir, Mr. Wolfley? COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: This is going to come up again I think in the rural-- the RLSA discussions. Because obviously those are just simply developments called towns and ham -- well, hamlets may not be there, but large developments. And then I'm looking at Objective 3 on Page 5 and then Policy 5.3 on 7. When they are -- when we allow them to build these, what are the -- their level of service is based on what it is at the time or at build-out, or when is that -- how is that done? The level of service -- in other words, in reading through here, it looks as though --I'm confused, I guess, in reading this. When do they have to meet that level of service? MR. GRAMA TGES: I would have to defer that to -- COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Prior to, you know, giving the development order or --I don't know when that happens. Page 19 1 Rn!at;o, t~ MR. GRAMA TGES: I don't believe that they can meet the level of service until such time that they have started to operate. So to do it ahead of time would be difficult to first deterrnine and then prove. So they would have to begin to operate. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: That's a standard. MR. FRENCH: And I'm going to do my very best to answer your question. Can you just repeat it once more? As far as the level of service. How do they establish that? COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Yeah, we discussed that we're going to be -- and in any development that the facilities are -- whether it be roads -- any infrastructure. MR. FRENCH: Yes, sir. COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: When is that measured? You know, we're going to give them a development order, you can go ahead and build your town. When do we check on the level of service? MR. FRENCH: Generally what happens is that they actually go through a perrnitting process in order to establish the franchise. Now, within the franchise they have to be able to show that they can provide service to meet the -- whatever the county's level of service is or whatever the DEP's level of service is within a five-year period. In the event that they cannot -- so in other words, they get a franchise, they have to serve within five years. If they do not serve within five years, then they put thcir franchise in jeopardy and the county at that point could recall that franchise. COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Okay. So a case in point, Ave Maria. MR. FRENCH: Yes, sir. COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: I would assume that their level of service is pretty dam good compared -- for their water and sewage, compared to the residents they have living there right now, because they didn't anticipate this -- MR. FRENCH: They're perrnitted, so far as I recall, up to nearly five million gallons per day. COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Which would take care 01'-- MR. FRENCH: It's more than the school. And the plant side is pretty good. COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Right, okay. All right, is that what we're looking at then in the future in the RLSA, in the towns and so on? MR. FRENCH: As they would come forward. The only other one that we would have, so long as -- and the only way you could do this is that you would actually go through a perrnitting process, as I spoke of earlier, that ifit was outside of the Collier Water and Sewer District, if you were -- and not a package plant serving a mobile home park or a school, but if you were actually going to serve a community, then you would actually go through the planning and zoning applications, you would go through public utilities to make sure that that is not going to be an area that they're going to serve. So the county really has the right of refusal to -- whether or not to grant them a franchise or not. So if they intend to develop, everything goes through fine, they go before the Water, and Wastewater Authority, they're granted their franchise. At that point, like I said, they've got five years. And then as far as the level of service, those are established within the franchise as well as with the DEP. COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: So we in essence control that. MR. FRENCH: We do control that. We control who gets a franchise and who doesn't. Whereas before those were granted -- you weren't required to do that through the Florida Public Service Commission. So long as it was outside of the water/sewer district of your county or city, you could actually go to the Florida Public Service Commission, the county had so many days to basically object to it. And if they didn't, then the Florida Public Service Commission would grant -- generally it's around a 30-year franchise. COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Okay, thank you. Page 20 161 .~62009 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Vigliotti? COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: I have a question. You had said that within the five years or at the end of five years they have to show you that they could meet the standards? MR. FRENCH: They have to be able to serve within their sewcr district. Now, in the -- or within their service district. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Are they giving you reports yearly or at the end of five years? And aren't those reports sufficient enough to answer the other question? MR. FRENCH: They provide an annual report to their levels of service as far as the amount of water. We only see the financials. I would not see whether or not they had a -- they would show it on their assets. I would see assets as to whether or not they build the plant or what the costs were. For instance, Ave Maria, we started off with $18 million. And then as that $18 million bank started to dwindle down, a plant came out of the ground. So that's exactly how a franchise would start. But over the five-year period -- now, in the event that they had other residents within their service district, and good example, that was with Orangetree with Orange Blossom Ranch, that Orangetree was not prepared to serve. So what then would happen is that the developer would petition the Water and Wastewater Authority. We would issue what they call a show cause order. Show cause order basically asks the utility, do you intend to serve, and if you do, what are your plans, and what is the time period. And they have to respond within a reasonable amount of time, set by the authority. Generally it's 30 to 90 days. And in this particular case, the utilities stepped up, spent some money and expanded not only their service area, because it was still within their franchised area, but they added capacity both to the water plant and they already had enough on the sewer plant. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, thank you. COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: I had one thing. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Wolfley? COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Sir, what was that you said? Who issued it? I mean, what got expanded, the Collier County or Orangetree? MR. FRENCH: On the example that I used for the Orangetree-- COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: You say they and I missed -- MR. FRENCH: What I mean is the utility. With the Orange Blossom Ranch example -- COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Yes. MR. FRENCH: -- that was already within their service area. They did not have to expand their service -- their area as far as their franchise area. They were not providing service to that area. In the event that they chose not to serve that area, then we could -- the Water and Wastewater Authority could cut that area out and then that developer could have come forward and asked for a franchise or put a package plant in that would not have to be regulated by the county. COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: But you were talking, the "they" is Orangetree. MR. FRENCH: Orangetree, yes, sir. COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: I'm sorry. Thank you. MR. FRENCH: I'm sorry. Sorry for the -- COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: No, no, that was me. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, the next three tabs are docwnents that may not -- they're existing docwnents for the most part. There may not be a lot on them. Let's take tab five. Does anybody have any questions on tab five? (No response.) Page 21 161 ,~. A 6 January 20, 2009 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I hate -- Jamie, I hate to keep you bouncing back up from the room or not, but tab five is Ordinance 96-6. Is that the ordinance that you fall under? MR. FRENCH: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. MR. FRENCH: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, then that brings me to a question on Page 8. Section 1-3, authority ofthe Collier County Water and Wastewater powers and duties. Nwnber nine: By final order to require regular or emergency reports from a utility including but not limited to financial reports as the authority deems necessary. And it goes on about different reports there. But it's including but not limited to. So why couldn't you get the reports that are needed and required by the comprehensive plan? MR. FRENCH: As the regulator I would not have come to the Water and Wastewater Authority and asked for that. Staff could have. But again, if the attorney's argwnent for Orangetree was that there's nothing that's binding me to do this, this is -- and remember, everything we require these private utilities to do, they take -- it comes out of the conswner's pocket. So if you -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But our utility department's doing the same report that's coming out of our pocket, so why shouldn't the people who are getting serviced by Ave Maria pay whatever it takes to get a report done? MR. FRENCH: I'm not arguing with you, sir. But again, they're going to take that into consideration to try to keep the rates down and say show us the benefit. And again, I can't speak for the Authority, but bottom line is that staff could have petitioned the Water and Wastewater Authority. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And by this section, wouldn't you then have been able to demand it? MR. FRENCH: I can't demand it unless the Authority tells -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, the Authority then could have demanded it. The Authority is the Board of County Commissioners. MR. FRENCH: The Authority can be the -- yes, sir, they are the ex officio. They are the board-- they are the Water and Wastewater Authority. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Oh, I love this circle. So Phil's got to turn around and ask the Board of County Commissioners to tell you to go ahead and get this accomplished, and then we can get the information we need on a regular basis and however they handle it's their problem. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: By the way I read that, yes, sir. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That might give you some insight into your memo, Mr. Klatzkow. MR. KLA TZKOW: Now, I said, it's a question to compel. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, there it is. MR. KLATZKOW: Not really. I mean, I'll get back to you, see if we've got the right to compel them. It's one thing to ask, it's another thing to demand. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: It just -- it's such a -- it seems like such a simple request and a simple process, and everybody benefits from it because the docwnents are complete, they go to the ORC Report __ I mean, the DCA gets it, everybody's happy. Why don't we just do it? I just don't understand the resistance. It just baffles me. Ms. Caron? COMMISSIONER CARON: Yeah, I just wanted to say, I mean, but the language says that you can require, not just that you can ask. So isn't that a little stronger? Isn't that, you know, the shall and may Page 22 161'~'1Il. January :m,~09 routine here again? I mean, maybe not, Jeff, and I don't want to -- MR. KLA TZKOW: I've got to tell you, I don't know that I want to go to the Code Enforcement Board with an issue saying Ave Maria hasn't issued us this type of a report, and then the Code Enforcement Board does -- what I'm saying, if they say no, what do you do? And that's what I have to close the loop on. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, Code Enforcement Board, I don't think they have -- what would they have to do here? MR. KLATZKOW: No, no, no. Because if they say no, what do you do? I mean, we've already asked them, they've said no. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Are they enacted by the powers of 96-6? Because if they are, we just retract the inaction and take the powers away starting in -- MR. KLATZKOW: I think it's smashing a fly with a cannon now. Let me-- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I know. But how's -- [ mean, this is a simple request. I just can't believe the flack that the county's gotten in trying to get the -- cross the T's -- MR. KLATZKOW: I understand that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- and dot the I's. I mean, I agree with you, you're right, we didn't start making this a big issue, we just said get the report. And next thing you know it's all of a sudden become a do or die issue. MR. KLA TZKOW: Right. We asked for the report, they said no. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. MR. KLA TZKOW: So what I'm saying is well, I've got to find out what the answer is to now what. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, gotcha. Exhibit 6. Does anybody have any questions on Exhibit 6? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: There's two sections after that. There'll probably be a lot of -- I mean, I have quite a few questions on the lO-year water supply, so we get into that. But Exhibit 6 is the interlocal agreement, interlocal service delivery agreement report from August, 2004. So it's an existing older docwnent. Then we have the ordinance proposed, depending on how this outcome of this review is. And we finally get into the I O-year water supply facilities work plan. Does anybody have any issues up to the I O-year water supply facilities work plan? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ifnot, take that fun docwnent. And by the time you get past the table of contents and the acronyms, you're finally onto Page ES- I, which is the executive summary. And that's the first page of the docwnent. And after that one, we'll go two at a time. Does anybody have any questions on ES- I? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Randy, the second paragraph of the executive summary, under the requirement of Florida Statutes, the I O-year water supply facilities work plan for Collier County must include analysis of all water utilities in the county not serving a specific local government. And these utilities include: And there's Orangetree and Ave Maria. Now -- and that's referencing Florida statutes. So now we've got ordinances, the GMP, Florida statutes, the public water authority, or whatever else you want to call it. So hopefully between all them we can find a reason -- we might be able to get this information. What does that second paragraph mean, if not that you have to get these reports? And if it's a statute that's a reference, maybe you could provide that to the county attorney's office. MR. COHEN: Well, that's the problem we have. We're required to put it in the report. And at the Page 23 1 ~al!;2A 609 same time they're saying no. So we're caught in between as a staff. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Well, I'll let these legal people figure out, but I certainly think it'll be an interesting outcome. Are there any questions on Pages ES-2 and ES-3? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Then we get into ES-4 and ES-5. The tables on ES-4, did we get -- on the top of the table where it talks about the different design capacities, if you total the ones up that are on line, they total 52 mgd. That's consistent with the AUIR. The AUIR indicated that in 2012 there was a plant going on line that would have given us the capacity. Did we get that plant completed last year -- I'm sorry, in 2008. MR. GRAMATGES: Yeah, we did complete that plant in 2008. And that's the -- our old facility at the south water plant. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. The available facility capacity on ES-2 where it talks about the mgd, is that usable storage volwne? Is that the same as usable storage volwne? Is usable storage volwne another nwnber that you use, or is that equal to any of those nwnbcrs on ES-2? MR. GRAMA TGES: I'm sorry, specifically what line are you talking about, sir? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The fourth line down, available facility-- MR. GRAMATGES: Available facility capacity. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Is that the same as useable storage volume? Because I find useable storage volwne referenced in other sections of your document, and I was trying to correlate it. MR. GRAMATGES: No, it is not. No. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's why I -- MR. GRAMA TGES: This is the production capacity of all the facilities. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. rfyou look on the second table and you look at the permitted amount mgd annual average. 2005, it says 56 I 4, and 2008 it's 6382. Your table in Section 6- I is consistent with 5614 right through. Why is there a differcncc between the two tables? MR. GRAMA TGES: Okay, so you're talking about table -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: If you look at ES-2 and compare the permitted amount to the permitted amount shown on tile facilities capacity analysis in Section 6, table 6- I, they're not consistent on that line. And I was just wondering if you know why. MR. GRAMA TGES: Let me take a look. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Because it does have a -- it will produce a different surplus and deficit calculation. Tell you what, Phil, we're getting close to a break. If you want, you can look at -- I can give you those comparisons during the break and that way we'll kill two birds with one stone. So why don't we come back at 3 :35, take a 15-minute break. Thank you. (Recess. ) MR. COHEN: Mr. Chairman, you have a live mic. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. Welcome back from the break. And before we got into an explanation here for a minute, I want to pass out what I didn't have earlier, because the copies came through. Hold on just a second. If you could pass those down, Mr. Vigliotti. And Donna. I have one I'll make sure, Cherie', you get it. And Randy, I have enough copics, if you don't mind, at some point send them off to the other Planning Commission members before -- those that aren't here? As long -- MR. COHEN : Yes, sir, they will be mailed out. Page 24 16A4~ '6009 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- as they get them before next Wednesday. Thank you. Yeah, Carolina, that one goes. Thank you very much. Okay. Phil, I understand you figured out my question. Go ahead, sir. MR. GRAMATGES: Yes, Mr. Chairman. Table ES-2 is analyzing the capacity with the necessary permits in place to demonstrate that we will have sufficient raw water capacity on 2018. Table 6.1 is trying to demonstrate that if we do not get the additional permits that we need and we continue at the permitted amount that we have right now, we will eventually run out of capacity on 2018. In fact, thanks to Ms. Valera, she pointed out to me that a response to the ORC response on Page 4 of our letter we address the same issue. And it's shown -- and it says that as shown in table 6-1 of the revised plan submitted by Collier County, there are no water deficits to meet future water supply needs until 2018. So indeed, it's not a discrepancy, simply that those tables are trying to address different questions. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. The efficiency of the two tables, the raw water requirement is the raw water needed to make a certain amount of finished water. It is calculated by dividing the required treatment capacity at 170 by the efficiency of the treatment process. So if you take the raw water requirement, and that stays the same, how does the raw water requirement relate to the permittcd amount? Or does it? MR. GRAMA TGES: Well, the raw water supply is indeed directly related to the amount. The permit gives us permit to withdraw raw water. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. So what happens is the deficiency hits in 2018 because your raw water requirement cxceeds what the permitted amount is available at that time without the permit being -- MR. GRAMA TGES: That's correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- revised. Okay. That gets me to where I needed to go. Thank you. COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Could I have a little-- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Wolfley? COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Are we going to require or at least try to attempt to get a little bit more -- and I hate to use the word control, but confidence that we can get information from these new towns and townships in the RLSA? Or is it going to be the same situation? MR. COHEN: Let me answer that for you, Commissioner. And I'm going to use Big Cypress as an example. COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Perfect. MR. COHEN: Big Cypress is a DR!. As part of that DRI, there's an application for development approval. There's specific questions that are asked in that application with respect to potable water and how it's going to be supplied. The applicant has to answer those questions. In conjunction with that, there's a stewardship receiving area application which is in essence analogous more or less to a PUD but a lot more involved. In that docwnent there's also a requirement for them to address potable water and how it will be addressed. When -- and you'll see both the DR! and also the SRA. Whcn you do, one of the things that happens in conjunction with the DR! is that there has to be a development order that's approved by the Board of County Commissioners. It would be appropriate for you at that time to make a recommendation on how that private utility is dealt with with respect to regulation and what they are required to do. There's your control entity. And there should be -- more than likely it will be a developer's Page 25 1Q~ 'iotA 6 agreement in conjunction with the SRA as well, too. So there's two different places you could spell it out. And the board could then put those in two different areas or legal docwnents, and that's your control factor. COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Well, I'm hoping we remember that coming up. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Oh, I can assure you, I bet you we'll remember it. COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: I think we will. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Any more questions on the executive summary section of this report? Ms. Caron? COMMISSIONER CARON: Yeah, I just wanted to follow up. Phil, when I asked you earlier about the additional efficiencies that you were going to begin using, one of them being the high pressure RO, you said that that was less efficient than the standard one we're using today, correct? MR. GRAMATGES: Yes. COMMISSIONER CARON: What about the ionic exchange that -- MR. GRAMATGES: Ionic exchange is more efficient than RO. COMMISSIONER CARON: Okay. But is it more efficient than the other things, what we're using now? MR. GRAMATGES: The motion efficient process is lime -- COMMISSIONER CARON: Right. MR. GRAMA TGES: -- softening. After that is membrane softening. COMMISSIONER CARON: Right. MR. GRAMA TGES: After that is ionic. And after that reverse osmosis. And it varies. I mean, obviously it depends on the supply and the kind of water and the salinity and so on. COMMISSIONER CARON: Why would we even be thinking about the high pressure reverse osmosis if it's less efficient than what we're doing now, or less efficient than ionic exchange? MR. GRAMA TGES: The reason why we want to use high pressure RO at the north water plant is because we have four wells that have gone saline. Those four wells are sitting there not being used. And that -- and I'm not a hydrogeologist, but when we talked to our consultants, they first say that that is something that is not very common, but it does happen. Secondly, that they would recommend that at some point in time we continue to extract from those wells. Because if we do not do that, that salty water may indeed somehow find its way into the rest of the well-field. So we have to draw from those wclls, we have to process that water, and for that reason there is a two mgd high pressure RO facility planned for the north water plant. And by the way, that is independent of capacity. If you look at the AUIR, you will notice that we moved that project, we left that project in the same schedule that it was before, because it's not there necessarily to produce additional capacity but to try to avoid problems in the future. COMMISSIONER CARON: Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Murray? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Just so I'm clear on something here. Maybe I can help, too. The use of the word efficiency here is, I think -- and I want you to correct me if I'm wrong, certainly -- I think it's related to the process itself, that it's more expensive, it's more challenging, it's more time consuming. And the result, though, is that you get a better water product; do you not? I'm trying to understand whether we are using efficiency -- whether we're hitting the word efficiency over the head as being a bad thing because we're saying it's not as efficient. How are we using the word efficiency there? MR. GRAMATGES: Let me explain. We process brackish water in order to extract salt, the soft Page 26 lQa~'t, ~6 salt from that brackish water. The more salt there is in that water, the more salt we have to take out. That salt has to be moved out of the membrane in dilution. In other words, when you push the water through the membrane, part of it goes through the membrane as potable water, part of it remains inside the membrane, it's disposed of. Now, if you have more salt in the water, you need more dilution water in the waste to be able to carry that salt away. So the more salt you have in the water, the less deficient it is. Because a percentage of potable water that you can extract from that water diminishes. Am I making my -- COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I used to have responsibility -- an operation for a reverse osmosis plant for chemicals, very strong chemicals, so I'm familiar with the process. And the way you're describing it, I understand. And in the sense that, you know, it takes more -- you have to clean them, back flush them more often, et cetera, et cetera. And in that context, they are less efficient than something that can fUn rather easily through a process. So I just wanted to be sure that the public understands as well that it's something we must use, if you will, that we don't have a lot of choice as we get deeper and deeper into the brack. MR. GRAMA TGES: You're absolutely correct. And it's not a deficiency in the process, per se, it's an intrinsic quality of the supply water. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Wolfley? COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Yeah, and just a follow-up. For instance, an RO system may -- for every gallon produced, that the flush may be five gallons or whatever that -- that's what I took is the efficiency. MR. GRAMATGES: That's corrcct. COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Oh, okay, so-- MR. GRAMATGES: That's what I tried to -- COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: So what is ours now? MR. GRAMATGES: -- explain to Commissioner Murray. COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: What is ours now? Where are we with that? MR. GRAMA TGES: The reverse osmosis system that we use right now is about 85 percent efficient. COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Which means for every gallon we produce -- MR. GRAMA TGES: I'm sorry, 75 percent efficient. COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: So that means for every gallon we use, we throwaway four? MR. GRAMATGES: Yes. COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Is that how you do that? Okay, throwaway or flush four. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: You would have anyway. MR. GRAMATGES: That's right. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Your product is what you're really talking about, not -- the efficiency is a cost factor. MR. GRAMA TGES: Well, the higher you go, the less deficient it is as well from the use of energy. A high pressure RO requires much more electricity because you need bigger pwnps. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Oh, yeah. MR. GRAMA TGES: So it goes both ways. COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: And the flushing water goes right back down into the -- back down in another -- gets away, correct? MR. GRAMA TGES: Well, the flushing water is pumped down quite a bit. COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Right. MR. GRAMA TGES: It's going all the way down to a very saline aquifer. Page 27 JlbJ2r;oA6 COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Okay. So that was -- there it was. My point was going to be from earlier in questioning, there's no impact, because you're sort of replenishing but at a lower level. MR. GRAMATGES: Well, we are-- COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Bad thinking. MR. GRAMATGES: -- we're putting tl1e flushed water in a different aquifer than the one we extract the water from. COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Okay, gotcha. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You're getting questions from a guy who's growing exotic plants that will defoliate all of Florida, so -- just to let you know. COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: You are absolutely killing me. Did you forget that they're noxious, too? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah, noxious bad plants. Back into the executive summary, any other questions on the ES pages? There's nine of them. (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Phil, on your table ES-3, you go down a bit and it says NCRWTPHPRO, 2012, and you have 2.0. The AUIR has a 3.9 mgd for that time period. Is that any relationship to this 2.0? Do you know why they'd be different? MR. GRAMA TGES: Well, there is a -- and I'm not looking at the AUIR right now, but of course the AUIR has several tables. And the 2.0 is the potable water capacity coming out of it. There is -- if you calculate the raw water going in, of course it's more than that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, it just says new plant constructed capacity, 3.9. So that new plant you're saying here is -- the project that they're talking about, the design capacity of2.0 for alternative water supply, that's just a portion of the 3.9? MR. GRAMA TGES: It is the reliable capacity for that plant. 2.0 is the reliable capacity to that facility. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Any other questions on thc ES section? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ifnot, let's -- we have section one. There's a handful of Section 6. Let's just take it a section at a time. Anybody have any questions on section one? If not, it's only a couple pages. (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Section two? Anybody have any questions on section two? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: It goes down to page -- to 2-9. Phil, on the second page of section two, it's a map. The map shows the boundaries of the water servIce areas. MR. GRAMATGES: Correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The Board of Commissioners has specially said we are not going to supply water to Golden Gate Estates in the foreseeable future. And they ruled out 10 years and 20 years or whatever. Yet you guys are collecting impact fees because the dotted line on this page is in the Estates where we're now never going to have water. Or I shouldn't say never, but we're not going to have it within the time framc that Housc Bill 0849 allows you to have it in in order to charge impact fees. So we need to fix this map. What does it take to pull the boundary back to where the County Commission said to put it? MR. GRAMA TGES: The County Commissioners I believe have -- well, this is part of the special act. And the boundaries of this district were drafted by the special act. We would have to modity that act in Page 28 161 t A 6 January 20, 2009 order to cut back on the boundaries of the water/sewcr district. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Well, does the 10-year water supply plan reflect the commissioners' wishes to -- MR. GRAMATGES: No. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- cut back on the district? Well, why doesn't it then? MR. GRAMA TGES: The 1 O-year water supply plant does not address that. At the time that this plant was created, there was no requirement, as I understand it, from the board to cut back or to reduce the footprint of the water/sewer district. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Is there any doubt that the board indicated they wanted to do that now or directed that to happen when that gentleman came forward and we found all this out? MR. GRAM A TGES: I don't have any doubt, but that's -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. So a recommendation from this body when this goes forward to reduce the service boundaries to be more in line with what the Board of County Commissioners has expressed their desire to be would be something that I guess everybody would understand, because I certainly intend to add that to a list of things that I've got growing here. Mr. Murray? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: You arc referring to the fact that the County Commissioners so stated that they were inclined to have that withdrawn, you know, brought back to the limits -- trying to say this in a proper way. Are we being -- and I don't mean this in an offensive way, but are we being redundant? I mean, it's already been stipulated, has it not, by the County Commissioners that they wanted this done? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I don't care if it has, I'm not going to approve a plan without making that stipulation as a requirement, because -- COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Oh, I support that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- we weren't asked to approve that. COMMISSIONER MURRA Y: I'm not arguing with you. But I just thought, I'm pretty sure that I remembered seeing County Commission where that issue was raised, and I thought you were referencing it, quite frankly, where they stated unqualified that they wanted that drawn back. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Okay. So -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But my comment is if we're putting a plan through that isn't drawing it back and if there's reasons why they can't do it on this plan, I still want to make it clear to the Commission that this body reviewed it and at least one person, ifnot all of us, are expressing similar intent that we heard from them. COMMISSIONER MURRA Y: Gotcha. Now I'm clear as to what you -- really where you were going. Thank you. MR. GRAMA TGES: Let me clarity that this is the official map as it stands right now. The process of changing this map is, I suspect, a lengthy one. And therefore, when this is submitted to DCA, this is how the district will look like. And that the board has expressed a desire for us to change it is a fact. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, but if --I'm not -- but the problem I have with this map is this allows you guys to go on and continue to go on to charge impact fees for the areas that will not now by -- the acknowledgment of the BCC will not have water and sewer for the immediate 10 years, and your empowerment act says the following: The District is empowered by this act to levy and collect water or sewer impact fees only within the then existing geographic boundaries of the district. If the building structure or land use on the property for which impact fees have been paid is not authorized to connect to Page 29 1~LJ'{6, '" the district's systems within 1 0 years of the date of such payment, the property owner holding legal title at the end of the 10-year period shall be eligible for a refund of the impact fees without interest. So they've already acknowledged that you're not going to be out there for 10, 20 years. So I don't understand why we're continuing every time a home goes up asking for impact fees in an area that we'll never use them for. Mr. Murray? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Would it be reasonable to recommend a second map be prepared, showing -- while Mr. Gramatges indicates that this is a requirement under the statute that would provide it, how about a second map that would disclose our intent to modity to the boundary that is appropriate, and have that included in here with our recommendation? MR. GRAMA TGES: The board would have to approve the boundaries of the -- the new boundaries for the water/sewer district. I would think that probably it would be preswnptuous on our part to put a map in here that will anticipate what the board will approve. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Which board? MR. GRAMATGES: The Board of County Commissioners. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, they expressed themselves pretty clearly when they reviewed the East of951 study-- MR. GRAMA TGES: Absolutely. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- and they basically concurred with the study. And so if you were to draw a map concurrent with that study that they already blessed, I think we'd be in good position to argue that this is not where we're going to go, we can stop charging people impact fees for a system that's never going to be on line, because by our own enabling act we shouldn't be doing it. MR. GRAMATGES: Mr. Chairman, I assure you that we are not going to levy impact fees in those areas that the board have told us they don't want us to levy impact fees, whether we have the power to do it by the statute or not. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, well, the gentleman -- MR. GRAMATGES: Let's put it this way: Our jobs depend on it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The gentleman that opened all this up who had that home out there where he paid a fortune in impact fees and he lives way out in the Estates, are you giving him a refund? MR. GRAMA TGES: I can't speak to that. That's not my department. I don't have responsibility for that. But I would suspect that we will; I don't know. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Because there's hundreds of homes that could be in this situation, based on the dotted lines on this map. MR. GRAMA TGES: I don't know if it's hundreds of homes or dozens. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, dozens. One. Any individual that has been putting up money he shouldn't have had to put up I think deserves a refund. But that's beyond what we can do here today. But at least I'm going to suggest that this panel recommend a revision to the map. COMMISSIONER MURRA Y: I would hope that -- so in other words, that recommendation that I made, you wouldn't prepare such a docwnent. You wouldn't prepare -- Randy, you wouldn't prepare such a document? MR. COHEN: At this point in time, I think the board has expressed an intent that the process be effectuated to modity this map and has directed public utilities not to correct impact fees. Now we have to go through that process to modity the map. The map that's set forth right there are the official boundaries and that's what we should be forwarding to DCA. And what would be recognized is the official map. I think it would be appropriate for the CCPC to provide a recommendation based on the intent of Page 30 ~a~Jryt: ;006 6 the board to expedite the process and tl1e mechanism by which the boundaries could be changed. And then what we could do as part of the potable water element that we send up and when we modity that as part of the next series ofGMP amendments, then we could include the map as an attachment. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I think that would get us there, Bob. Because I think it's got to go through a process. I think when you change these dotted lines, exactly how many dotted lines you change has got to be acknowledged. And I agree, it's going to take some time. But I just want to -- at least I would think it'd be good to note that as it goes forward. So that was my point of discussion. We're on section two. Are there any other questions on section two before we go to section three? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Anybody have any questions on section three? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: As you might guess, section three goes all the way to section four. Are there any questions on section four? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The only reason I'm moving fast through this, I'm asswning if you have questions, they're somehow tabbed so you know how to turn to them. So ifI'm going too fast just slow me down, everyone. Then there's two more sections. COMMISSIONER MURRA Y: You know-- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Murray? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Section four, you've got sections 4. I through, and then you have figure 4.2, and you have figure 4.3. It gets a little confusing initially, but we can work our way through it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You want to go on to section five then? Anybody have any questions on section five? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Phil, I've got one question on section five. If you look at table 5-6, and you look at the raw water requirement total, 74.1, I believe that's through the year 2018, by the way that table looks. Then you go back and look on Page ES-4 and you look at the raw water requirement for 2018, it's inconsistent with Table 5.6. In ES-4 it's 62.66, and on table 5-6 it's 74.1. I just need an explanation, because I may not be reading everything I need to read to get there. MR. GRAMA TGES: Okay, summary of existing water treatment facilities. Now, ES-4 you said, 6.6. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah, if you turn to table two on ES-4, and you'll go to the third line up from the bottom where it says raw water requirement, 62.66. Is that the same number that we're supposed to find on Table 5-6 where it says 74.1? MR. GRAMA TGES: I'm looking at table 5-6 and I don't find -- I think we're talking -- COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I don't see thc same thing you see. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, on Table 5-6 on page -- oh, okay, I'm on Page 5-6. It's Table 5-3. My apologies. COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Oh, gee. You're scaring me. You slipped up. It's the first time I've ever seen you slip up. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I haven't slipped. I'm still reading the right nwnber. Number's right, table's wrong. Minor discrepancy. You see the 74.1 total on table now 5.3? On Page 5.6, verse table ES-2 on Page ES-4? Oh, Cherie', good luck getting all this down. Page 31 1 Rnja' i~,A~ They're getting punch drunk with this stuff here, Phil. MR. GRAMA TGES: Well, I'm sure that there must be a reason. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: We appreciate it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Phil, I'd be happy if you e-mailed us the reason. I don't think it's going to change the dynamics here today, but it was a discrepancy I caught and -- MR. GRAMATGES: We should havc -- I should have had one. I reviewed this docwnent, I assure you, many times. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, would you mind e-mailing us the reason? I don't think it's going to affect the outcome of to day's meeting. MR. GRAMA TGES: I'd be happy to do that. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I'd like to thank the Chair and Mr. Gramatges for the fun that we had with it. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Must be just a typo. MR. GRAMA TGES: Well, we have to take ourselves a little bit less seriously sometimes if we are to keep our sanity. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, well, let's move on then. Anything else on section five? (No rcsponse.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, if there's nothing there, then section six is the last part of the docwnent. For the remainder of that docwnent, are there any other questions? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Give everybody a few minutes to make sure their pages aren't got (sic) any notes on them they want to ask. Okay, Phil, I thank you for all the enlightening experience we had here today. MR. GRAMATGES: You're welcome, sir. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I think we've gotten through it. And that brings us back to what we have to finish with on today's agenda, and that basically is the motions on the two issues that we're to handle today: One being the CIE and the other being the water update report. Trying to find my agenda. It's here somewhere in this pile. Here, it is. For discussion amongst the board members, and maybe Randy, you could help us through some of this, I made notes on the first meeting for issues that were still outstanding. I can relay them all to you to see how you feel about it. In that discussion there were some three or four items in the CIE that seemed to be -- still remain. One is a suggestion to look at an analysis of doing a one-week -- one time a week pickup for solid waste disposal to see if there's any savings that could possibly happen there. I think that's a reasonable thing to recommend to the Board of County Commissioners in reviewing theCIE. Is there any objection to that or anybody think we shouldn't do that? COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: It's fine. COMMISSIONER MURRA Y: I think it's a good idea to recommend. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Corby, do we have any reasons why we -- that's out of bounds for us, or is that in line with a recommendation we could proceed with? MR. SCHMIDT: Not that I'm aware of, Mr. Chairman. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. The other one is we talked about some of the costs in the road system, and one of those was the landscaping issues. There was a suggestion that we look at MSTU's for-- Page 32 16 'J:la~:O, 2009 localized MSTU's for landscaping. Does everybody like that idea as a recommendation, or any thoughts on that? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Yeah. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Murray? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I can't remember where the case was made, but somebody made the case that we have an overall MSTUB (sic), I think it called. I think that was at the County Commission that they made that when that issue was raised. In other words, that there's -- all of it is taken into consideration. I thought it's already there. And I'm trying to figure out whether or not we're -- what we're going to recommend will fly. Say again what you want to recommend? That we have individual MSTU's? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That we look at -- that we recommend to the County Commission to consider localized MSTU's for roadway landscaping. And they consider it. If they look at it and they say it can't be done because we have an MSTBU or XYZ, then they don't go any further. But it was a thought that was discussed. It might be one to save money during these times and might be something to look at. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Yeah, I hear your words, but I'm trying to understand where the areas would be. Do we have boundaries? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No. It would be-- COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Just an open recommendation. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Open recommendation. The people -- it's a suggestion. And for example, there was a little bit discussion in one meeting about the newly completed Vanderbilt Beach Road extension between Livingston Road and 951. There's medians there. They put sod in them. The medians look great. But the people in one community decided they wanted to have the medians all landscaped. And I don't know, I'm a tax payer, I don't see -- I don't have a burning desire to care if a median's ever landscaped in this county, but I know other people have different opinions. And if they live in areas where it will benefit their community and benefit their house values and they want to do it, then maybe they ought to look at MSTU's to get that done. In these times. I mean, in the old days it didn't matter too much, but right now we're running short on funds to do such things. Mr. Wolfley? COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Do you mean that for instance on Pine Ridge where in front of Vineyards it's landscaped, you go further east and it's not. What are you suggesting, who would pay for it, the taxpayer or let's say in this case the Vineyards? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Some communities want landscaping in the medians in front of their road systems. COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Private communities. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Some communities have done that on their own. I know one that did all the medians and the county took it over afterwards. There's others that have done the landscaping and maintained it afterwards. There's others that have put an MSTU in it and it was perpetually provided tax base for the county to take care it and install it. All I'm suggesting, if a community wants their medians in front of their development landscaped, let them look at doing it through an MSTU. COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: That's my thought. Okay, thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's the only -- that's all I'm suggesting, we look at it. I don't know if it's even been looked at. So that's the only suggestion that I was asking this board to consider. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I don't think it hurts anything to -- Page 33 161'~'A6 January 20, 2009 COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: No. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: -- make a recommendation. COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: No, I'm in agreement. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ms. Caron? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I don't know ifit will go anywhere, but-- COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: No, it's a good idea. COMMISSIONER CARON: I think that it's essentially already happened. All the planned landscaping, if I'm not mistaken, that was in the transportation plan is done and over with. It was done as of -- yes, as of this last -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No, what they did is they reduced the total landscaping that they were going to supply in a certain transportation zone to 1.8 million -- COMMISSIONER CARON: Right. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- from whatever it was. COMMISSIONER CARON: But that's it. After that there's nothing in the plan beyond that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I didn't know. But I thought if there was, and they would consider doing localized MSTU's, if people insisted upon it, that would be a way to do it. I mean, that's a11 I was suggesting. COMMISSIONER CARON: No, no, no, I'm just saying, if it's not in the plan somebody would have to come forward and -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And pay for it. COMMISSIONER CARON: -- say we want an MSTU because we want this-- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. COMMISSIONER CARON: -- done. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. And I think that's the right way to go. COMMISSIONER CARON: So, you know, I think it's already happened, Mark, is all I'm saying. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, well-- MR. COHEN: Let me go ahead and clarity that for the record. There are additional medians that just have grass in them right now. And the board as a matter of policy decided to expend funds for additional landscaping for specific roadways as part of its unfunded mandates. They made that policy decision. There are additional segments of road, an example would be Immokalee Road, that's to the east of 951, going out that direction, it doesn't have that type oflandscaping in it. So there are other roadways that could fall under that category. So the recommendation, if the board so decided to, would be appropriate. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I mean, I just wanted to express it to the rest of the Commissioners and see if there's any problems. And the other item that we discussed and it was -- with some discussion from the county attorney, was not to clutter up the GMP with additional things that aren't needed. And one of them that was added that really didn't need to be added because Nick acknowledged it could be done in another forum would be the removal of the bridge report. Tieing it to the GMP might be problematic in the long run, because it isn't easily changed if it's tied into the GMP. Now, those are the three things that pertain to the CIE that I have notes on. I also have notes for two or three items that pertain to the water/sewer element. So if we want to take a motion on the CIE to recommend approval subject -- with the following suggestions to the BCC, and the suggestions being take a study of the possibility of going to trash pickup once a week; consider localized MSTU's for landscaping medians and landscaping roadways; and to Page 34 JIRJ'~A6 remove the bridge report from the CIE, as it can be put forth in another reporting mechanism that is more easily modified. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: So moved. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: I just have a question about the trash pickup. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Let's get the motion and seconded first. Made by Mr. Murray, seconded by? COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: (Indicating.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Vigliotti. Now discussion. Yes, Karen? COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: We're just -- you're just recommending that they look at the cost. We're not making it seem like we're recommending one day a week. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No, just look at the cost. Do a study to see if there's any feasibility to it. If it's offered and it's a good idea, maybe it's a good thing to look at. But I don't -- it would be nice to take a look at it, because I know from comparisons to other communities some have found a savings there. It may not be possible in our community, but maybe it is -- maybe it is. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: There's other issues, like that -- I think that with the trash -- I mean, there's the -- it's a lot warmer here a longer time of the year and people have the trash outside their house or in their garage, or stormy -- and when there's hurricanes coming, it's tough with the whole trash can full of trash for three, four weeks or something, could be, till you could get a trash pickup, if there's damage. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No. Again, I think we're just trying to find ways to consider if there's a study that can be done or a review that can be done and it can be acknowledged it's feasible and saves money, I think we ought to look at it. Ifit doesn't, they won't do it. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: I just think there's other issues besides just the saving of the money that should be -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right, I'm sure that would come out in any report, though, too. I mean, they wouldn't -- if the money is saved but it's in the end going to cost more because of another consequence, it would come out in such a study. Ms. Caron? COMMISSIONER CARON: I think you're probably going to find that when the county signed their last agreement with water -- Waste Management, that that study was done with all of its ramifications, as Commissioner Homiak indicates. Because it is more than just a simple cost equation, it's cost plus. I think one of the reasons --I'm just trying to remember from a Waste Management presentation that I heard, but I think one ofthe issues was the reason that we do it twice a week, part of the issue was all the condos that we have, and they can't handle a trash pickup of only once per week. They don't -- the facilities can't handle it if we only go to once a week. So I mean, I'm trying -- I don't remember all the details, but -- MR. GRAMATGES: Commissioner, if! may, sir. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Sure. MR. GRAMATGES: The analysis was indeed made, and we did consider all those options. And a~ I expressed on Friday, partly the issue was, as Commissioner Homiak has said, some communities cannot tolerate a once a week -- in fact, some households cannot tolerate a once a week pickup. And if you're going to send a truck to pick that up, it's not going to be beneficial to just deprive the others from the pickup. We probably would have to come up with bigger containers, as was one of the things that came up there. And the issue about having to keep garbage around for a full week rather than three days or four days, it's an issue as well. Page 35 16J!nl~ A,6009 But the most important outcome of that study at that time was that the savings was minimal. We have a contract with Waste Management, and we -- there are some things we can do, some things we cannot do. And of course Waste Management is seeing this as income. So obviously the savings that they would provide us would be really minimal. At the time of the study, I don't remember what the savings were, but I am sure if we conduct it again, we'll find the same problem. Having said that, however, we certainly will abide by whatever recommendations you issue. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The discussion was in the context ofthe option of multiple times a week, if some people wanted it. And I understand your argwnent that if you're going down the street you might as well get them all. There are sections of the county that are predominantly condominiwns, predominantly multi-family. Maybe those people want and need and have required two days a week. But I can tell you, living out in the Estates, I'm not sure everybody out there needs two days a week. I mean, I certainly don't. And I see my neighbors on Saturday morning, he'll go out and there will be very few trash cans if any on the whole street, yet we're paying for twice a week. So I'm just trying to find a way to save money. If there's no reason to look at it, I'm fine, too. I'm just suggesting. MR. GRAMATGES: Understood. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: It wasn't anything I'm going to live or die by, but -- MR. GRAMA TGES: I was trying to provide some more information, based on your comment. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And maybe if you provide that to the BCC they'll say okay, well, it's been looked at so that's fine, and they'll go on. I think that's the only point I was trying to make. Mr. Wolfley? COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Yeah, Mark, I've heard an awful lot of people -- and I agree with the once a week, that could be a great savings. But what I'm afraid is that we're going to -- we may need to get provided larger recyclable containers. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: They only pick those up once a week, Mr. Wolfley. COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Well, I understand. But I've heard many people just throwing-- the reason they want it twice a week is they're throwing the recyclables in on, let's say a Saturday instead of the pickup on Wednesday. That was my only concern is that that may be an issue. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Murray? I didn't mean for this to get involved. I'm sorry. I thought this was real simple. No, I don't mean you, Mr. Murray, I mean the whole discussion. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: No, I think it's perfectly fine that we're discussing this. It's intelligent. Would it be reasonable and feasible -- well, feasibility is a question -- but would it be reasonable to modity that recommendation to just focus on the Estates or in the rural lands so that it can have some meaning? Because I think savings are possible. I don't know what that would do to the contract, I'm not sure that's meaningful to us, but I'm trying to -- and I appreciate your recommendation, your suggestions. And the problem is just like our code, it deals with the entire county as though it were one thing. And in truth it's urban, suburban and rural. And what we do in the condos, sometimes we have to have three times a week pickup. But yeah, I would agree, out there you probably don't need it as often. So would it be maybe a prudent recommendation to seek to have a reduction in certain areas? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's all-- I mean, I think that comes under just the acknowledgment that Page 36 J!~J 2r;00e f- we ought to consider looking at once a week pickup for wherever it can be used. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Well, all right. But I'm concerned with that kind of a recommendation so open-ended could be dismissed out of hand. And I think it's meaningful-- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Well, then elaborate. How would you suggest the wording? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Well, see, I haven't been here as long as you, so I'm as familiar with the area that you would like to see reduced. Could we say all of Golden Gate Estates? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, no, because I wasn't speaking for any particular district. My only-- again, I went to Ohio. They only have it once a week and they told me that the people who want it twice a week pay a little more. But everybody had those huge containers and they never used them more than once a week for most of them. I thought heck, ifthat saves money, why don't we look at it here. And that was the only thing I was trying to get to. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: And I appreciate completely what you were doing. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So I don't want to stand up and say the other -- some party in the county may not need it or that Golden Gate Estates doesn't need it when other people may. I just thought we ought to look at it and the option, and it's getting more complicated than it needed to be. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: I think if we're going to do a study, let's do a study. You're going to have to negotiate with Waste Management, whether it's a part or a half or whatever. Let's just do a study, tell us ifit makes scnse and move on. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: How long ago did we do a study of such for that specific purpose? MR. GRAMATGES: I believe it was done about three years ago. I'm going from memory, but I believe it was about three years ago. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Why don't we just say consider looking at once a week pickup? That's so COMMISSIONER MURRAY: That's fine. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- innocuous. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: That's fine. I appreciate where you're going. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. There, is that simple enough? Okay, all those in favor ofthe motion, signity by saying aye. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Aye. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye. COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Aye. COMMISSIONER CARON: Aye. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion -- was that an aye, Ms. Caron? COMMISSIONER CARON: Yes, I'm sorry. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion carries 6-0 on the CIE. Now, let's look at the potable water sub-element for the adoption. During the discussion we had several issues come out. And Randy, or Corby, you Carolina, someone needs to tell me if they're appropriate for this docwnent. First one that I think we all talked about at some length was the redrawing of the service boundaries for the water and sewer district to coincide with those recommended by the Board of County -- those acknowledged by the Board of County Commissioners after they reviewed the east of 951 infrastructure study. That's number one. Page 37 Ar6arto, !JitJ Nwnber two: Look at adding language to the RLSA GMP amendments -- and I know this is coming up, so it will dovetail nicely -- for a policy that requires water and sewer reports in the manner that we need them for the GMP. And nwnber three: Again, adding to the RLSA language policies some language that promotes the conversion of the conswnptive use permit from ago to development. And also to the county for those areas that have excess in their ago consumptive use permit once they're converted. I'm not sure, Randy, how that all needs to be worded, but that's the gist of what I think were the three items that may have a positive impact on the water and sewer element in our discussions. Do you have anything else? MS. VALERA: No. MR. COHEN: The other item was that you wanted us to remedy the inconsistency between the table on I think it's Page ES-4 and also -- MS. VALERA: And that will be an e-mail. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Table 5-3 and table ES-4. MS. VALERA: But he requested just an e-mail. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But I don't think that needs to be in a motion. Let Phil just get that fixed and tell us how it was done and be done with it that way. I don't think we need to highlight that to the BCC. MR. COHEN: Okay. MS. VALERA: And Chainnan, I do have a note about that, so -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Well, I'm sure it will get done. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Not to be included in the motion, but you're going to follow up on that 170 versus 185 capacity versus -- you know what I'm referring to, early on? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You had facility capacity table at 185 in one section of your exhibits. MR. GRAMA TGES: You were going to look at the heading. MR. COHEN: That's correct, there's a heading. MS. VALERA: The heading. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Okay. I didn't know if you made a note of it, and-- MS. VALERA: I did. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: -- I was just reminding you. MS. V AU~RA: And I think what we agreed was that as part of the GMP amendments that will have to -- that will have to follow up after adoption of this 10-year water plan, that we will make the changes and we will look at the heading. COMMISSIONER MURRA Y: That's good. As long as you guys are going to follow up. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So we're looking at three suggestions, and two involve new RLSA policies and one involves the changing of the service boundaries to be consistent with the infrastructure study that was done. Is there a motion to make that and forward to the Board of County Commissioners with a motion of recommendation with those stipulations? COMMISSIONER CARON: So moved. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: So moved. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ms. Caron, Vigliotti. Discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: All in favor, signity by saying aye. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Aye. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Aye. Page 38 16aJ~ah A,6009 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye. COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Aye. COMMISSIONER CARON: Aye. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion carries. Okay, before we adjourn, I'd like to remind everybody, Wednesday, 8:30, CDES. And if you really want to save some time reading, I would suggest you focus on that part of the Phase II report that is the -- contains all of the Phase II section two that contains all of the changes to the amendments so we can work from that report. It would make it much more consistent, I would believe. COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: I have a question -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Wolfley? COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: -- about the location. I would think that this particular meeting is going to be well attended. I hope -- I sure hope it is. Why was that rooms nine and ten over there at the CDES building -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Because onc person -- two people couldn't attend the times that this room were open. And one of those two persons is Mr. Midney, who is from Immokalee. And I think it would be absolutely critical that he participate. COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Absolutely. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So the only way he could participate were on dates that this room was not open, and we have to go to that room. So -- COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: With that, I'll ask for a motion to adjourn. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: So moved. COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: So moved. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, motion made. Seconded. All in favor? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Aye. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye. COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Aye. COMMISSIONER CARON: Aye. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: We're out of here. ***** There being no further business for the good of the County, the meeting was adjourned by order of the Chair at 4:22 p.m. COLLIER COUNTY PLA,ING COj):mN VV \ CvL li\ { \... 0.-,,---, MARKISTRAIN, Chairman Page 39 1611t Ah January 20, 20~ These minutes approved by the board on corrected '7 ~~ _ 09 ::J as presented v or as Transcript prepared on behalf of Gregory Reporting Service, Inc., by Cherie' R. Nottingham. Page 40 ~ TRANSCRIPT OF THE RLSA MEETING OF THE COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION Naples, Florida, January 28, 2009 16 rnr2h269.1 RECEIVED MAR 1 7 2009 Board of COUnty ClJrnmiSSioners 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 8:30 a.m. in SPECIAL SESSION at Collier County Development Services Center, 2800 North Horseshoe Drive, Room 609-619, Naples, Florida, with the following members present: CHAIRMAN: Mark Strain Karen Homiak Donna Reed-Caron Tor Kolflat Paul Midney Bob Murray (Absent) Brad Schiffer Robert Vigliotti David 1. Wolfley ALSO PRESENT: Jeffrey Klatzkow, County Attorney Heidi Ashton-Cicko, Assistant County Attorney Tom Greenwood, Comprehensive Planning Misc. Corres: Date: item# _--- Page 1 (i''''S to. 16ullAh ~ CHAIRMAN STRAIN: If everybody will please take your seats, we are going to start on time, or at least one minute off, so -- and I don't know where the mics are or how they're working today. Okay, if everybody will rise for pledge of allegiance. (Pledge of Allegiance was recited in unison.) Item #2 ROLL CALL BY SECRETARY CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, will the secretary please take the roll call. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Commissioner Kolflat? COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: Here. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Commissioner Schiffer? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I'm here. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Commissioner Midney? COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Here. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Commissioner Caron? COMMISSIONER CARON: Here. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Chairman Strain? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Here. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Commissioner Vigliotti is present. Commissioner Murray is absent. Commissioner Homiak? COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Here. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: And Commissioner Wolfley? COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Here. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. Item #3 FIVE YEAR REVIEW OF THE RURAL LANDS STEWARDSHIP PROGRAM PHASE II REPORT PREPARED BY THE RURAL LANDS STEWARDSHIP AREA REVIEW COMMITTEE, DATED JANUARY, 2009 Just so everybody knows, this is the Planning Commission Meeting for the review of the RLSA Committee's Report. This is not quasi judicial. This is not a transmittal hearing. This is not an adoption hearing. This is a -- more of a courtesy review of the committee's report. There is no data and analysis done by the county staff to this date that I know of on this, we're basically reviewing what the committee is going to be suggesting for GMP Amendments and other backup material that they supplied to us. There will be no swearing in today; there will be no disclosures needed today because it is not quasi judicial. We are -- have verbatim minutes and we are televised today. So there will be a transcript of the meeting and there'll be a tape made of it. Another thing I'd like to mention, I apologize to the public that's here today. This room was never supposed to be set up like this today. This is a Planning Commission Meeting; it is not a workshop meeting. The room will be changed before Friday. The public needs to be as participatory as much as they would Page 2 1 Q~l, A6 like. One of the things that will be done different than other times, as we go through each question, as we go through each segment ofthe review and as we go through each policy proposed to be changed, I will be asking members of the public if they have any comments. You do not have to fill out slips. Simply raise your hand, come to a microphone, state your name and then we'll listen to your concerns. I ask that you be succinct in your comments, that you try to limit yourself to five minutes. Not to be redundant with other people. If you simply want to come up and say you agree with the previous speaker, please do so. We're looking for input. We want as much input and data from the public as we can possibly get for today's meeting and for however more meetings this may go forward. It is going to be a slow and long process. The way we're going to handle it today, the committee's presentation will be first. I believe it's a Power Point presentation. There'll be a period of time for the Planning Commission to ask questions about the presentation. And I will certainly turn to the public for the same opportunity. After the questions about the presentation are finished, the Planning Commission has questions left over from May I st of 2008 that we were promised would be answered. They will be brought up next one by one and responded to. After that we will get into the review of the proposed GMP amendments. The section of the docwnent that we will be reviewing is the Phase II, Section 2 section during that time. That is the most complete section of the GMP amendments. Then after that, if there are questions in any other parts of the document or other supporting material, we'll open the questions for that. Whenever this gets done, the Planning Commission will then come to a consensus on how it wants to forward this or not forward this to the Board of County Commissioners. It won't be one with approval or disapproval. There's not enough data and analysis to provide either of that. It will simply be an acknowledgment to move it forward for data and analysis, or an acknowledgment that there's not enough information here to move it forward to data and analysis. But that would more likely what the context ofthe motion will be by the time we get done with these two or three-day hearings. So with that in mind, we can move right into the five-year review of the rural land stewardship area. I don't know if staff has any introductory statements. Mr. Greenwood, do you have anything you want to open with from a staffs perspective to kind of give us the setting? MR. GREENWOOD: Yes. Good morning. And for the record, Tom Greenwood with comprehensive planning. I've had the pleasure to work with the rural land stewardship area review committee for the past 11 months. And the committee members are here this morning. First off I want to apologize for the room setup. We're going to try to modity this a bit so it will be a little more easily viewable by the public on television. The slide presentation that we're going to be making, and it will be made by a nwnber of members of the committee, there's about 35 in nwnber. You have hard copy of that slide presentation before you. We would recommend and encourage you to write down any questions you have as we go through these slides and then at the end there will be a question and answer period and then we can go from there. As Mr. Strain pointed out, this is a report of the committee. It's not a transmittal hearing, it's not quasi judicial. In fact, as this -- as the proposals proceed, if they do proceed beyond the report recommendations, there'll really be a total of three bites at the apple: Here before your group today, before the Environmental Advisory Council tomorrow, and there is also a public hearing -- I should say a public Page 3 Jl~~,Jp9 A 6 meeting set for the BCC on March 16th, that's at the BCC chambers. That was the first slide, basically. Next slide. There are 11 members of the review committee. And quite frankly, they work very hard. It's a diversified group. Ron Hamel was actually the chair of the original group, which met in the late Nineties, which resulted in the adoption of the present Growth Management Plan RLSA overlay back in 2002. And Neno Spagna is here today. By the way, Ron is out of the country, he was not able to be here today. Neno Spagna is here today. Brad Cornell, Gary Eidson, David Farmer. Jim Howard; I didn't see Jim. Tom Jones is here. Bill McDaniel, Tamrnie Nemecek. And Fred. I'm not sure if he's here; he indicated he would be. And then David Wolfley. And David also happens to be a member of the Planning Commission. Almost all these people attended very religiously all meetings. The duties, powers and functions of the committee -- and it is ad hoc; they have been in existence since October of2007 -- is to review the data concerning the participation and effectiveness of the overlay, meeting the goal, objective and policies of the FLUE. This was done through the Phase I Report, which was presented to the Planning Commission I believe on May 1st of2008.1t was also presented to the EAC on I believe March 6th of2008, and to the Planning Commission on May 27th, 2008. That report was forwarded to DCA, or the Department of Community Affairs. To my knowledge there's not been any response from DCA. And that again was dead as to the activities that occurred within the overlay. The second item which really is the Phase II Report, is to review the RLSA overlay and make recommendations to increase the eflectiveness of the overlay. We'll get into that in some detail. And to assist in determining the most effective venues and dates to hold public presentations. And four, to assist in promoting public interest in the review. Next slide. There were 23 public meetings. And this is in your handout. Fifteen were held in this building, in this room. There were five held at the Town of Ave Maria and three at the North Collier Regional Park. Our invitations are basically through the county information officer, we published notices in the Naples Daily News, and there were 65 plus e-mails that were part of the participation list. The average attendance in the audience was between 20 and 30 people. And we have audio recordings and summary minutes from those meetings. Next slide. A very large nwnber of individuals and corporate -- actually, organizations contributed to the review. And this is certainly a partial list; I probably left some ofT. I might mention in terms of the Naples Daily News, one of the appendices which is in volwne two, I believe it's appendices I, is a copy of certainly most of the Naples Daily News articles that informed the public as to what was going on with respect to the rural land stewardship area. Next slide. Mike, if you would switch over to the overhead. Just a few comments. To put the rural land stewardship area within the context ofthe county. And -- technical difficulty. There it is. Very briefly, the area that we're speaking about today is right in this area here. Collier County is a very unique county, as most counties are in the nation. In Florida, Collier County's conservation areas comprise about two-thirds, two-thirds of the total county area. And generally those areas are represented with the green area at the lower right and lower portion. These are federal and state-owned lands. The area itself: the cons -- the rural land stewardship area surrounds Immokalee, which is in this area, and comprises about 195 acres. About 305 square miles. Another 14 percent of the county. Page 4 16 , rJAU6 28,2009 ., Interestingly enough, and again, this is a unique county, if you total the two-thirds, which is in conservation already, and the rural land stewardship area, which is intended to be primarily conservation and ago land, that totals about 80 percent of the total county area. It's a critical area. It's an area that the committee has focused many, many hours over the last 14 months. But that basically are my comments. And I'd like to turn this over to Brad Cornell. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Clarification on two of your comments. On the third slide, you have David Wolfley -- THE COURT REPORTER: I'm sorry, I didn't see who was speaking. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: It's me. Everybody else will be raising their hand to be acknowledged before they speak, but if you hear someone just blurting out, it's probably me. David, when you were appointed to this committee, were you a member of the Planning Commission? No, you weren't. But I mean, I wanted to hear it from your mouth. COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: I guess I -- I'm trying to remember the dates here. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ijust was-- COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: No, I was appointed to this committee before the RLSA prior to being asked to be on the Planning Commission. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And so I was just wondering, you noted here that the review of the committee members. Everybody else was labeled as to how their appointment -- or why their background was chosen for them to be on the committee, I would asswne David wouldn't have been chosen for the purpose that you have here as a member of the Collier County Planning Commission. He would have been there for some other reason. MR. GREENWOOD: Apparently that is correct. I only mentioned that, that David is a member of the Planning Commission at this time. The appointment I believe was October 22nd of2007. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Just so the record's clear, David's work on the committee was not formally brought back and presented to the Planning Commission. He was acting in that position prior to his involvement with the Planning Commission. So whatever came out of the committee isn't (sic) been yet reviewed by the Planning Commission from David's -- no comments really have been made to this commIsSIon. MR. GREENWOOD: Understood. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Second thing: You have on the sixth slide, public participation in the five-year review process, you have Collier County Planning Commission. What did we do to review this? MR. GREENWOOD: Well, on May 1st, Mr. Strain, if you recall, the Planning Commission reviewed the Phase I report, and you presented to staff, which was to present to the committee, nine pages of questions and comments. And that was why the Planning Commission was included. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You know that those -- at the time those questions weren't answered, so that's why I was trying to understand how there was participation by the Planning Commission when our questions were deferred to today. MR. GREENWOOD: Only with respect to that point. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. Anybody else have any questions at this point for Mr. Greenwood? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, we'll move forward. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Comment? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes, sir, Mr. Midney. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Yeah, on slide six, I would just also like to point out that the -- one Page 5 16 Jrnut 21f<6 ~ of the major stakeholders in this, the farm labor community, is not represented in the process. MR. GREENWOOD: Thank you. And again, I apologize if we left somebody out. There was just simply not enough room. I'm sure we overlooked others. Thank you. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Yeah, I mean, they're the people with the greatest at stake here. MR. CORNELL: Good morning. I'm Brad Cornell and I'm here as a member of the Rural Land Stewardship Five- Year Review Committee. And I also represent Collier County Audubon Society, an environmental perspective in this process ofreviewing these policies. And I'm going to very briefly take a look at some of the history with you of the rural land stewardship program that we have in Collier County, which is a -- as you are aware, this is the first place in Florida that has rural land stewardship policies and is a ground-breaking approach to working on -- working with private landowners on public policies for public benefits. In 1997, the Department of Community Affairs, the state's growth management agency, challenged the evaluation and appraisal report that Collier County had sent up to be reviewed, saying that basically that the compo plan was not in compliance and that the proposed amendments that the county was suggesting should be adopted did not comply with state growth management rules. That -- what ensued was a Chapter 120 hearing, challenging the Collier County Growth Management Plan in the rural areas, basically saying that the policies did not protect the environmental resources and rural Collier County and also, the agricultural resources and rural resources in these areas. It's about 300,000 acres that we're talking about in rural Collier County. That challenge was joined by the Florida Wildlife Federation and the Collier County Audubon Society. Resulted in an administrative hearing in front of an administrative law judge which ruled against the county, went to the Governor and cabinet as the administration commission, which made a final order that required a three-year study of rural policies in Collier County. That commenced at the end of 1999, 2000. I just want to make one point on that previous slide, Mike, if you could go back, or whoever's doing that. If you look at the -- this is basically a representation of the rural land stewardship area around Immokalee, 195,000 acres. The green, the darker green, are public lands: The Okaloacoochee Slough State Forest in the northeast, and CREW lands, Corkscrew Regional Ecosystem Watershed on the northwest side of that. The rest of the area around Immokalee is all privatc ownership, about 182,000 acres. And essentially that's zoned agricultural. One unit per five acres is the underlying density that is possible. It's all vulnerable to be converted to such densities, or those kinds ofland uses. There's a hash marking that shows basically an environmental overlay that does not have really any -- these hash marks are like an ST overlay that shows there's environmental concerns, mainly wetlands. Special treatment areas. Okay, next slide, please. In 2000, the rural study commenced on 300,000 acres. It was divided into two. About 95,000 acres was called the rural fringe around Golden Gate Estates and Corkscrew and South Belle Meade. And then the rest of it, 195,000 acres, was called the Eastern Lands rural study. And both of them involve separate committees and separate processes for three years. And this is part of the process. The first step was to establish interim natural resource protection areas. And these are these dark green areas here. They're not public ownership, like CREW, or the Okaloacoochee Slough State Forest. However, there were protections provided on an interim basis. And these were mainly the wetland areas. These were challenged by Florida Wildlife Federal and Collier County Audubon in another Chapter 120 hearing. So there was a lot oflitigation at the beginning of this process. And it looked like adversarial discussion wa~ the only way to go forward on this, and that didn't provide a Page 6 16 'f'!JarArr(jS,2009 lot of hope for a good outcome. Nevertheless, the Governor and cabinet required the county, the staff, the landowners, the environmental groups, the public and the agencies to work together to come up with some kind of plan. Next slide, please. And this is the plan that was produced. At the end of the three-year study at the end of 2002, the DCA, the county and the process concluded with a proposed set of policies that would protect environmental resources, primarily, as well as rural and agricultural resources on a significant portion, much more than what we had before. And I think you can see in the map that the green areas again involve public lands, Okaloacoochee Slough, CREW, but also private lands that now have protective overlays that have both a set of regulations -- in other words, the group five policies in the compo plan provide a regulatory floor below which landowners cannot go or developers cannot go, but also very important incentives to those landowners to do better. And the acreage now has become 43,000 acres of potential stewardship receiving areas or development that would be entitled through the protection of over 90,000 acres of stewardship sending areas. And that sending area process and receiving area process we'll go into in just a little bit. But nevertheless, this is the way the map looks. So that's a total of about 95,000 acres of preservation and restoration estimated at build-out, and about 87,000 acres of development potential; 43,000 acres of entitled stewardship receiving areas, plus 44,000 acres of base density, one unit per five acres, which is what the yellow is. The yellow is where all the development was potentially to occur. So this is an excellent outcome. Obviously it still has some vulnerability to the one unit per five acres, but that is an issue that we do take up in the rural land stewardship review. Next slide, please. In 2004, the first stewardship receiving area under the new policies was proposed in Ave Maria in order to entitle the development on Ave Maria, which is a 5,000-acre town and university. 17,000 acres of stewardship extending areas had to be basically put into conservation easement, stewardship easements. 2006, Ave Maria went into construction. Big Cypress Stewardship area was announced. Ave Maria opened in 2007, 2008. There are now 37 -- almost 38,000 acres of stewardship sending areas approved, with another 18,000 pending that have been applied for. And that's at the point in which we now undertake our five-year review. And to continue with where we are now, I'd like David Farmer to come up and continue this presentation. MR. FARMER: Good morning, Commissioners. Good morning, public. For the record, my name is David Farmer. I'm here to walk us through the existing plan as it is today. The rural land stewardship program or area is an overlay to the existing land use map. Participation is voluntary by private landowners, and the system is based on incentives to attract participants. And the incentives provide rewards for voluntarily preserving their land. The goals of the adopted Rural Land Stewardship Area Overlay are to protect agriculture and prevent premature conversion of agriculture to non-ago uses; to direct incompatible uses away from sensitive areas; to enable the conservation of rural land to -- conversion, I'm sorry, of rural land to other uses in appropriate locations; and to discourage urban sprawl and incentivize creative land use planning techniques. And to again echo what Brad was saying, the Rural Land Stewardship Area program was found consistent with the final order and in appliance with the Growth Management Plan Act. Here's a map ofthe adopted Rural Land Stewardship Area overlay. We currently have 92,000 acres in stewardship sending areas, generating approximately 315,000 credits. Page 7 16Jtut 2A2(f"1 The stewardship -- the SRA or stewardship receiving areas, are about 43,000 acres, leaving open areas of about 44,000 acres. When you add the SRA acres plus the open areas, you get 87,100 acres of potential development. And then there are 16,000 acres of public miscellaneous lands for a total of about 195,000 acres. The program is an award-winning program. Most noted, by -- there's probably more than this, but the 1,000 Friends of Florida, the Florida Engineering Excellent (sic) Award, Economic Development Council, the Governor's Council for Sustainable Florida, and the American Planning Association. In our Phase I report, the technical review, stewardship sending areas 1 through 9, 11, 14 and 15, as designated, I believe in the orange hatch on the map above, were approved for about 38,000 acres. And under review at this time are in red, stewardship sending areas 10, 12 and 13, for about 18,000 acres. This is an update from the original Phase I report, because as we know, time doesn't stand still for anyone, and plans are moving ahead. So today we have almost 56,000 acres either in or proposed to be in stewardship sending areas. To date, to my knowledge, the only project that's taken advantage of the program in terms of development is Ave Maria. It's 5,000 acres again, as Brad mentioned earlier. And also in one of the previous slides it mentioned that about 17,000 acres were dedicated in the stewardship sending areas to entitle to develop the Ave Maria project. I think that's my -- go ahead, the next slide, please. And now I will turn the presentation over to member Bill McDaniel. MR. McDANIEL: Good morning, Commissioners. For the record, my name is Bill McDaniel. I was kidding with our record keeper over there about one of my fake aliases earlier on, so I didn't end up with a true enunciation of who I am and what I'm doing. With respect to that, I was selected by the committee to make the presentation, highlighting our -- what we consider to be major suggestions for adjustments in the existing Rural Land Stewardship Overlay. With that, Tom. The basis for our recommendations are as put forth here. It's very important that we discuss the fact that a tremendous amount of public participation, public vetting and discussion was implemented throughout the process of our making the determinations for the recommendations to the adjustments to the existing Rural Land Stewardship Overlay. And this -- these are a few brief points of how we arrived at the suggestions that we have here before you today. [ would like to just as a point of reference make a suggestion. Today we're here to make a presentation. You have all received, I believe, a copy of our report and the suggestions for adjustments to the existing Rural Land Stewardship Overlay. Our goal here is to answer as many questions as we possibly can, but primarily we're here today to highlight the report and its changes. You've been -- and there are volwnes, multiple volwnes of information that has been provided to everyone who was seeking it, both on the website -- I believe Mr. Greenwood had a slide up there that had the website that showed that. But our goal today is to make the presentation and offer as much suggestion as we can as to why we came to the conclusions that we did. Next slide, please. During the process we sought the expert advice ofa lot of people. To name a few are listed above. Throughout the entire process we sought the advice whenever we felt necessary to gather additional information, to ground truth, if you will, to justity and ratity the suggestions that we came up with, with respect to the adjustments to the existing Rural Land Stewardship Overlay program. And I might add, Commissioners, if you have a comment or a discussion, I'm not opposed to Page 8 161l:~A~ interaction. Some people don't like that, they want it all at the end. If you -- feel free to interrupt me if! hit a button or if you have a discussion point at that particular stage, I'm not opposed to that at all as we're going through this. So next slide, please. Again, these were our staff participation groups. People who were intimately involved in this process, assisting us with, as I said before, the ground truthing, the data sets that were utilized, the -- all the way through and even into the straight-up word-smithing with respect to the proposed adjustments that we have in fact suggested. Now, going forward, here are highlighted -- and again, I suggest that these are in fact highlights. This is a synopsis of our entire report. For those of you who had the blessing of receiving volwne two of the suggested adjustments, it's quite a bit of information, tremendous amount of information, actually a phenomenal amount of information to show what in fact transpired, the time that was in fact committed, the information sources that we sought and the input that we received from the public. Not always in agreement. I mean, there was not always a consensus. But we, the committee, came together and put forth what in fact it is we have here. And these are some of the substantive recommendations that we'll go through point by point. Next slide, please. If I might ask the committee and those of you who have your volwne one book to turn to Section 2 -- or excuse me, Phase II, section one. It's actually Page 30 in the book. One of the things as we were going through the process, we felt that it was necessary to make some suggestions with respect to the actual goal of the Rural Land Stewardship Overlay. And on Page 30 of your volwne one book is a fairly concise, fairly clear description of everything that we have suggested as changes and adjustments to the Rural Land Stewardship Overlay program. There is a tremendous amount of information that follows. Volwnes, literally volumes of discussion that transpired as to why and how we came up with these suggested changes. And on this particular slide it looks perceptively like we made some -- well, we did make some serious changes to the goal itself. But the latter part, you know, to discourage urban sprawl, encourage development that employs creative land use planning techniques, those were already there. They were already part of the original adopted goal that is in fact part of this particular plan. Our main objective in the recommended amendments to the goal itself were to provide clarity and lack of subjectivity. That was our main premise behind the suggested recommendations. As we did on a regular basis throughout the entire process of making these suggestions to -- and amendments to the Rural Land Stewardship Overlay. That was ultimately our goal, was to provide clarity and reduce subjectivity so that it wasn't up to one particular planner, one particular planning agency, one particular group to interpret language that was incorporated in the original Rural Land Stewardship Overlay and manipulate it to their advantage or not as the case may be. Next slide. Specifically in the group one policies, their general purpose was for the overall structure of the Rural Land Stewardship Overlay. We actually -- and as you're going along there in that section, phase-- again, it's Phase II, Section I, it talks with specificity. There are underlying words here that share the new verbiage that we developed for the program. And in the striking through are the ones -- are the changes and the misspellings and that sort of thing that came about. But more specifically on Policy 1.6.1, we actually developed an entire new section and policy there with respect to the credit utilizations that are generated from stewardship sending areas and how they're utilized, what time frames are available for their utilization. Page 9 16 talry ~ 2991 And I believe -- it's not on this particular slide, but Mr. Greenwood, I believe there's even extension processes in place if credits are not utilized and you care to continue to remain with the program. MR. GREENWOOD: The way it's written, it allows for one additional year extension. MR. McDANIEL: Okay. In the original program, there was somewhat of a lack of specificity with regard to participation offolks who voluntarily participated in the program, who submitted their land to be a part of the Rural Land Stewardship Overlay and what happened if those credits were not actually used. That was the premise behind what we were doing here in the group one policies. Next slide, please. In the group two policies, there were -- we spent quite a bit of time here. The main premise behind the group two policies is for the retention of, protection of; preservation of agricultural lands throughout the entire Rural Land Stewardship Overlay program. We found that there -- in the adopted program as it exists today, there was somewhat of a -- I don't want to call it a deficit, but there was somewhat not as much incentivization -- is probably a more polite way of saying it -- for the retention and preservation of agricultural lands. And these policy adjustments and recommendations that we've made are to in fact incentivize -- and you'll see as we go through the balance of the presentation -- incentivize the retention and protection of a very important resource we have here in Collier County and that's our agricultural business at large. Next slide, please. Our group three policies. These revolve predominantly around the protection of natural resources. And for all intents and purposes, as Brad shared earlier on, that was the main focus, if you will, back in the day when this -- when the Rural Land Stewardship Overlay program was in fact adopted and approved. We made adjustments. And these in fact are highlighted herc. Establishment of panther corridors. And as you all know, anybody who's reading a newspaper or anything along those lines, there is an entire panther habitat program in the process of being adopted. And it was brought to us in its infancy stages and discussed, and through that information we afforded an opportunity for establishment of north-south corridors for the panthers. Next slide. Our group four policies, they predominantly revolve around the planning techniques, requirements and designations of the individual towns and villages and how they're in fact set up. I think Tom, you could probably go to the next slide; there's a little more meat in the next couple of slides. Just to highlight some of these points. And again, these are highlights. And if you're looking at your volwne one book, you can see with specificity the suggested amendments that we made to the existing Rural Land Stewardship overlay. One of the things that was a very prominent maneuver was the capping, if you will, of 45,000 some odd acres in the footprint that ultimately can be designated for SRA's, stewardship receiving areas. And forgive us, if you will. I mean, we all live in a world of acronyms. So if we throw one out there that doesn't balance, please let me know and we'll try to spell it out. We designated with size, with economic viability, based upon necessities for public utilities and sustainability, for towns and villages. Actually founded hamlets really have no place as a designation in the Rural Land Stewardship Overlay program. We changed -- in the creation of the agricultural credits for incentivization for protection of agricultural lands, we obviously increased the amount of credits that were going to be available through the program. And also the adjusted per unit credits necessary for development in a stewardship receiving area at the same time. And obvious of course took some considerable consideration in public benefit necessities, Page 10 16 I ~::uA ~009 infrastructure, to sustain growth and development in the rural lands of Collier County. Next slide, please, Tom. First one there probably should have been a little more specific. It was -- the goal was to minimize -- not necessarily minimize hwnan and wildlife interactions, because positive hwnan and wildlife interactions is kind of a fun thing. Our goal was -- and I say that with gest. I mean, my children and I sat on the porch last night and watched a momma raccoon and her babies in a cabbage palm eating the berries. That's not a bad thing, that's kind of a nice thing. Our goal here was to provide buffer zones, provide internal traffic mobile systems that would allow for less negative impact and interaction between humans and wildlife. This area that we're talking about here is a plan. It's a plan for the growth and development that's ultimately coming to our community. Necessarily no plan is infallible. Necessarily there can be suggestions and adjustments as you go across. But the bottom line is these are some of the things that we found that were going to assist in the growth and development of the rural portion of our community. We spent a tremendous amount of time down there on 4.1.4, the connectivity, the road systems, the moving of our people from one development to another through the rural areas of our community. Suggested -- received new data sets with respect to wildlife crossings and suggestions as to how those can be managed and utilized to better benefit everyone, both the hwnan race and the wildlife of our rural lands. And not to not be taken account for, we did receive quite a bit of information, and it is in your volwne two book from the Naples Cultural Landscape Organization. Tremendous amount of information. Really, really beneficial historical information about pioneers, paths and so on and so forth that traversed eastern Collier County and the rural land stewardship area overlay. Next slide, please. In conjunction with what we were doing, we worked a tremendous amount with Mr. Casalanguida and his staff, and have come up with a companion policy to suggestions for the transportation element of the GMP. And it's not as clear as we'd like to see, but this map necessarily shows the transportation network's suggestions of eastern Collier County and the connectivity for moving the people to and through. Also with that, there is a far more substantive plan to be developed for public services, for government and jails and landfills and court houses and so on, so forth. Next slide, please. The group five policies. These are the policies that I like to say are not regulations, that are suggestions for people's voluntary participation into the Rural Land Stewardship Overlay program. Did you bring me one? Group five policies again, these are basically regulations established to assist in the management of lands for folks that do not voluntarily participate in the Rural Land Stewardship Overlay program. And we made several suggested changes to these, again with the map and just with new policies. Addressing outdoor lighting. One of the things that we found that really didn't have a lot of specificity. And remember this, a lot of these things flow out of the comprehensive Growth Management Plan into the Land Development Code for final implementation and utilization. So these are our suggestions to assist with that. Outdoor lighting was a concern, and a tremendous amount of discussion occurred with respect to the ambient lighting and maintaining the rural characteristics of our already rural area of the overlays space. And there again, not to mention the fact we also did account for the historical and cultural resources of Collier County in the Rural Land Stewardship Overlay. Next slide, Tom. Page 11 1 qJJk, 2~ 6 '1 With the proposed changes -- and I have another -- I think we have another slide coming up that actually has a comparison of the two as it stands today, and the new horizon date out there of2050. And it's -- again, remember, the goal is to have a plan. We obviously, in the adoption of the initial Rural Land Stewardship Overlay program, there was a five-year review, which is what we're all getting to have a shot at today, if you will, but rubbing your crystal ball and determining what's in fact going to occur out there in 2050. And if you had an opportunity to review any ofthe information that was passed out, there are a lot of different population data sets that come at the ultimate population and growth and development of eastern Collier County. And there's quite a divergence from one to another. But on a positive note, we felt that our suggested changes were a far more aggressive stance on protection and preservation of agriculture through incentivization, and you can see that there -- bless you, by the way -- the newly created agricultural stewardship areas, some odd 92,000 acres in the SSA's, and a reduction ofthe overall developable land. If you'll recall on the prior slide, it was pushing 90,000 some -- 87,000, I think was the prior slide. And that necessarily for today's purposes as to what we feel the credits can be generated and the sustainability of the populous has been capped at 45,000 developable acres. Including of course are the public lands and utilities and such. Next slide, Thomas. And here are our summary conclusions. And just to highlight a few of those, I'm not going to read them all to you, I think most of you have seen a copy of our presentation. But an increase from 92,000 up to 134,000 some odd acres of stewardship sending areas, preservation/conservation areas, along with preservation and protection of agricultural lands, a huge industry, a huge basis of economy for our county. Ultimately -- ultimately utilizing incentivization for the voluntary participation in the program. Next slide, Tom. Again, this recaps. It was fairly prevalent and important that we established a cap. We increased the amount of credits requisite to develop an acre of land in a stewardship receiving area, reduced the potential for conversion oflands. One of the things, the discouraging of urban sprawl. As the current zoning is, if you're not voluntarily participating in the program, it's one per five. And that is highly conducive to urban sprawl and not cost effective for the municipality in extending utilities, infrastructure, if you will, road systems, highways, schools and such to an area such as that. At the end of the day, this is a plan. This is a suggestion on management of the inevitable growth and development that's coming to Collier County. And our goal was to provide a plan that would accommodate as much as possible with the information and requisites that are important as of today. Five years ago when this initial plan was developed, there were priorities. As Mr. Midney suggested earlier on, particularly the priorities change over time. And we have established -- I would like to assure you that there is an established review process for the ultimate Rural Land Stewardship Overlay that we're suggesting to be revised -- can you tell me the time frame on that that was moved from a five to a -- to coincide with -- MR. GREENWOOD: It would coincide with the evaluation appraisal report calendar. It would be done every seven years. MR. McDANIEL: About seven years, I believe. MR. GREENWOOD: Seven years. MR. McDANIEL: There again, to take into account to allow an already successful program, an already functioning program to evolve, to allow different data sets. That was -- again, one of our maneuvers through the process was to make available for review -- as Page 12 1611 JanuA ~009 SRA's, stewardship receiving areas, stewardship sending areas, were coming in, new data sets, new information that was available to staff for the approval and implementation of these projects to be part of the approval process. And I think the last slide we have is here's how it is over on the left. Here's how we the committee think it ought to be. And it's a picture, if you will. I would like to caution, if I may, the conceptual plan. Those stars and designations of towns and villages throughout the Rural Land Stewardship Area are not carved in stone. If you looked at any of the information that Dr. VanBuskirk and his group with the Collier interactive growth model suggested, those were based on probabilities and locales of assimilation of lands necessary to amass the size of properties required for support of towns and villages throughout the Rural Land Stewardship Overlay. Prominently, though, you see a lot more green in our process, and a considerable amount more of incentivization provided for the preservation and protection of agriculture in Collier County. With that, I believe we're open to questions. My goal is to assist you in direction to the parties of who might be far more qualified to answer your questions and suggestions as we go along. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. But first we'll start out with questions on the presentation that we just saw from the Planning Commission. Planning Commission members, anybody have any? Mr. Wolfley? COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: I can't seem to read anything over here due to lack oflight. MR. McDANIEL: You can turn the light back on. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You turned them ofT. Turn them back on. COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: I was requested to. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, turn it back on. MR. McDANIEL: That was my fault, David, forgive me. COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: There is no fault, there's only responsibility. MR. McDANIEL: Okey-dokey. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Are there any questions? Mr. Midney? COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Yeah, I guess it's really sort of hard to decide where to start grappling with this, but I think one fundamental question is that when this thing started five years ago, the landowners had agreed to a developable footprint of 30,000 acres. And how do you think that you'll be able to have more ago and more conservation by increasing that by 50 percent? It seems to fly in the face of reason. MR. McDANIEL: Did somebody write that question down? No, I'm kidding. I'm kidding you, Paul. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: From 30 to 45,000. If they had agreed with -- it was okay at one point, why do they want more developable land now? MR. McDANIEL: Well, and I'm not necessarily sure that there was a -- with specificity and agreement to what you're talking about. There were allowable lands as potential designations for voluntary participation within the program that summed up to a particular amount of acreage that in fact could be developable, without refute. And then those then translated into credit systems that were in fact created for incentivization for the voluntary participation of the folks -- of the landowners that came into the program. And at the end of the day, the data sets then provided potential developable lands. Our information shows that there were some baseline rights pushing 87 some odd thousand acres of Page 13 16IJaUs,Ab'1 developable land. And correct me. I see -- and again, Brad was up first. MR. CORNELL: Well, I think that it's not a question of what landowners agreed to, because I don't think anybody really knew what was going to happen. I think what has happened over the time that has gone by since this program's inception is that we've gotten a whole lot clearer picture of what actually occurs when you establish stewardship sending areas, and particularly what happens with restoration. Because we didn't really know how much restoration -- which was a voluntary extra step in the stewardship sending area process -- we didn't know how much of that was going to happen. And you can generate -- and if you look at the analysis in the Phase I report, there's a lot of restoration credits that have been generated that we did not realize was -- I mean, we didn't know what that potential was and we now have a clearer picture. So that obviously also increases the entitable (sic) acreage. So the 30,000 acres was a guesstimate. You know, any of the figures back in 2002 were estimates. And these are still estimates. All those figures up there are estimates. Although the 45,000-acre cap is a hard nwnber. But everything else is conjecture about what might happen. We have a clearer picture of what might happen, because we already have 38,000 acres ofSSA's. So that tells us a lot about the general percentage of restoration as part of those SSA's and how much credits will be entitling SRA's. MR. McDANIEL: Did that come across okay, Paul? COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: I heard the answer. I still don't think the question was answered. Because I thought in the presentation that I got there was something written that the developable footprint was 30,000, in what we received. MR. McDANIEL: And I'm not -- that's not a recollection that I had. It may have been -- again, it may have been a calculation at some stage of the game, but that's not a recollection. There was actually some percentages with respect to the aggregate amount of developable land in the Rural Land Stewardship Overlay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Any other questions? COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: (Shakes head negatively.) MR. McDANIEL: Tom, did you have something else to add in there, or did Brad cover it? MR. JONES: No, Brad covered it. MR. McDANIEL: Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Any questions from the Planning Commission? Mr. Wolfley? COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: I'm going to have to hold otf. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You're going to hold off or you have a question? COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: I think it was really 33,000 to begin with, but regardless. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Pull your mic -- if you could, pull that mic down. There you go. COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: I believe it was 33,000 to begin with, what my notes have. And that transition from, let's say, that added 10,000 acres came at a point, as we might know by reading the newspapers, when the -- most of the environmental groups and the landowners got together and what they labeled as a behind door meeting, a closed door meeting. And that's what they came up with, with the added acreage. So -- and the report I think is public record. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I don't know if there's any comment. Go ahead, Mr. Jones. MR. JONES: Mr. Chairman, if! could maybe add a little bit to that. There was never an agreement of 30,000 acres anywhere. There was never a back room agreement for 43,000 acres. COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Forty-five. MR. JONES: 45,000, whatever. Page 14 161 1 4428~2009 The existing program is contained within tl1e docwnent. The existing program to date can entitle 43,000 acres ofland, period. That's what the adopted approved plan can do. Other acreage figures floating around, I don't know where they came from. I don't think there's any calculation that supports it that that's what was going to happen. I think Brad said it eloquently, everything's an estimate. In the beginning no one knew exactly how the program was going to be received, no one knew what the level of participation was going to be. There was a stage one report that had some estimates in it. After the stage one report from the initial go-around of the Immokalee area study, groups added their thoughts to what the program should be, the county added their thoughts to the program, DCA offered suggestions to the program, and there was never an ultimate calculation of what the estimated acreage could be. It was done during this committee's work. Mr. Greenwood did a nwnber of iterations as he collected more data and new data throughout the time we were meeting. And the committee saw two or three different presentations on nwnbers. And the nwnber that kept coming up was in the neighborhood of 43,000, based on potentially 300,000 plus credits that could be generated. That's what the existing program can do today. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Midney? COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Yeah, I found where I got the figure. This was what was presented to us May 1st, 2008, the Collier County Rural Land Stewardship Overlay, Phase I, Five-Year Review. And the last page there's a colunm that says, potential SRA build-out development in the RLSA under the current RLSAO. And it says, total potential acreage in SRA's under the current RLSAO, 30,096 acres. MR. JONES: And as I stated in my remarks, Mr. Greenwood made a nwnber of iterations as he was attempting to calculate a number that had never been calculated by staff previously. That is one of his iterations from May. In subsequent months, as he evaluated and reevaluated the SSA's and the potential nwnber of credits that could be generated from future SSA's, he modified his nwnbers, I believe, once perhaps on two different occasions and came up with a nwnber in the neighborhood of 43,000 acres under the existing program. That's information from the stage one. 'That's probably Mr. Greenwood's first run at calculating what the existing program could do. MR. GREENWOOD: Tom Greenwood. I would point also, there's an appendices, I belicve it's Appendices G, which is the September calculation by staff. Might also point out that the -- I hate to use the word build-out for the RLSA. Maybe referred to as maturity. But the build-out that was projected through the RLSA program by staff was 43,000. And it generated a certain nwnber of population and dwelling units. That population and dwelling unit projection that we did is very similar to that which was prepared by VanBuskirk and Associates for the geography of the RLSA contained within the East of 951 Infrastructure Report. Also, our projection and VanBuskirk's closely resembled a projection made by Wilson-Miller, which is also in another appendix. So there's three different projections and they're all very close within the 43,000 SRA footprint area. MR. McDANIEL: And if! may, Tom Jones has another comment. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Go ahead, Tom. MR. JONES: And I think the point to keep in front of you with respect to what the existing program can do, and Tom certainly explained where the 43 has come from, but that nwnber comes from the entitlement of potential SSA's. It doesn't include any credits being generated from agricultural lands. Page 15 _'<"'".,~,.._...~~,~._...._~",.__.,,-~--_. ...._.~-" -., ._'----._,---,,_._--,_..".'-~ · ' A 61 Jl ~nl~8,2~o9 So therefore, under the existing program, not only can you entitle 43,000 acres through development SSA's, you also have the ability to go to the baseline zoning outside the program at one unit per five. It's a little bit different than Golden Gate Estates, but it's not all dissimilar to Golden Gate Estates. So you have a potential footprint that was mentioned in the initial presentation. You have a potential development footprint of close to 87,000 acres under the existing program by utilization of the program and outside of the program. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Any other questions from the Planning Commission at this time? (N 0 response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I have several. It's interesting that Mr. Midney brought the issue up, because I had made a note to try to understand where the 43,000 came from. I was in this -- on this Planning Commission in 2002 when this came forward. Those of you who may remember, I produced a rather lengthy spreadsheet that calculated nwnbers. And I think my number at the time for nominal usage of the program showed about 42,000. And I tried to get everyone to understand that what we were being told at the time could have far greater impacts than -- based on what I calculated versus what we were being told. And I have to go back to what the perception was given to the public, to this panel and to the Board of County Commissioners in 2002. There was a report produced by Wilson-Miller in May of 2002 that was used as the basis for the program. Under a section called credit exchange rate methodology they said the following thing: The net result is 134,388 credits generated for the rural compact development of 16,805 acres, resulting in an exchange rate of eight sending unit credits per acre ofreceiving land. 16,805. That continued on another part in their final analysis. Approximately 16,000 acres are required for compact rural development. Then that report got passed or through the Planning Commission, it moved on to the Board of County Commissioners. And in the executive swnmary in front of the Board of County Commissioners the following was stated, and this was about a month later: Although there are 115,300 acres of potential SRA's (private lands, less FSA's and HSA's), it is estimated that the eight-credit requirement will set aside approximately 16,800 acres or nine percent of the study area for cluster development. It is estimated that only 6,700 acres would be needed to meet the study area's population projection by the year 2025. Now, I'm not offering that for comment from you all, because you've already told us why you -- how you got there today. But I thought it might clarity Mr. Midney's question or anybody's else's question on where we were in 2002, and where we are today. It's not a 50 percent increase, it's 300 percent increase. That is a little different. MR. McDANIEL: And if! might add, Mr. Chairman, in that regard, there were a lot of things that occurred back in 2002 that were at best a shot, having been challenged to the task that was at hand to create the rural land stewardship overlay program at large, with virtually no experience to draw upon. We're a lot farther down the road than we were. You were not incorrect in your statements with respect to the impacts of this particular program being far more reaching than what necessarily was estimated in its infancy stages. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But in its infancy stages we didn't analyze it on those greater impacts, unfortunately, we analyzed it on the basis of 16,800 and a nine percent impact. So that therein is the difference, substantial difference on the way the program is folding out and how it should have been studied at that time in 2002. That was only one of my questions. You basically answered it when you answered Paul's. But I wanted to refresh Paul's memory. Page 16 16 I 'lnuaA ~6d3 I think you were on the Plamling Commission back then too. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Yeah, I was. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: One of the slides showed -- one of your colored pictures, similar to what you have here, showed ago land in the yellow, as it does I guess in a lot of it. Does that mean ago land has no environmental value? MR. McDANIEL: Absolutely not. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: What value does ago land have environmentally? MR. McDANIEL: From a lot of different levels. It's a water retention, rehydration and habitat, as an over-simplified answer to that. I mean, there's a tremendous amount of environmental value. I mean, Mr. Jones is in the farming business on a regular basis, but those are just a few of the consequences of protection and retention of agricultural lands. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: What kind of habitat; do you know? MR. McDANIEL: Wildlife habitat. sir. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I know, but what kind of wildlife? I mean, particular endangered species, listed species? MR. McDANIEL: Of course. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Like panther? MR. McDANIEL: Absolutely. On a regular basis. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Would it be considered primary panther habitat? MR. McDANIEL: That's a determination that experts are necessarily going to determine at some stage of the game. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Before the next day or two are over, we'll probably get an answered. MR. McDANIEL: Yeah, I wouldn't think that that's an impossibility. I mean, you know, the designation as primary or not has to do with the time of day and when the cats are traveling. Mr. Jones? Don't argue. MR. JONES: One thing that we've done under -- in our proposed recommendations to the BCC, and it was done in light of, I don't want to say criticism, but perhaps DCA pointing out a flaw in the existing program in that there really wasn't much emphasis on agricultural preservation. And what we've attempted to do in this program is to put agricultural preservation on a somewhat equal footing with environmental preservation. And a credit system has been developed with respect to the ability to generate credits from agricultural land that didn't exist in the past. I don't think in two or three days or in two or three months we'll arrive at a conclusion where there is necessarily an agreement on all the environmental benefits of agricultural lands. There are different opinions that are put forth in various forums related to some of the environmental values. But the committee decided to look at agricultural lands from an agricultural value perspective, recognizing that the existing program set aside for environmental preservation in excess of 90,000 acres. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. On one of the plans you presented, you showed the plan that was originally labeled town centers that are now of course T AZ centroids. I'm not sure what a centroid is, I've not seen a definition, but I'm sure if! asked I'd get an elaborate explanation, so I'm not going to. But I also heard in comments on that plan that Nick Casalanguida was consulted with in regards to that plan? Because his name was referenced in the county transportation department when you put that plan on the overhead. So with that in mind, I'd like to ask Nick how much involvement he had with the plan, does he endorse it, does he have an alternative plan, is he working on a plan? And if not, if this is the plan, it would Page 17 1 AL~ 16 Jlnu 28, 200~ . sure be nice to know. MR. CASALANGUIDA: For the record, Nick Casalanguida, with Transportation. No, we have not reviewed the plan, no, we have not endorsed the plan yet. We have worked with them and we're going to get to that point. There's lots of issues with the plan that we've discussed with the folks that put it together. They provided the docwnentation, we have a Horizon Study group from Aim Engineering that's looking at the build-out ofthe county. This plan focuses primarily in the RLSA. It doesn't talk about the impacts leaving the RLSA. It really doesn't consider the Immokalee redevelopment and what's going to go on there. It can't consider the Seminole Indian Casino lands, so we're trying to do that on our end of the plan. That's why we worked with those folks to come with that language that said within a year. We're going to take this one step farther and consider all those things. So we've looked at it, it's a good first step, but we haven't done enough work to say that that's going to work at this point in time. And that's a pretty honest assessment. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. MR. CASALANGUIDA: You're welcome. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I guess my last question is so the record's clear on where staff was during this whole event. I've had numerous conversations with Mr. Greenwood on how staff managed the committee. Because this is an absolutely different and unique way of a committee's progress through the process, as compared to what I personally have seen both being on committees and chairing them and seeing others come before us. Usually the staff is very detailed involved. And then they actually formulate the reports and present, and the questions and answers go back and forth to staff. This time I was told that staff had a more hands-off approach to it. And I'd just like confirmation from Mr. Greenwood how far staff went with this report. MR. GREENWOOD: The committee basically, as I refer drove the bus, it was very much a committee oriented review. Staffs review basically was not to the extent that we were looking for details and dead analysis for a transmittal but more so that this was a report, a recommendations, findings, recommendations, some data that most of which is in the report, volwnes one and two. And that this would form the basis for a possible growth management plan amendment at a later date. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Would it be fair to say that you basically had a hands-off approach to it? MR. GREENWOOD: To a largc extent, yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. Any other questions from the Planning Commission before we go to the public? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, members of the public who wish to speak on the presentation at this point. We're going to get into the whole pile of questions shortly. Nicole? Anybody else want to ask again, just raise your hand, you're more than welcome to come up and speak. MS. RYAN: Good morning. For the record, Nicole Ryan, here on behalf of The Conservancy of Southwest Florida. And if! may, a question was asked about primary panther habitat, so I thought that I would just give you a quick definition of that to provide that further answer. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. It didn't come up for some reason. Tom, do you know how to make that show up there? MR. GREENWOOD: I thought I did. Page 18 161f' A6~ January 28, 2009 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: There you go. MS. RYAN: This first map, it's a little difficult to see, so I may put up a better map in a minute. But all of the area that is in green is considered primary panther habitat. And the science has already established what primary panther habitat is. It was reconfirmed in the recently revised U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service Florida Panther Recovery Plan. And by definition in the plan, the primary zone, which is primary habitat, supports the only breeding panther population. To prevent further loss of population viability, habitat conservation efforts should focus on maintaining the total available area, quality and spatial extent of the habitat within the primary zone. The continued loss of habitat functionality through fragmentation and loss of spatial extent pose serious threats to the conservation and recovery of the panther. So that's the definition. That's where it's located. The Conservancy will keep our comments to the specific policies for that portion of the discussion. We also do have some concepts that we believe would help provide sufficient answers to our questions and some solutions that you may want to consider in your recommendations, but I will put up our concept map, just to show you specifically for the RLSA what areas are primary panther habitat. And it's a little tough to see, but essentially the areas that are not in yellow and are not part of Immokalee R primary panther habitat, excluding that northern corridor. So that just gives an estimate. The green areas and the light blue areas are considered primary panther habitat. So just that's in reference to that question. As I said, we'll save our -- and you can go ahead and turn the lights back up if you want. I'll save our specific comments for later in the presentation, but I do want to get back to this idea of what was the intent of this five-year review. Because the RLSA, as a new and essentially untested program, needed to have some sort of accountability at some stage. And The Conservancy did support the five-year revIew. And looking back at Policy 1.22 of the GMP, it established the intent of the review. And I'd like to read a portion of that. It says, a comprehensive review of the overlay to be reviewed by Collier County and the Department of Community Affairs upon the five-year anniversary of the adoption of the stewardship district in the LDC. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Nicole, you might want to slow down a little bit. MS. RYAN: I'm sorry. Am I doing that again? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No, no, we want to make sure your comments are accurately taken. So anybody that has to talk too fast, our court reporter can't quite keep up. MS. RYAN: I'll give her a break this early on. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. I'm notorious for being the worst at it. She hasn't kicked me yet. MS. RYAN: And the policy goes on to state that the purpose of the review shall be to assess the participation in and effectiveness of the overlay implementation and meeting the goals, objectives and policies. The Conservancy attended each and every of the RLSA committee meetings. We gave testimony, we gave docwnentation for part of the record. We also gave a lot of ideas as to how we believed the Phase II report should go and some of the things that needed to be considered. And we really felt that looking back at the intent of the program and comparing it to how the program has been implemented to date was important. The results should have been a series of recommendations that would, where needed, bring the program back in line with the intent or demonstrate how the program is still at least compatible with the Page 19 1 E)arfs, 'f~96 ~ intent of those initial goals. Instead we're concerned that what you have before you are sweeping changes to the RLSA that will exponentially increase the amount of credits available land to landowners, which translates into more acreage for development without among other things comparable natural resource protection assurances. The intent of the program basically was protection of natural resources, preservation of agricultural lands, and compact sustainable development in appropriate locations. So in looking back on how this was supposed to be balanced, the credit system really plays into that. And I won't repeat the information that Chairman Strain has brought forward, but The Conservancy, when we initially signed onto it and felt that we could support the concept of the RLSA, had we known that those nwnbers were simply a shot in the dark, a very, very small guesstimate of what could happen, I don't think we would have supported it. So it's very concerning that nwnbers that were written down as very close to definite are now being seen as simply a shot in the dark and should not be truly considered. We were told in 2002 that there would be approximately 16,800 acres of SRA's. And if these additional credits were brought in at the end of the process and now we have a lot more development, I think that shows that adding more and more credits to the system is quite dangerous. At the time of the transmittaL as Chairman Strain mentioned, he tried to do some calculations on how many credits were out there. The Collier 2005 Build-out Study preliminary findings, in their estimates, there was about 56,365 acres of SRA's out there. County planning stafTthen did their estimates, coming up with 30,000 and then 43,000. And then Wilson-Miller came up with a nwnber that the committee is using as the actual nwnber of 43,300 acres of SRA's. Of course that's with asswnptions. It's assuming 10 percent of the land will be for public benefit, and it's also asswning that 29 percent ofthe total acreage will be utilized for restoration credits that are eligible. What if 50 percent of the areas that could be restored actually take advantage of those credits? It means more land for SRA's. The bottom line is, I don't think we can really tell how many credits are out there to date. And it's very concerning that there are recommendations to infuse even more credits into that system. So The Conservancy had really hoped that those were the things that the committee would look at. And because this is something that the Department of Community Affairs is going to be looking at, we thought it was also important that DCA's comments about the Collier RLSA were brought into consideration. These were put into the backup materials for the committee, but they really didn't get a lot of air time during discussion. So I would like to just read in the record some of the comments that the Department of Community Affairs had. Because we think that these are still relevant and should be par! of your discussion as you move forward with this Phase II report. DCA did express concern about the nwnber of SRA acreage available. They referenced back to the 10 percent or the 16,800 acres. They stated, quote, the maximwn nwnber of stewardship credits in the RLSA is not known, and thus the maximum development footprint cannot be determined, end quote. They go on to conclude, quote, it is questionable whether this very large amount of development is consistent with rural sustainability, including maintaining the viability of agriculture, end quote. They raised other issues regarding the sustainability of SRA's, especially SRA's that are not up to the town infrastructure standards. They raised questions about additionallocational criteria being needed for SRA's. And they were also concerned that the program did not sufficiently preclude habitat fragmentation or ensure habitat connectivity. Page 20 16 I ':anu~ g, 2009 At the end of their report they reiterated, quote, the ultimate total amount of geographic extent or footprint of development in the RLSA cannot be determined, and there are practically no standards guiding the distribution of development areas. The large 93,000-acre area eligible for designation of receiving areas, which also allows the conversion of land uses to the underlying low density uses, is the exact opposite of a plan to direct growth to the most suitable areas. This may lead to fragmentation of natural resources, wildlife habitat and agricultural areas. The overall rural character ofthe area is under threat from the potential large amount of urban development, end quote. These are the issues that really needed to be brought out and discussed in this five-year review. DCA's going to have to approve any compo plan amendments that would come out of this. So we really need to look seriously at what their issues are. They did hear about the panther protection program, which incorporates a lot of the proposed GMP changes. And they had a preliminary or initial comment on that, which was, quote, an increase in development rights available for transfer raises questions about the adequacy of current development potential, justification for additional land use allocation, consequences on the footprint of development and urban sprawl, and the public facility impacts. We recommend that you work within the extent of development rights currently available for transfer, end quote. So these are concerns that have been raised by The Conservancy and also by DCA. And we hope that you keep this perspective in mind as you move forward with your review and review ofthe policies to come. And I guess that we'll save our specific remarks on policies and some of our -- what we believe could be good solutions for the appropriate time in the future. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: As we go through the questions and policies, and probably as often as I can remember or as I can cluster them together, I'll be asking for comments. So that your comments will be relative to the policies at hand, rather than wait till the end of the day and then get public comments. So please keep that in mind, anybody else in the audience who will want to speak. Mr. Wolfley? COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Nicole, could you stay there. Yeah, I'm looking at page -- of the thinner book that we all received, Page 85, which is the 2050 RLSA concept plan. It looks similar to this. But if there is a way someone could take that out of their notebook, kind of set that side by side, I've got a question for Nicole. Is that possible to do? Well, sort of side by side? Bill, could you -- MR. McDANIEL: I'm not a techno-genius here. COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Well, that's pretty good. Now, it looks -- actually at first blush it looks pretty close. Can you describe -- but it looks like your plan has a little bit more of that roaming land of habitat. Can you-- MS. RYAN: Sure, sure. And I apologize for not getting more into this map. I had put it up there to show the primary habitat. But just to give a little bit of an overview, the Conservancy put together our build-out concept map because we wanted to have something to show that -- give a different perspective than the Wilson-Miller map that you have in your binder. And one of the very important things that The Conservancy wanted was to make sure that first of all primary panther habitat was not an area where new stewardship receiving areas, towns and villages would be located. And secondly, we wanted to make sure that there were appropriate panther corridors at meaningful Page 21 16 r lA 6 January 28, 2009 widths in the proper location. So on our map, the green areas are the HSA's and FSA's of the current program. The blue area, that is the agricultural land right now available for SRA's, but it's also the primary panther habitat. So our suggestion would be to have those blue areas be -- call them primary zone sending areas or ago sending areas, but to direct development away from those areas and maintain those as agriculture. The darker green areas that are boxed in the black, those are the panther corridors that we've proposed. And we've based our panther corridors on the actual travel routes of panthers, based on Fish & Wildlife Conservation Commission data. We have based the widths of the panther corridors on science that states that is panther corridors need to be at least a mile wide to be functional and viable. So those are the areas that we felt would be really appropriate to try to restore and have some panther corridors. And the interesting thing is that we talk about the panther and we say protect the primary habitat, protect the panther. But you also protect a nwnber of other species when you protect that primary panther habitat. This area also encompasses all of the bald eagles nests in the RLSA, at least through 2006 data, all of the black bear telemetry points through 2006 data. It protects all of the bird rookeries and most of the wetland areas within the RLSA. So we believe that it really encompasses most ofthe natural resource areas. There are two little dots right above and a little bit below that northern panther corridor, and those are some scrub jay areas that just weren't otherwise captured, so we pointed those out. So by directing development to the yellow areas -- and there's about 32,000 acres of yellow area within that footprint, excluding Ave Maria. And from an environmental natural resources standpoint, directing development to that area, we're not saying that every square foot needs to be an SRA, but if you're going to have an SRA, those are the appropriate areas to locate it. That also helps to protect ago Because if you look on the Wilson-Miller concept map, a lot more ago area is being turned into future towns, potentially. We also believe that from a planning standpoint compressing the available SRA area is going to be a smart thing to do. You can then provide incentives that aren't just giving landowners more acreage to develop. You can incentivize through additional density which then makes your communities more walkable, mass transit friendly. You can also have other incentives, transferring density into the urban areas where appropriate. So if we see -- and you don't have to have such an extensive road network to service a smaller area. So we see that this really gets to a lot of the core principles that we think are part of the RLSA. And so we, like I said, brought that in as our alternative to the committee's Wilson-Miller map. COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Okay, so then what I want to ask -- and Mr. Jones, I find you to be one of the more knowledgeable members. And pardon me, anybody else, including myself. But that man right there has put in wnpteen hours and volumes of work. Mr. Jones, I'm referring to. It looks though -- and I wish as a committee member of the RLSA we could have started with that 2050 map and gone backwards. Because it seems -- it puts the household -- whatever you want to call it, centroids in areas that we can relate to. And it looks like Thc Conservancy view of the 2050 RLSA concept is mighty close. And I'm afraid I didn't totally just study every word of the panther agreement plan. And also in that -- I mean, do you see any way to get it closer to that, Tom? Since you, you know, have pretty much into the stake in this. And it doesn't seem like it goes over any of those town centroids, what The Conservancy has. MR. JONES: Well, I think what's important to keep in mind is that the 2050 concept map is a concept map. And it's not a plan that's telling people who own private property in eastern Collier where they can develop. What the 2050 concept map came out of -- and it's, I don't know, I don't like to say build-out Page 22 16 I~l A L . 1 January , ~9 either, but you might say it's a build-out map. I don't know if it's 2050 or 2070 or 2300. But what the review committee did, which brings a lot of clarity to it to an extent, is that it's capped the development at 45,000. The credits, regardless ofthe 29 percent restoration or 100 percent restoration, and regardless of how many credits all that could generate, what's being proposed by the committee is a 45,000-acre cap that includes public benefit acreage. That's what we're proposing. The existing program has nothing. The concept map is a theoretical distribution of where development could occur, and that's pretty much all it is. It doesn't say landowner X, you can do this, landowner Y, you can't do that. I think the other map that's up there is kind of headed in that direction. And, you know, they'll probably have additional comments as we go through the policies as far as how these incentives are developed and things like that to encourage participation. But I don't think it's really a point of trying to bring the two maps together. What we have and what we have as an approved plan is a voluntary incentive driven plan that today could entitle 43,000 acres, regardless of what happened. And to Mr. Strain's credit, he came up with a very interesting nwnber a nwnber of years ago that turned out to be very close to what could be done under the existing program. But even his nwnber didn't include the additional development that could take place at one unit per five acres. The baseline density exists, period. And if you're going to take baseline zoning density rights away from people, I don't know how the government does that. But the concept map is a concept map. And it was tied to a 45,000 acre cap. And theoretically this is how it could occur. And based on that theoretical development pattern, here's a potential road network that we believe could support that kind of development, recognizing that it needs a lot more analysis to prove it up to see if it really does. But as far as what's being requested by the committee, the committee's fulfilled what they were asked to do. And when you really get into the Stage II portion of the report, that was kind oflike the gravy for the committee. I don't think anybody signed up for that. Stage I report is all that's required by the final order, period. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Dave, we've got to take a break. And I'm just wondering, at what point is it going to be most convenient to interrupt your line of questioning? COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: You can do it right now. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Why don't we take a break and come back here at 20 after 10:00. (Recess.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, if everybody will take their seats, we'd like to resume the meeting. Okay, everybody please take your seats. We need to get back going again on schedule. Everybody please quiet down. Okay, Cherie' moved. Now you've completely disorientated the Planning Commission. Mr. Jones? MR. JONES: If appropriate, I'd like to add one additional comment to the comments I was making in response to Mr. Wolfley. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, that's where we're going to resume is with the response that Mr. Wolfley started, so go right ahead. MR. JONES: Okay, thank you. To the extent the Planning Commission's at a disadvantage to what the oversight committee -- with respect to the information, the testimony that came before us. But one important presentation that was made, and it relates to the map and the stuff that was put up there, was by Darrell Land of the -- from the Page 23 16 't (\6 January 28, 2009 Florida Game Commission. And for those of you who don't know Darrell, but you probably know him by reputation, he's probably one of the foremost panther biologists in the State of Florida, without a doubt. He's spent most of his career in South Florida following panthers around. He appeared before the committee. He made a very eloquent presentation. And he specifically made the point regarding his opinion of the existing program. Not the one that we were proposing changes, because when he came before the committee, it was long before we got into the restoration and the ago presentation and those type of things. But Mr. Land said that he was 95 percent happy with the existing RLSA plan with respect to panthers. And I think that says a lot. He said that if allowances were made for corridors, he'd probably be 100 percent happy. So I think any time you can get a panther biologist of his reputation before the committee who makes that kind of a statement, I think it carries a lot of weight. And it certainly carried a lot of weight with the committee with respect to the RLSA, the overlay, and panthers. And I think as an added point, and I think I'm probably the one that said it because I knew it at the time, but the existing overlays of the HSA's and the FSA's and the WRA's capture over 90 percent of the telemetry points from day one. And day one was 1981. So you've got an existing plan with respect to panthers that captures 90 percent -- over 90 percent of lands that they're utilizing. And historically the big criticism ofthe telemetry is that it was daytime telemetry. Well, Darrell Land came up with a subsequent paper that utilized GPS collars which shows 24 hours of utilization by panthers. And his conclusion was that from a statistical standpoint, there was no statistical significance in panther utilization between daytime and nighttime. So by capturing the bulk of the population utilization -- I think panthers are telling us where they go, and they've been telling us for a long time. A lot of the primary map is tomato fields and pepper fields. There's for all practical purposes no utilization. There isn't data to support that they're utilizing it. So I think that's when I -- in my earlier comment I said I don't know that we could come to a conclusion about the viability of primary panther habitat in two or three months. I think eventually the discussion will revolve around what are panther utilizing, what data and analysis do we have to support what they're utilizing, and are they utilizing lands that aren't protected? And I think the answer is no. We've captured over 90 percent of their telemetry points. And for a plan that was put together, not specifically directed at panthers, that was a pretty good shot in the dark, if you come up with 90 percent. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Wolfley? COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: One thing I wanted to clear up, because it looks like there's a potential from The Conservancy plan to the 2050 RLSA concept plan that actually the landowners could end up with a higher -- do I want to say density or acreage? Which brings up to another question. I'm just wondering how that would work. It looks like it's pretty close. But let me get onto another thing, and maybe Mr. McDaniel will be able to answer that. Credits. What are the credits traded tor? Are they traded for -- not traded, are they provided for more acreage or more units, more density? What are you trading credits for? MR. McDANIEL: Ultimately the credits are translated into density at the end of the day. COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Okay, how about-- AUDIENCE: No, no. COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: -- at the beginning of the day? MR. McDANIEL: Excuse me. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. McDaniel (sic) is responding, let him respond in his way. Go ahead, Bill. Page 24 16Ja~'2A96 MR. McDANIEL: I mean, there is a calculation that it ultimately comes back around in ascertaining the acreage that ultimately can in fact be developed. But the credits that are generated through the development of SSA's ultimately translate into amOlmt of density that can transpire in the Rural Land Stewardship Overlay. There is a secondary calculation for those to ascertain an approximate. And as we've talked today, it's an approximate amount of acreage that ultimately can be developed. COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Okay. Because I'm going to try to bring this together in a moment. Because I personally think that the credits should apply to density, thus keeping those towns, you know, obviously more dense. MR. McDANIEL: More compact. COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: More compact, thank you. And it might be an easier compromise, rather than, you know, doing the credit to acreage. And that's been my problem through the whole thing. And honestly, in the RLSA committee it took me two months to even figure out what in the world is going on. I mean, it was practically -- MR. McDANIEL: How did that work out for you? COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: -- the entire Phase I. Because it is a very complex docwnent, in my opmlOn. MR. McDANIEL: Without a doubt. COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: And without -- and in addition, it is also probably the most important issue that's come up in front of this county in years. It encompasses most of Collier County. I mean -- MR. McDANIEL: A large portion, yes, sir. COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: And it's the old three-legged stool. We're dealing with landowners and their rights, we're dealing with -- and their ago land and so on. We're dealing with government. And-- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: David, we probably need to focus on the questions concerning the presentation now. Because a lot of the issues you're asking about, when we get into our nine pages of questions and the 30 pages ofGMP suggested changes, we'll probably flesh a lot of those questions out for you as we move forward. COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: I will then continue later. MR. McDANIEL: If I might add just one point with respect to that, Mr. Chairman. And it has to do with the information that has been provided to the Planning Commission to date; the information that's already been shared with you in our initial presentation. Maybe with not as much specificity as what Nicole had shared with us today as to speci fic widths of corridors for travel of the Florida panther and such. A tremendous amount of information has already been disseminated to make the determinations. At the end of the day, our choices are do we leave it all at one per five and encourage urban sprawl, or do we endeavor to come to a consensus, an agreement, a compromise, if you will, amongst these factions and have a plan that is somewhat -- it is not somewhat -- is functional, it does in fact work. And that was the goal ofthe committee through this process, to review the existing overlay plan, to take into account these multiple factions that have opinions as to what's right, as to what's wrong, as to what's good and to what's bad, and take those into consideration in torwarding our opinions and our final report ultimately to you. COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: And absolutely. I don't think there's anyone here that wants to see the extension of Golden Gate Estates going to the eastern border. MR. McDANIEL: Or whatever. I mean, you can recall during those processes, there were a lot of folks who had an opportunity to stand up and speak and express their personal opinions, and with -- some with data and some without as to necessarily what was good and what was bad. And I think our goal as we Page 25 1 faJry ~, 20A 6 1 move through this process is a further -- necessarily a further discussion of our opinions, but at the end of the day, the committee's report is what it is. We have made these suggestions, and you the Planning Commission are going to ultimately ratity, not embellish upon, if you will, and make your recommendations to the Board of County Commissioners as we move through this final process. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And I'd like to remind everybody where we're at. We had the committee's presentation. The Planning Commission commented on questions from that presentation. We turned to public speakers. The first public speaker was Nicole Ryan. Commissioner Wolfley responded to Nicole Ryan's presentation with questions. And I'd like to keep us all focused. We still have to finish public input and questions. And as far as philosophical ideals, wc all probably have plenty about what's going on out there. We need to see where they fit in the process of the GMP language at the time we bring them up. So it may not be the best timing to expound on philosophy right now. But try to get to the point so the presentation -- so we can move into the more detailed work of this meeting here today. And with that, Mr. Vigliotti, you had a comment? COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Mr. Jones, do we know the exact population of the panther, and is it increasing or decreasing? MR. JONES: No, those little rascals run around in the woods so it's hard to come up with the exact number. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Approximately. MR. JONES: There's an estimate. I think the current estimate ranges from 90 to 110. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: And is that -- MR. JONES: And the population has increased significantly since the mid Eighties. They brought in Texas cougars to jazz up the genetics of the Florida panther. And since that time they've increased significantly. I think it was probably -- the low number at one time was probably in the low twenties, prior to the introduction of the Texas cougars. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Thomas? MR. THOMAS: First I want to apologize, I'm in between doctors appointments. That's why I'm late, and I'm going to have to leave to take my wife to the doctor. And I apologize. And [ may be being redundant and I'm going to ask you to be patient with me, Mark Strain, to do a little philosophical thing. Just a little. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I'm the epitome of patience. COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: We could all laugh at that. MR. THOMAS: Mark and I have a long relationship, because we were on the Planning Commission for about 11 years together. But anyway, the point is, the only example we have right now is Ave Maria. And I think it's an outstanding example of where we're trying to go. Because the thing that people often overlook, they worry about the panther habitat, the scrub jay habitat and all the rest of that stuff, but they're not thinking about the human habitat. And we, because of the way we developed in this county over the years, have put ourselves in a situation where we have some social problems that you're not looking at. When you can get back to walkable communities where you've got commercial close enough to the residential so that a 10-year-old child, a 12-year-old child can be sent to the store to get a dozen eggs, a pound of bacon and some -- those kind of things, until you can get back to that, you're going to end up with idiots at the McDonald's who can't make change. Because they get no change to practice making change. They don't get the chance to see the neighbors and know the community and all those kinds of things that we have to have. So this program really, really works. And if we can get them so that we have communities that have the local services available for the residential -- yes, for the mega services you can go, and that's why Page 26 16 I Lanua~ J~009 I've been pushing since I've been on this committee to look at the skeleton, which is the road network, to make sure that as these little towns sprout up there's easy connection between them where the jobs or the movies or the other big stuff can be located. But the program is working good and we're working hard to keep it going like that, you understand? And I know that I'm from the hole of the donut, if you will, you understand, but in order for us to become that industrial hub for Collier County, we need to have a situation around us where we can protect everything. AIso remember, 1991, two and three, and we learned that from that gentleman you mentioned about the panther, we changed the ecology down here. Those orange groves changed the ecology of the panther and made them healthy again, because there was a place for the young pigs to go and the young deer to go, and they're coming east from the other side of the panthers to range in the groves. And we need to understand that, okay, and know that we can make it happen. But we also need to be concerned as much about the hwnan habitat as we are about all the other creature habitats. Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you, Fred. Are there any other questions involving Nicole's comments before we move on? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I have one, and that's for clarification. I want to make sure the record's clear, and if! hear something I'm not familiar with, I'll always ask for a clarification. We've heard nwnerous references to the plan on the left being a Wilson-Miller plan. And I have-- that's the first I heard that. I thought staff produced the backup data for this report. Mr. Greenwood, is that your map or is that produced by Wilson-Miller or somebody else? MR. GREENWOOD: It's produced by Wilson-Miller. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, were they under contract to the county? MR. GREENWOOD: No, sir. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. How did they end up providing maps to your committee? MR. McDANIEL: Necessarily as in an advisory capacity to and through the Eastern Collier County Properties Association, and in assimilation of information and the data sets that we had available to us to try to estimate the ultimate acreage and the location of the development that's going to occur in the Rural Land Stewardship Overlay. And again, I stress, Mr. Strain, that it's an estimate at best. I mean, we have some ofthe information that's quite readily available to us. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I just want to make sure everything that is stated is accurate, and that's what I was trying to find out. Thank you. MR. THOMAS: And most of us on the committee looked at that -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Thomas? MR. THOMAS: -- question very carefully, and we all agree that this is the best information we had to work with. MR. McDANIEL: Well, and with that in mind, Ijust would like to add to Fred's comments, the ultimate goal at the end of the day was to establish a balance. Not just for hwnan habitat, but also for wildlife habitat and preservation of agriculture as we go through thc process. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Now, we had left off on public speakers. I want to continue there. Is anybody else wishing to speak? Russell Priddy and Tim Durham, you want to speak too, I take it? Okay. MR. PRIDDY: Russell Priddy. And I want to make some public comments in reference to some of your discussion. And I guess we'll start with the two maps up there. Page 27 16 tt 28Ao6 >1! If you don't leave this room with anything else firmly fixed in your mind, please leave here with that map on the left is a concept. And I can assure you it's a concept, because some of the locations of those towns are on people's property who don't have credits to entitle them. So until they come to me or Mr. Scofield or other small landowners and have those credits, who knows where the towns are going to be? It's going to be within the receiving area, which is which some 80 or 90,000 acres, but to pinpoint exactly. So please, leave here, take a snapshot of that, let's get it off the board, because it's just a concept. It's a planning tool. Secondly, Nicole's map, interestingly enough -- as she admitted, she did show up to every meeting. She gave input, asked questions. But guess what, folks? This is the first time this committee or any of us have seen that map. Some of these committee members, when The Conservancy raised concerns, asked what the solution was from them. They didn't have it. But today now they bring you a map that's seen for the first time. From a landowner perspective, her map will never work. Because if you tell us where the towns have to go, then you're limiting who I can sell my credits to. It has to be that landowner. That puts me in a real bad position, because now rather than it being an open market situation, I'm having to deal with someone who knows that I've got to take their price for those credits. This is a voluntary program, not regulatory. And the reason in those meetings -- and I lost count after 20 -- The Conservancy kept proposing things is they didn't fit a voluntary program. So virtually none of them got included. So please keep in mind that this is a voluntary program. Going back to this nwnber of 16,000 and so acres that could be developed, please keep in mind that that was an initial run using baseline credits. There were a nwnber ofthings that took place -- also keep in mind that the landowners were the ones that were paying for and driving putting this plan together. But that doesn't mean that we got everything in it we wanted. People came along and put stuff in it and added to it. And some things that were added to that program during the transmittal process, I think there was an additional 5,000 acres that got switched into habitat area. The conservation groups came forward and they wanted restoration put into the program. That was never anything the landowners thought of. When DCA got the program, they said this program's not going to work, to let's see if we can get it to work, you need early entry bonus credits. DCA came up with that. So that 16,000 nwnber was a guess that got added to with a nwnber of things that took place after that was shared with the county. And then there was the fourth change was the public benefit exemption was added in there. So, you know, those are four things that came along after that number was thrown out that increased, if you will, a footprint that none of us knew exactly what it was from the beginning. Mr. Strain for three or four years was probably the only one that had somewhat of a clue, because he took the time to do some in-depth calculations. Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Priddy, before you leave, make sure there's no questions. Anybody? Mr. Midney? COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Yeah, I just have a question. You mentioned as a landowner that you might be selling some of these credits to someone to build a town. Has anyone come up with an estimate about what the credits are worth, like a dollar estimate? 5,000, 10,000? MR. PRIDDY: Not that I know of And when I do sell my credits, that still won't be public. That's a Page 28 161~rA6 January 28, 2009 COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Well, I wasn't specifically asking what it would be. But I'm just -- for the purpose of trying to figure out whether these are going to be workable in terms of, for example, getting farmers to agree to commit to leaving their land in agriculture permanently, just a dollar figure would be helpful to me to sort of get my hands around this. MR. PRIDDY: I don't have any idea. I would be on the side of it being as high as anybody can get it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ms. Caron, then Mr. Wolfley. COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: With that -- one second. Let me just say that that would depend on how many credits we ultimately end up with. MR. PRIDDY: Not if we have a 45,000-acre cap. Because you're only going to have enough credits to entitle that 45,000 acres. COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: No, but ever since I've been on the committee, those nwnber of credits have increased. MR. PRIDDY: Well, you're right. The nwnber of credits -- if all of us landowners took our land down, you don't make any changes to this plan, we keep the plan that's here today, all of us landowners take our land down to conservation, yeah, we may be able to do 70,000-acre footprint. Now, you know, I'm never going to take my land down to conservation. You know, it just doesn't make any sense. So everybody's not, you know, going to do that. But that's the beauty of let's quit talking about what we can do, let's adopt the 45,000 acres which we know what we can do. That adds certainty. Even though we can generate enough credits to do 70,000 acres, doesn't make any difference, we're only going to develop the 45. COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Ijust --later on in further discussion I'm going to discuss more about the devaluation of the credit, which would definitely affect you, which I wouldn't want to see. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ms. Caron? COMMISSIONER CARON: I just wanted to make a comment that when you started your remarks, Mr. Priddy, you wanted us to remember that the map on the left is just a concept plan. And I just want to say to you that that's how The Conservancy map was presented as well, as a concept plan, not as a gospel plan. So -- MR. PRIDDY: And my point wasn't that it wasn't a concept, but why not share that with the committee back when they were discussing things, so that they could have taken that into account? I don't know, ask the committee, maybe I missed it. COMMISSIONER CARON: I think we can ask The Conservancy people. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And Mr. Priddy, I have one other question. You had said about The Conservancy plan versus the 2050 plan that's up there that The Conservancy plan is problematic because it locates towns. I think it's just the opposite. The concept plan does more to locate towns and tells you who you have to sell credits to, to utilize them than The Conservancy plan. MR. PRIDDY: Well, but that concept plan, we can move a town over to the adjacent landowner. You know, you've got 90,000 acres out there and seven or eight landowners. Well, the landowner with the most land would like for all the development to take place on their land. But for those of us that helped pay for, helped participate in, whose name was on the [mal order, that wasn't exactly fair. So we kind of had to come up with a scattering over different property owners of where development could take place. That doesn't mean that King Ranch wants to get out of citrus and build a town. They may never want to do that. But we couldn't exclude them from a dot on the map, you know, showing that that was a possibility. Page 29 1 Qj~t, 201 6 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I don't disagree with your point that any time more intensity is shown on one map over the other it presents a problem for those of you that want to sell credits, because you've got to focus on selling the credits to where the intensity can be. And if one property owner has an advantage over that, then he's the only guy you're going to be able to go to. All I was trying to say is I think that the 2050 plan on the left has more potential to show where those credits could be used than the one on the right. That was just an observation based on what you said. I'm not disagreeing with what your argwnent was, Ijust didn't see it the way you did. Mr. Thomas? MR. THOMAS: Remember what I said earlier about the skeleton. These are just possible locations based on a transportation grid that could be put in there that would make sense where those towns could possibly go. Not where they have to go or where we wanting it to go, but we just didn't want to have a situation where the skeleton didn't work when you start putting muscle on it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody else at this point? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, thank you. Tim? MR. DURHAM: For the record, my name is Tim Durham, with Wilson-Miller. Mr. Strain, out of respect for your comment about trying to keep this on course, maybe my comments should be more in terms of setting a placeholder. The Conservancy's position, which was presented, is somewhat unique among the views that were expressed during the committee meeting. But one fundamental issue that is the basis for their comments that probably needs to be dealt with and discussed more by this group, but I don't think now, is the issue of pnmary zone. I think everybody's agreed that primary zoning should be protected for panther. I think what we're disagreeing about is what constitutes the primary zone. And it gets to be a fairly complicated issue in terms of data and analysis and things that have gone on. Let me try and generalize it, because that's what I tend to do is generalize things. Back six and seven years ago, there was a group of scientists got together and met, trying to analyze these kind of issues. A lot of analysis was done of habitat usage, frequency of different things. You can go a11-- all kind of details on that. And we're prepared to do that, if you want to today, but I'm not sure this is the time. In the end, a concept of what constitutes primary zone came out. A working definition of primary zone was developed. And then at that point a line encompassing primary zone was screen digitized. All right? This isn't computer generated (sic) but screen digitized was drawn around an envelope to basically capture what they were saying was land that functions as primary zone. That envelope was based on land cover data that was not as specific as the data we use in the RLS program. All right? So we now have a map that shows primary zone. At the time it was drawn, there was discussion and general understanding that that map was going to encompass areas that may not actually be primary zone, but at least it gave you fair waming where you needed to be looking. At that time too, as Tom Jones mentioned, there was some debate in the science community about what do panthers do at nighttime. We've got telemetry points that shows what they do in the daytime. Who knows, at night maybe they throw a party in the middle of an ago field and invite all their buddies and, you know, it's major usage. Nobody thought that's really what happened, but therc wa~ a question mark there. So there's a little Page 30 16IJalaryA,~9 I bit of fluff in everything. You know, you kind of had to have a safety factor in there. And so the primary zone got drawn bigger than the actual functioning area, but it was a good idea to kind of encompass a large thing. We now have more data, we have more accurate FLUCCS maps, and we have the working definition of what constitutes primary zone. Now, I think The Conservancy, you know, it's one of these circular reasoning kind of things. You have this concept of what is primary zone, you draw a map of it, and then what are you left with? Is the map where primary zone is or is the definition more accurate? Our position is that when you go in and carefully look at the definition of how does land function as primary zone, what you really end up with is key areas that are doing the most lifting or carrying of panthers. In our mind that is the true primary zone. Some of the extraneous stuff that gets captured in this encompassing envelope needs to be looked at carefully. The effort to map primary zone was done for all of south Florida. They were not hyper-focused on the RLS area, they were looking at all of Florida. Now that we're hyper-focused on the RLS layer -- area, you know, we've done the analysis and it shows, as Tom said, what we do with the flow way stewardship areas, habitat stewardship areas and water resource areas. When you put those in these protected layers, it accounts for 90 -- plus 90 percent of the panther telemetry points. It's our position that you can actually define what lands the panthers are truly using out there. I think The Conservancy, in an abWldance of caution, is saying let's take the primary zoned map, that generalized map, and use it. And there's, you know, arguments on both sides of that issue. And again, to really delve into that argwnent's a fairly technical matter. I only felt compelled to come up here and express this because, you know, Nicole did a good job of injecting their perspective on the equation, I just wanted you to realize there was another perspective, and one that's shared by quite a few people. I'd be perfectly happy to get into it now, if you'd like to, but -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: It depends on the wishes of the committee. Does anybody have any questions at this point or do you want to wait as we go along? I have one. If you have a lot of panther telemetry points in a narrow corridor of green on that map and are not focused on the farm fields on both sides of that green or close to that, yet the farm fields were developed as SRA's, would the panthers still utilize those narrow green corridors? MR. DURHAM: It depends how long they are. The shorter a corridor is, the narrower it can be and still function. You know, picture if you had to go walk through a tube somewhere. You know, the longer the tube is, the bigger you want it to be as you go through. So I think it's a geometry issue there. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: In some places we're looking at primary panther habitat in a narrow focus. And if the surrounding areas are developed, just as if you would develop close to Corkscrew Swamp Sanctuary, you'd impact the wildlife there, I was just curious of how much an impact that would have on the telemetry points for the future, let's say. MR. DURHAM: Sure. Recognize also when you say developed, you know, that's kind of a broad term. If the development has a requirement for buffering, then that makes a big difference in how wide that corridor can be. If you're talking about, you know, can it have a major box store commercial center right at the edge of the corridor, that affects things drastically. You've got water management lake and maybe some parks and things like that, that affects that as well. So there's things you can do within the development itself which will make the corridor more functional. Page 3 1 161'1 A6 1 January 28, 2009 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ms. Caron? COMMISSIONER CARON: Yeah, let's look at this northern corridor here, since you want to talk about geometry. From the south to the north, what's the length ofthat section of the corridor? How many miles? MR. DURHAM: I'm sorry, which one are you referring? There's a north and -- COMMISSIONER CARON: The northern. MR. DURHAM: The northern one? COMMISSIONER CARON: On the 2050 map right there in front of us, there's a little narrow L-shaped thing, and that's a panther corridor. MR. DURHAM: One thing you need to recognize in this is we worked with Darrell Land of the Game Commission, the concept. Recognize when we talk about corridor, we're talking about an area of agricultural land with dedicated parts of it that would serve to connect for panther. That's not saying that everything else is not panther habitat around it, all right? Recognize we're not looking at development on all sides of that corridor so all you're left with is what you see shown there. Think of that as the backbone for a corridor. COMMISSIONER CARON: Well, but that's not really true, because you've got essentially an SRA sitting up there. So conceptually, there's an SRA there. So tell me again, what is the length ofthe north to south? MR. DURHAM: I would have to go back in my books and read that up. It's many miles. It's many miles. It goes through -- COMMISSIONER CARON: I'm looking for the miles, and then from west to east. Because you're the one who brought up the geometry and how if it was short and narrow, that's okay, but the longer it gets the wider the animal is going to want it to be. So I'm just -- MR. DURHAM: Up to a point. That doesn't go endless. Doesn't say -- you know, there's a cap on that. COMMISSIONER CARON: I'm just trying to get an estimate. I'm trying to see what you've plotted out here on your conceptual plan. Understanding it is a conceptual plan, and understanding that maybe everything that looks like it could be developed here may not be developed. MR. DURHAM: Correct. COMMISSIONER CARON: But I'm asking you what's on here to give me some figures on that. And you can give it to me later on in the meeting. MR. DURHAM: Be glad to give it to you later. COMMISSIONER CARON: Thanks. MR. DURHAM: We did work with Darrell Land on the concept for that, and the fact that ifthere is development, SRA, in the area of that corridor, there would be very specific and very extensive buffering requirements. We can get that broad data to you on that -- COMMISSIONER CARON: Thanks. MR. DURHAM: -- but it was not created in a vacuum. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you, Tim. I think that's it. Appreciate it. Elizabeth or Lori? MS. FLEMING: Elizabeth. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I keep getting you and Lori mixed up. Sorry. MS. FLEMING: Elizabeth Fleming, with Defenders of Wildlife. I wanted to explain a little bit about how some of these maps came about. Defenders of Wildlife, we do a lot of work on the endangered Florida panther and other imperiled species. And we took an interest Page 32 t A 6 16 I lUary 28, 2009 in the rural land stewardship program, and also the federal regulatory process that was -- we were seeing the development potential for this area, which is so important to the panther and other species. So we've worked on a nwnber oflevels. We've worked with the Fish & Wildlife Service, we participated in this five-year review, we met for about a year and a half with three other conservation organizations and eight landowners who owned the land. So very important to talk to the people who ultimately are going to be deciding what happens to that land. And there are several processes in motion right now, so it's almost difficult to tease one apart from the other. The first of course is the five-year review, and now the discussions and decisions that will be made by the Planning Commission, the Environmental Advisory Council and then ultimately the Board of County Commissioners. Separate -- well, not separate of that, but a little bit different is the collaboration that the conservation organizations and landowners had, focusing on primarily panther. Also some of these land uses. And in addition to some of the changes recommended here, that collaboration came up with some ideas to have an additional source offunding for things like wildlife crossings. Some of those primary areas on State Road 29 is still the deadliest road in the state for panthers, and there isn't a funding source available. And so we see that as a good benefit. And there's some additional concepts in there also that we feel is very worthwhile exploring together. I want to let you know that these ideas we've come up together are being reviewed right now by a panel of six scientists who are experts in panther ecology and landscape level planning. And it is unfortunate in terms of timing that we couldn't have their set of recommendations to fold into all these other processes. But we are going to meet again with all the landowners and the conservation organizations and discuss their findings when they are available. And those findings will then be taken forward to the federal level. Because as I mentioned, looking at it from the endangered species act, the Florida panther and perhaps other species in the area. So we see this as one part of a large set of processes going forward, which we sincerely hope is going to improve the status and recovery potential of the Florida panther. And that is the reason that we got involved. And ultimately, if it can work in Collier County, we hope to work with other landowners in the state, moving into adjacent counties. And the only way the panther is going to be recovered is if we get north of the river and up into the rest of the state. So a lot is riding on this. We have the highest hopes for this. We've worked hard collaboratively with landowners. We realize we can't regulate the situation, the Fish & Wildlife Service. I mean, they have a role to play, but the record of land conservation under their purview has not been good with respect to panthers in South Florida. And we're going to put a lot of stake in what these six scientists come up with. And that -- they're analyzing this independently without any intervention from any of us. They're looking at it now. And my last comment I wanted to make about this is so many people seem very, very interested in panther science. And I don't feel comfortable with members of different committees or ourselves or analyzing data or responding to questions. Get Darrell Land in here and ask him yourself. Ifwe want to know what Darrell Land thinks or what Darrell Land said, I would recommend that perhaps he be put on an agenda for everybody to talk to in the near future about these issues. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. Are there any questions at this point? Page 33 1 Qnl~, 200~ 6 Ms. Caron? COMMISSIONER CARON: Just one. Do you have any idea when this study will be done? Be complete and ready for presentation? MS. FLEMING: We hope in the next few months. COMMISSIONER CARON: So three, four months? MS. FLEMING: That's the hope. Like I said, we are hands off. We're letting them do their work. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: My question was about the same line. Your organization, as well as others that signed the MOU are obligated to basically support the RLSA conclusions that are coming before us today, from my reading of it. Also from my reading of it, there were time tables expressly stated in the MOU in which the scientific study was supposed to have been benchmarked at certain processes. At the time it was signed, there were provisions for three or six-month intervals. I don't believe you've hit those time frames, if I'm not mistaken. But even more concerning to me is while you are -- got an agreement and you're obligated and you're doing what you have to do to make sure things come out right for all of you, if your scientific study comes out to the negative or requires extensive changes in the language that is before us today but it comes out after it was all passed, how is that going to help anybody? MS. FLEMING: First of all, you asked several questions. The MOU is nonbinding, it's a voluntary agreement that we've all agreed to work on together. We're still hammering out aspects of that regarding the panther. As far as the certain deadlines in there, cverybody's aiming to keep to those deadlines, but I don't think -- it's not as binding as it might appear to be. And you asked me another question -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I'm worried about the outcome of the scientific study, ifit involves changes to the language we're seeing here today, how is that going to happen ifit comes out after the changes were already approved or gone through the process? MS. FLEMING: Well, as I said, regarding the panther, a lot more will be placed on the federal process moving forward. There'll be an agreement reached and they may require -- in addition to what the Rural Land Stewardship Area has agreed to, Fish & Wildlife Service may require other modifications based on the recommendations. It is unfortunate that there are four or five different things in play at the same time. But I just wanted to put some background into why we are involved and how this fits into a larger framework for landscape level conservation. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And I -- my questions were really as we're trying to make sure that if there are changes needed, they get into the progranl. I understand from what you just said maybe the feds or state can further enforce those where we might not have been able to or incorporated in our language because of the timing. But again, it goes back to the timing. I'm not sure we're rushing this through then if we still have science to complete, so -- but I understand your position. MS. FLEMING: I don't know who's rushing what through, but these are county meetings as scheduled, and -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: We had a nice discussion about that about a month ago. MS. FLEMING: But anyway, it's not been a -- it's been a fairly open, long, extensive discussion. Conservancy has been involved. Many of us have been involved. And it seems like people are becoming skeptical of motives or how we got to be here, and I just wanted to let you know what our involvement has been. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you vcry much. Page 34 16 l:an~aryl,go9 ' Okay, next speaker? MR. HUTCHCRAFT: For the record, my name is Mitch Hutchcraft. I'm with King Ranch and Consolidated Citrus, and we are agricultural landowners. Based on the comments that I've heard this morning, there's two specific points that I'd like to make. First one is about perception. And I appreciate the comments that we just heard, because I think that there's a perception that, you know, gosh, we're greedy landov,ners and we're trying to get more or that, you know, there's deals being cut. And I want to make sure that it's perfectly clear, that's absolutely incorrect. I can tell you from the very beginning, our participation in this has been stated from the very beginning, we are interested and working in collaborative effort to see if there is a way that we can achieve the objectives of is there a better way to deal with the connectivity of panther habitat, can we do a better job of protecting agricultural lands, is there a better way of protecting growth into the future. And the landowners have been working with all commerce; with environmental groups, community activists, anybody that would come and speak with us. And I think what you see before us is a suggestion of here's a scenario that we think will work and achieve the objectives that you guys have shared with us, and the realities of the families that own the lands out here. So I want to make sure that I clearly dispel that perception that I think I'm beginning to see, because I think it's inaccurate. The other comment is targeted towards that northern corridor, because I want to make sure that it's perfectly clear. That northern corridor does not exist. There are no panthers using that corridor. That corridor that is presented on the left map was a suggestion by the landowners here's a scenario how we think we can do a better job of providing that connectivity. And we do it through landowners and linking natural habitat patches. So rather than there be a characterization that gosh, we're not doing enough, it's more than what existed, and it was at the behest of the landowners saying we understand your concerns, we want to work with you and here's an alternative solution that we think will meet both environmental objectives and landowner family ownership realities. So those are the two points that [ wanted to make, and I appreciate your time. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Midney, then Mr. Wolfley. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Yeah, and I really appreciate that. I'm not one of the people that thinks it's like a conspiracy type of thing. I think that you all have done a really good job. I'm really happy about the addition of the ago credits. I think that was -- when it first came out, I remember saying, five years ago, I can see what this does for the environment but I don't see what it does for ago And so I'm real happy that you put that in. And on your initiative, as you said, the panther corridor, the panthers don't use it now, but if this could help. I'm really appreciative of what you're doing, and you've come up with a lot of good new ideas, but I think that we probably can make it even better. That's my whole point of -- MR. HUTCHCRAFT: And I don't think we would ever say, hey, we did 100 percent. But I think it's fair to say that we clearly have done our very best to advance the ball forward. And I can tell you from King Ranch and Consolidated Citrus pcrspective, we have a long agricultural history, we have zero development history, and I'm not the only one, but I was one of the ones that clearly strongly advocated for the importance of the agricultural credits. And I think that that's an important component. And I'm on the flip side of Mr. Priddy. We've got lots of/and that could potentially be developed, Page 35 lSl&J281oo9 A 6 but no credits. It doesn't work for either of us if it doesn't make sense in balance. So that balance is critical, and it's important that you make sure that that's clear in everything that you review. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Wolfley? COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: I believe it was me that started that behind closed door thing. Only because my nose was rubbed into that by a member out there months ago. And so I thought I'd bring it up again, just because it was -- my nose is still a little dirty on that one. Could you explain to me the generation and use of panther habitat units? It was in the Memorandwn of Understanding. And before you answer that, I am totally in favor oflandowners and the environmental groups getting together without any govemmental intervention. More can be done then in that I'm sure than could possibly be done, you know, by a government. MR. HUTCHCRAFT: There are a lot of things I'll pretend to be an expert in, but the generation of panther habitat units is not one of them. So with all due respect. I'd defer to somebody else. COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Mr. Jones may know. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: David, you've had the benefit of23 meetings with the RLSA committee that you sit on, and we need to get through a lot of stuff today. That MOU is a supporting docwnent. COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Well, you brought it up, that's why-- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah. I know. And your answer could get rather involved. If you want to know the details ofthe MOU, I passed it out to the Planning Commission two months ago. Is that something that we could hold off till later in this, when we get into other issues, if you don't mind? Because I'm still trying to focus this committee on answering responses to the presentation and the public comments. If we can get past that, then we'll get into more detail, and those kind of things will probably be more appropriate. Does that work for you? COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: That's fine, sir, yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Mr. Jones? MR. JONES: I'll hold my answer on the PHU generation. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. MR. JONES: I always appreciate when somebody says they don't know something. But I do want to respond a little bit to something that you brought up and Elizabeth was addressing. And I think this comes from comments I've heard from other people and from what I've read in the paper. And there seems to be a great deal of confusion about the MOU and the Panther Protection Plan and the RLSA overview. And since l've been involved in both of them, I'll give you the background on it. But these are independent processes running on parallel tracks. And it's just coincidental that they occurred on the time line that they did. We've been working on the Panther Protection Plan long before the oversight committee was put together to review the RLSA. And in our collaborative efforts from the conservation organizations and landowners, we were trying to develop a panther protection program that addressed some of the issues that, well, the RLSA isn't corrected to the federal program. You're right, it's not. And it was never intended to be. So we've tried to marry these things together. And people that are intimately involved in them are probably better equipped than those who are not intimately involved in them. But we saw the RLSA as an opportunity, as a vehicle to implement some of the things that we wanted to do with respect to panthers. If the Panther Protection Plan falls apart in the consultation process or something or never comes about, it doesn't impact the RLSA. The only thing that ties the RLSA and the panther protection program together is that we were utilizing credits an incentives for the panther protection program. If the RLSA chose not to incorporate those credits and the primary credits we're talking about were Page 36 16 I 1 J*'62~,~009 the ones for corridors, and we estimated an acreage. Everybody else came up with their own acres of what it ought to be, but there's an estimate of acreage figures in there and credits would be generated from the creation of those, and that's an incentive that works in the other program. And the other area that kind of ties together is the ago preservation credits. And the ago preservation credits creates significant open space within the RLSA. They're probably a benefit. I'm not going to get into it because that gets us into the panther debate. But one doesn't have to occur for the other one to be functional. Ifthe RLSA doesn't incorporate the credits or the panther corridors, then the group working on the Panther Protection Plan, probably through the federal process, will develop another set of incentives. The common ground between the two is that we're trying to develop incentive-based programs, and we used an existing program that we thought we could piggyback on part of the panther program. And since we've tried to do that, that has gotten so twisted and convoluted that I just -- you know, I'm going to stop there. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Jones, my point of bringing it up was simply that without the protection plan in place, without the PHD's being created, is the RLSA language as being presented to us today something that would have survived without additional tweaking needed or concerns from the environmental community who feel that the Panther Protection Plan is giving them that protection? And if it is and it works for them, that's fine. But my concern is if it wasn't there, how does that change things? And that's where I was coming from. MR. JONES: Right. But we're kind of dancing around that these things are linked. And I understand what you're saying, but I was just trying to clarity for the general good of the committee that the science review that's being done with Panther Protection Plan doesn't have to be done before this process of the county's overview moves forward. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. Vince, good to see you. Mind letting everybody know your position with Hendry County, since we're used to remembering you when you were here in our county? So -- MR. CAUTERO: Thank you. Although my good friend and former colleague, Anita Jenkins, did say that she thought a ghost walked through the door when I came in this morning. I thought that was very funny. For the record, my name is Vince Cautero. I'm the administrative services director in Hendry County. And I thank you for the opportunity to speak. I'll be brief in my remarks, but before I get into those, if! can ask county staff to assist me by putting up just one graphic that I want to focus on in my brief remarks, it would be the roadway network. I don't know how to work that, I'm sorry. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The centroid map. The one with the red dots, I think that's the one you're looking for. There you go. MR. CAUTERO: Thank you. First let me say that Hendry County in 2007, during their strategic planning workshop, the board of county commissioners asked staff to embark upon a rural and agricultural land study and asked them to set up parameters for such a study. As an outgrowth of that workshop, the board of county commissioners partially funded a study, with a grant from the Department of Community Affairs, and went through a competitive process and hired the firm ofRW A, and that study was completed last year. We are now at the point where I would say Collier County was six or seven years ago in that the study has been completed and now we are working towards the initial refinement of that to have it adopted. So you're a whole full four, five, six years ahead of us in that process. And we appreciate the opportunity to work jointly with Collier County's committee, staff, consultants, the Planning Commission and other groups so that we can make this the best plan as possible Page 37 A61 161J~28,2oo9 for Hendry County. The Hendry County board has indicated a strong desire to provide incentives, as well as standards in their comprehensive plan that will accomplish two things. And from what I've seen in the RLSA plan in Collier County, and from what I'm seeing today, and I know you have more data to pour through and more work will be done, it appears that the incentives and regulatory framework to preserve environmentally sensitive land and establish long-term agricultural areas is present. That's my opinion, based upon what I've read and what I've heard. And the board of county commissioners in Hendry to that extent shares that goal. I want to thank publicly people that I've had the opportunity to talk with, and I look forward to more discussions regarding some of the aspects of this plan, and that would include yourself, Mr. Chairman, as well as Tom Jones, and others on the Panther Protection Plan and Allen Reynolds and his senior staff at Wilson-Miller. So there are only two issues that I want to focus on today. And I know you have a lot more deliberations, and we look forward to working with you. One is just that, that we look forward to learning more from you as to how you're going to tackle these key issues with regard to environmental preservation of sensitive lands, and setting up the framework for future development within this overall area, and with emphasis on the Panther Protection Plan. Because we are giving that a lot of emphasis right now in our community. And our advisory committee that the board appointed to review the study has only had three meetings. So they haven't gotten deep into these discussions. The second issue was one that is contained on this graphic that I just wanted to focus on, and it is the proposed east-west road north of the county line. The board of county commissioners is concerned very much about level of service. To that extent, the proposed order -- and I realize this is just a conceptual map, and any roads that are constructed may not be in these specific areas that are depicted on the map. But at such time if there is an east-west connector at the northern end of what we're calling the Collier RLSA, any improvements that that road would have upon the level of service network in that area, with emphasis on State Road 82, is very important to our board of county commissioners. The Hendry County board has stated publicly that they don't believe that county roads should be spent on state roads -- county funds should be spent on state roads. To that extent, we're working with developers, landowners and DOT and DCA on a long-term concurrency management plan for State Road 82. Mind you, only 1.3 miles of State Road 82 exist in Hendry County. But we were told not so ago -- and I will define that by saying that is less than 12 months ago -- DCA and DOT told us that our segment of State Road 82 was failing in terms of level of service. We've now been told that that's not the case, based on new analysis. We have pending comprehensive plan amendments in that area for a mix of uses, most notably commercial and industrial, and the board supports this. Further, the board of county commissioners has granted a franchise to Florida Government Utility Authority to serve water and sewer in that area. As a backdrop to this, we're looking for level of service on State Road 82. So therefore, getting back to the point that I raised a moment ago, level of service is a key issue for us. So anything that the road network that is ultimately planned for in this area could do to help level of service on 82 is important to us. Having said that, though, we also have one additional concern, and I appreciate the discussions that I've had thus far and we look forward to continuing those. The community that you see to the north of the county where that road is. And maybe if you could use your curser, if somebody can use the curser and just point to it. Thank you. This community that you see here where I'm showing the I ight, and further north, approximately Page 38 1611 ~. 2~, 2009 seven miles from the county line is the community of Felda. Unincorporated community in Hendry County. And we're seeing very low density development in that area. It is very sparsely populated. I don't even believe there's more than 1,500 residents in that particular area. They are seeing slowly some commercial development along 29, and the community is fully aware of the planning, development and engineering report, or PD&E, that is being undertaken now by DOT for the four-Ianing of29, and possible six-Ianing. The community just completed a community plan that was made part of our evaluation and appraisal report. And that report was accepted by the Department of Community Affairs last June, and we are now preparing EAR-based amendments. That community made it clear to the board of county commissioners that they want to maintain a low density status. Low density is defined in that community as one unit per two acres. To the point where they don't even want to see clustering. They want two-acre tracts with some scattered commercial development and agriculture. One of the big issues we're facing right now in Hendry County is an influx of mining and extractive applications from various landowners for a variety of reasons. And that is also taking place in the Felda area. What we're saying is from a staff level -- and the board of county commissioners has not been a part of this conversation yet -- anything that this could do to enl1ance level of service as it comes into our world, which is right here in Hendry County on State Road 82, is fine and there is no objection to that. And I think the long-term plan ultimately you'll adopt would dovetail nicely with what we're setting up as our initial goals now. But just keep one thing in mind, and then that's all we ask, in addition to continued communication, and that is the people in Felda have already approached the board and they wish to maintain low density in their community with some commercial along State Road 29, which would be neighborhood commercial. And we would like to keep that focus in our comprehensive plan amendment. As we work through our rural and agriculture land study implementation, that is going to be taken into account and is being taken into account by our consultants and our advisory committee that that community of Felda has carved out, if you will, their small piece of/ow density development, as we look at other strategies in our rural and agricultural area, which takes up a large portion of the county, as you would Imagme. So we just ask that you take that into account. Our community is looking at this, especially the community of Felda, and we look forward to close communication with yourselves and the other groups that I mentioned, as well as Collier County staff. And I want to thank you for your time. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. Any questions? Mr. Eidson? MR. EIDSON: I was wondering if Hendry County was entertaining the environmental concerns that we have about the panther, and are they try trying to make that corridor work up into Hendry? Because our committee was concerned that we might get a toll booth put in up at Hendry County for the panthers and we didn't want to see that happen, so -- MR. CAUTERO: I don't think you will see that. The advisory committee is taking that very seriously. And to the extent where we will be looking at that in great detail, we have had presentations at the staff level from Mr. Land and other professionals. I believe that that is an issue that is going to be carried forward throughout. And it won't be one that is ignored. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Any others? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Vince, I've just got one. Does your community have any long-range plan for State Road 29? I mean, I know it's a state road, Page 39 16ii;8, .A~ "~ but the timing of that -- because we're going to be six-Ianing right into your county. Are you coinciding with that six-Ianing and opening 29 up to six lanes at some point? Is that what the ultimate plan is for your area? MR. CAUTERO: Yes, that is the ultimate plan for that area. And I apologize for not mentioning that. Our county did adopt a new long-range transportation plan last year as well, which will be made part of the comprehensive plan, and we are taking that into account and gearing up for that as well. The community residents of Felda are aware of that, and they understand that. And that was taken into account during their deliberations. We had a great deal of discussion with them about commercial, where commercial will be located, based on an ultimate six-laning. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: County Line Road, as shown on this plan, asswning that it's a Collier County line road, is actually in Hendry County. Does that coincide with your plans in Hendry County? MR. CAUTERO: We have not shown that. And that's something that we're going to have to coordinate very closely with the planning staff, as well as the comprehensive planning and transportation planning staffs. But from what we see now on how this might not only interact with your network, but if there's any way, as I said earlier, that it might alleviate some ofthe level of service on 82 in Hendry County, I don't think you're going to see opposition for that. But if it is to be in Hendry County and you have willing buyers and sellers, so be it. But we need to take that into account in our plan. It is not part of our plan, but we have time. I don't know the exact length of time for this planning process. Our planning process may even be extended. We're going to use the full 18 months and maybe more for our EAR-based amendments, so there is time to make adjustments to that. We do plan to be discussing this with our elected officials in the near future, depending on how the EAR process goes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, that county line road comes up from Corkscrew Road, crosses our county line, goes north. I can't even tell the distance. But it looks like it's going into a grid pattern of development, similar to what you find in Golden Gate Estates with the standard grid. And I can tell you, we have an extension in Golden Gate Estates called the Vanderbilt Beach Road Extension, and it is very controversial. So I would think if that road's going to go through all those areas, your people may have concerns about them. That's kind of the reason when I spoke to you first, I wanted to know what the thoughts were on that. MR. CAUTERO: And the Felda community has not spoken to us about this. I will be talking to them about that as well. I think that their concern is going to be the one I mentioned, though, that if we can have some assurances that the density would remain low in that area. And how we do that, we're open to suggestions. But I do share your concern that there will be some concern in the Felda community based on that. So my point in talking today is to just make everyone aware of that, that they do want to keep a low density community. And some people have said to us, when we embarked on this discussion with them, that it just promotes more urban sprawl. Well, we made a case in our evaluation and appraisal report and DCA approved it. And they approved that report. So now we're moving forward with amendments to change some land use in that area and change regulations that will keep it low density. So they are serious about that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you, sir. Mr. Jones, you have something? MR. JONES: Mr. Strain, I may be able to help you a little bit on the way it looks north of that county line road. Although it may look like Golden Gate Estates, there's a very limited ownership Page 40 · A'-' 16 I Lanuary ~ 2009 immediately on the other side of the Collier County line. There's probably not -- the length that that's running, there's probably not more than four landowners involved. MR. CAUTERO: I have that in front of me. if you'd like. MR. JONES: I hope I'm right. MR. CAUTERO: Six. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Six. Well, you're 50 percent wrong, that's not too bad. Can we make the same asswnption with the acreage on the RLSA? MR. CAUTERO: Sorry, Tom, Ijust had it with me. MR. JONES: Well, they may be different names by the same company. MR. CAUTERO: One ofthem is. One of them. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Oh, now you're 25 percent off. COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Compromise. MR. CAUTERO: I did my homework. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you, Vince. We appreciate your time and attending today. Thanks for your input. Next speaker, please. MR. SElF: Michael Seif. I just wanted to say something for the record to clarity. There was some questions before when you had The Conservancy map up versus the plan -- well, both the conceptual plans. The Conservancy did prepare a map called Natural Resources within Collier County. And that was presented last June. And it's in appendix T in the materials that you have. And it clearly shows proposed water retention areas, proposed habitat stewardship areas, flow way stewardship areas, open areas of critical state concern, and -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Is that the map you're talking about, sir? MR. SElF: Yes. Thank you. So I just wanted to clarity that, you know, somebody mentioned before that nothing had really been presented in that earlier period to discuss the natural areas. So thank you. You know, just for clarification. I just have one other comment about transportation, though. I'm not sure how you can present a plan for town locations or proposed town locations, even centroids, without saying a little bit more about transportation. And I would think that the County Commissioners would like to know something about what the cost might be for this plan. Even if it's a conceptual cost. Seems to me that one needs to incorporate that. Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Terry, I think you're next. If you don't mind, I know you're with South Florida Water Management District. If you -- we're seeking any comments that your district may have, I actually put a call in to you guys and I'm glad to see you're here. Thank you. MR. BENGTSSON: Yes, I'm glad to be here. I'm still learning with this plan. Terry Bengtsson for the record, South Florida Water Management. And I know Clarence Tears, our director for Big Cypress Basin, has worked quite hard in fostering private and public relationships in getting resource management type projects forward. So the committee here should certainly be acknowledged for their efforts in garnering the support and volunteers and working on developing some recommendation here. It is difficult, from a planning perspective, exactly what these recommendations mean, since there is this inl1erent voluntary effort. The couple of observations that I wanted to offer that is worth you all please taking a note of is that since 2002 there's some things that have changed with regards to the lower west coast water supply plan. It Page 41 1 bluJ28, 2A96 . 1 was updated in 2006. Where because of the uncertainty of how much water would be available for use in the surficial system and in surface water, those systems being integrated into wetland systems and the like. For planning purposes, any new proposed use to meet future demands on the public water side would -- should come from alternative sources. And so that is a -- something we've been working on for the last couple of years to make sure that utilities are working that way. We're fortunate to have utilities that are very progressIve m our area. A new wrinkle to all this is that now DCA has established a link with water supply and growth management to the compo plan amendments that are looking at changing densities, and need to look at making sure that the water supply is available. And so from a planning perspective and having this uncertainty both with this plan and then what source ofresources are available, planning perspective, it should be something, a source that is considered alternative. And so that's a fairly important fact. The other aspect that I wanted to bring up is that there has been a rural development process with Picayune Strand, which I'm sure you're all aware of. That is a rule that will affect potentially water use permitting in that it may limit what new uses can be permitted. It may entail more effort in establishing a new use that wasn't in place back in 2002. So those are I think two significant things that -- you know, worth looking at. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Midney? COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Are you saying that there may be water constraints on the building of some new towns in this area? MR. BENGTSSON: I'm saying that the resource that is available from a planning perspective is alternative sources. In other words, it needs to be brackish or it needs to have a reclaimed water component. It needs to have conservation methods. Any way to reduce the demand from a conventional source. The conventional source in our area, as identified through our water supply plan, is considered limited. And so since DCA is now requiring local governments to look ahead in a I O-year facility work plan to identity where our water's coming from to meet the projected growth, then that source needs to be something that regulatory governments -- regulatory agencies can feel comfortable in agreeing with a plan with that map. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: So what I'm hearing you say is that the water supply will be more expensive, but it's not going to be limited. In other words, there's no restrictions on the amount of brackish water that can be removed from the deep aquifers? MR. BENGTSSON: That's true. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody else? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The Hawthorne Aquifer is considered an alternative source? MR. BENGTSSON: That's a good question. There's a couple of different zones within the Hawthorne group. As identified in our nomenclature, the mid Hawthorne in the Hawthorne group is not technically referred as an alternative source, although in Collier County it is brackish. And so the fact that it is brackish would lend its support towards providing future sources. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. And the other question, you mentioned the Picayune Strand. And when that legislation or that action goes forward, it may limit the amount of freshwater aquifers that are going to be tapped for new uses. Currently in the area of the RSLA there's extensive agricultural uses, conswnptive use permits. Those aren't new uses, but converting those to landscape irrigation and potable uses for households, if they were to tag on to the consumptive use permit and have it modified, and I know there's a reduction rate between the uses, would because they use the consumptive use permit from the farm be acceptable as avoiding the term new use? Page 42 16Lut28,~6 MR. BENGTSSON: Well, that's a very good question. A land use change would constitute a new water use permit. The difference between agricultural irrigation and landscape irrigation in many people's minds are essentially the same. However, the duration is year round for a golf course versus winter crops. And additionally, the type of drainage associated with agriculture is different than a subdivision. So the connection of changing or moditying an agricultural water use permit to something different for common grounds, turf and landscape, may not be a straightforward matter. On the east coast, currently there is a water availability rule. And there is a method that has been established that's sort of referred to I believe as a ledger, where if some old agricultural permits are retired, there's a certain amount of allocation that becomes present on this ledger and may be available for a new use. How exactly that works, I'm not certain, because the Picayune Strand is a reservation rule that's different than a water availability rule. There are some distinctions legally that I'm not quite sure what they are. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Some of the changes in the RLSA language involve the WRA's, and there are going to be questions about conversion of ago pumpage to irrigation and potable uses by other uses. And that's where -- we'll probably get into that in more detail later on. I don't know of your intentions for sitting out the duration here, but if you're here, you might be asked. If not, we'll just do the best we can. Thank you. Does anybody -- Mr. Wolfley? COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Yeah, I -- did I just hear -- Chair, I promise I wouldn't have brought it up ifit hadn't already been started. But Commissioner Midney just asked if these towns or centroids would have any effect on the water, aquifers, being used for the towns. And you said there would be no effect from the use of the water for these towns? In other words, let me try this again. We were told, I think it was our last session, that the water we're getting out of the Tamiami Aquifer has absolutely no effect on that aquifer. Are you saying that these towns, that that's the same, no effect on the aquifers that we're going to be drilling down to? MR. BENGTSSON: Well, no, I'm not saying that. And I don't -- when you say no effect, I mean, that's kind of hard for me to understand. COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: That was exactly my point, too. MR. BENGTSSON: But sort oflike the transportation dilemma as to you'd like to locate some potential routes. But without knowing the specifics of whether or not that route would be better than another gets to be a little more on the technical side. What I was attempting to say is that if there are some existing use out there of the shallow aquifer, the Tamiarni Aquifer, and that use is for agriculture and it's now going to be converted into a public water supply activity, that source may not necessarily be available to it, to that utility. COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: And the next layer down, I cannot remember, was that-- MR. BENGTSSON: Right, there's a nwnber of aquifers that are available. And the deeper you go, the more isolated they are to the environment, to the surface. The unfortunate thing in Collier County is that those aquifers, those deeper aquifers are brackish. COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Certainly. Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Any other questions at this time? Mr. Jones. MR. JONES: Another for what it's worth. In anticipation that hopefully we would eventually move forward with data and analysis to support GMP amendments, we -- property owners in Eastern Collier Page 43 1 &~~,~6 County anticipated that there would be potentially a question arise over water. And to that end, and I'd like to enter it into the record, I just have this one copy, but we did have an analysis done by a registered geologist from the State of Florida to look at potential water sources available to support a 45,000-acre footprint. And recob'11izing what Mr. Bengtsson has said, the district, for lack of a better term, is forcing utilities to deeper aquifers. I'm sure Collier County Utilities is well aware of that. The mid-Hawthorne where people are generally now going to be withdrawing their water supplies from is recharged well north of this area. Primarily in Polk County is where the entrances to the Hawthorne are, I believe. And so we were fairly comfortable with it. In addition to that, the geologist also ran a scenario that if water was available from the lower Tamiami, what would that impact be, based on current usage. They did a rather critical analysis and only asswned -- and asswned the pumpage based on ET, not on permit allocations, and they pretty well clearly demonstrated that not only the Hawthorne had sufficient water supplies to provide what would be necessary for future development, but even that there was a significant resource of agricultural acreages were converted to urban development as well. So I'll give this to Mr. Greenwood to -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Tom, if you could during lunch make copies for the Planning Commission and maybe extras for others, and then make sure that the recorder gets one copy for the record, that would be helpful. Then we can read it at lunchtime when we get back. Okay, any other questions of Terry? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you very much, Terry, appreciate it. Are there any other members of the public who wish to speak? Yes, sir, Andrew. MR. McEL W AINE: For the record, Andrew McElwaine, President, Conservancy. I was listening on-line, and was concerned about an earlier discussion on the primary zone of the panther and whether there was fluff in it or whether there was disagreement about the zone. I spoke just now with a preeminent panther biologist who -- David Shindle of our staff-- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Questions from the audience please. You'll get your time to come up if you need to. MR. McEL W AINE: And he referred me to the Panther Recovery Plan, which the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service has just issued. It's a couple weeks old. And it states very clearly, the primary zone supports the only breeding panther population. To prevent further loss of population viability, habitat conservation efforts should focus on maintaining the total available area, quality and spatial extent of habitat within the primary zone. The continued loss of habitat functionality through fragmentation and loss of spatial extent pose serious threats to the conservation and recovery of the panther. Therefore, conserving lands within the primary zone and securing biological corridors are necessary to help alleviate these threats. That's as clear as day, sir. And that is not an opinion piece, that is directly from the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service. It is only a couple of weeks old, and represents a scientific consensus that has been developed over years. Thank you, sir. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Would you mind if the statfmade a copy of that to distribute to the Planning Commission so wc could have it for our record? Thank you. Okay, are there any othcr comments from the Planning Commission? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Any other members of the public wish to speak on the presentation made by the RLSA committee? (No response.) Page 44 16 falaryA,609 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, well, it's a quarter to 12:00. And instead of going to into a whole new section that's going to take a lot of time, which the next item up will be the questions that the Planning Commission put on record on May 1 st of 2008, we're going to break for lunch. But before we break for lunch, there's going to be some changes when you come back. Everybody that's sitting at a table right now, please consolidate what you're using into one pile in the place you're sitting at. The tables are going to be rearranged while we're at lunch. The idea of having people's backs to the public and tables separating the public from the actions of the committee is unacceptable, it's going to be changed and we're going to modity that. So that will happen during lunch time. In order for people not to have their paperwork mixed up, either take it with you or consolidate it in a pile. And with that, why don't we resume at 1 :00. That will give us enough time to get to local restaurants or wherever else we have to go. Thank you. (Luncheon recess.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, I think the mics are working. Everybody back on? It's 1 :00. We'll reswne the meeting. I don't see many people back yet, but we'll try to move forward. Mr. Greenwood, during the break -- or during lunchtime we had some matters passed out for copying. Did those get copied? MR. GREENWOOD: Yes. And they're on the table and we'll bring those to the commissioners. I think there were three items. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. I think there was only two, but whatever was it, if you get those copies to us during the day, we'd appreciate it. MR. GREENWOOD: We'll get those to you shortly. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. The portion of the meeting we'll be getting into now is the questions that the Planning Commission had presented in a nine-page handout to the committee when they did their Phase I review back on May I st of 2008. And at that time we were asked to hold our questions until the Phase II report came forward. And we have those -- we'll start working our way through the nine pages. Several of the pages were done by myself. And others were done by The Conservancy. And I think there was a section of them by Nancy Payton as well. So we'll just look for answers. I'm not sure who's going to be responding to us. Mr. Greenwood? Bill? I'm not sure you want to take on that or -- MR. McDANIEL: Well, if nothing else with as far as taking on, sir -- for the record, Bill McDaniel -- I would like to assist in directing folks to come answer those specific questions, if -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's great. MR. McDANIEL: -- we the committee can't necessarily come up with specificity. That was during our process in determining this presentation to you what they asked to do. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I think that works fine. And basically the questions were posed to see if they should be considered in new GMP language. And I know that you did on one of the backup docwnents discuss them, try to respond to them. And whether they were answered in there, I just want to make sure the record is clear on how that occurred. MR. McDANIEL: And as a point of discussion, if you might direct folks as to where to look when we're talking about those. And I believe they're contained in the volwne one book. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I'm running off the nine pages that I have, so I didn't use the ones in your book. But if you have a page reference, that would be helpful. DR. HUSHON: Page 519. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Page 519. Page 45 16nlaJs, ~h ., I'm looking for the questions. I read the answers, and that's kind of why we want to reiterate them in the public here today, so everybody knows what the question was and how you all responded to it. Not everybody has the ability to have 700 pages made available to them. MR. McDANIEL: Absolutely. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you, sir. The first question that was posed back then was a discussion about the fiscal impact analysis model called the FlAM. It looks for fiscal neutrality for any new properties put out in the RLSA. The problem that occurred in reviewing some of the docwnentation for the only SRA that was utilized, Ave Maria, was that there were some instances in the FlAM, which is that impact analysis model, where the standards for multipliers used were not the standards in Collier County. And the most relevant one I can think of is persons per household. In Collier County we operate on an average of2.39 persons per household. Now, if you use that as a multiplier and you multiply it to a whole bunch of other statistics, you get a different answer than if you use a different number. Well, the Ave Maria, as example, used 2.2. They argued that their households would be less in population. And that's tine if the statistics show that and it works, nothing wrong there. But as a standard we ought to see from a county perspective where the flAM would show the fiscal neutrality if you used the standard statistics that the county historically has used. And at the same time, the other part of the question was why don't we standardize it to county standards and why don't we do this FlAM more frequently. And I think the question was every year. But right now it's every five years. And what that means is someone could change their fiscal neutrality to a point where they're running into the negative to the taxpayers, but you wouldn't know about it for five years. And if someone's doing really well, what does it hurt to rerun a computer model that's already -- the spreadsheet's initially done and it's just a matter of updating the numbers. So that was the question that was posed, Bill, and I'm not sure -- I saw that it was under Section 4.18. You all believed it was responded to, but there was no response there. It was the language we have today. So does that mean the committee did decide -- decided it didn't need to be responded to? MR. McDANIEL: Basically yes, sir, there was discussion. Mr. Greenwood, if you'll help a little bit with regard to that. There was discussion there. And candidly, Mr. Chairman, some of the comments that came back in written format to you were rather blunt, candidly. You know, we -- there was discussion with all of the questions that were posed to the committee, both by yourself and by The Conservancy and other organizations. But at the particular juncture with the information that we had available to us, no action was taken at that particular time. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, that's fine. And if-- who in the committee analyzed it? Because I know since staff wasn't participatory as much as usual, how did they decide that this wasn't something that needed to be changed? Does anybody know? Or they just decided it wasn't -- didn't need to go any farther with no reason and -- MR. McDANIEL: I'm scrapping for information at this particular juncture. MR. GREENWOOD: Well, let me just mention the fiscal impact analysis model. It's built with all the county-wide data in it, including the household sizes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. MR. GREENWOOD: What happens when you get to a certain area, a geography -- for example, if we used it in Immokalee, the average household size there should, in that model, accurately represent what is probably going to happen in Immokalee. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. But the census takers in ln1mokalee have that as a census zone. There was no zone for Ave Maria, they just used -- they created one and we accepted their nwnbers. And maybe historically now that's proving out to be true or false, I don't know. I just wanted -- the question was Page 46 16 I ",ary J' b09 raised because shouldn't we standardize it on these new towns until we get a census that says, you know, we looked at that, 2.39 is too high, it should have been 2.2. Well, that helps them in the future when they re- revIew. If the committee's position was it didn't need to be addressed, then so be it. We'll just so note that and move on to the next question. Does anybody else -- MR. McDANIEL: And with a statement there, it wasn't that it didn't necessarily need to be addressed, it's just that the information that was in fact put forth in front of the committee at that particular time didn't warrant a change in that particular policy revolving around the fiscal neutrality comments. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. And what I'll probably do is every few, say every four or five questions I'll ask for public input. And that way we'll keep the process moving. The next question was concerning the conversion ratio of stewardship credits. It should have been applied -- it was suggested it should have applied in the model as the maximum scenario for development. If you recall, and I think you all testified today to this fact, that the 16,800 acres put forth a long time ago was an estimate. It now appears that the estimate was significantly low, based on the argwnent that we have higher acreage ranges, based on more of a scenario usage. And that's exactly what I think we've discovered is what the question posed. And I guess that you're just going to leave the language as needed, because you've now come back and actually posed the -- supplied us with a higher nwnber. Mr. Eidson? MR. EIDSON: I don't have a mic so I should -- I'm sorry. One of the -- the spirit, and I don't know if it specifically addresses your question, but I'll do my best. The spirit that we went to when we capped the size of the area carried that thought in mind. We were trying to get something -- we were trying to put limits and trying to define the growth rather than to leave it loose. You know, it was a little loose the way it had been defined before. We got into that discussion this morning, we talked about an infinite nwnber of credits you could go here, go there. So what we tried to do was to say here's -- we'rc going to do a bunch of things. Nwnber one, by confining that area, it makes it more valuable. It drives -- it becomes a self-driver. In other words, limiting the size, 45,000 or whatever the exact number is, it creates a demand. In other words, there's only so much out there that can be used. It defines it and it also makes it more valuable. And that gets back to the earlier point about what's a credit worth. It's called a free market society that -- the analogy is the $200,000 house you can buy for $80,000. I mean, that's where we are. So those credits are as valuable as the limitations of getting land are. And so what we tried to do is confine it and put it into a perspective. As to the specifics in the question, I don't know that we addressed it specifically, but generally. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I think you did, because the question was looking for a maximwn scenario. You basically have pegged that at 45,000 acres. So that was responded to. MR. McDANIEL: And with the proviso, sir, that early at the initial adoption of the plan, there was no working model. There was -- these were at best -- I don't want to call them guesses, they were really, relatively speaking, educated guesses, but estimates as to what in fact could occur. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And that's exactly why the question was posed, because the change in estimates. MR. GREENWOOD: And Mr. Strain, also I would like to again for the record mention, and I hope that you understand that the credit maximwns that were calculated that are included in the support three -- section three, which is the support documentation, and the calculations that I made, which are Appendix G Page 47 1 Erf18; ~~ 6 ., in the large book is based upon an asswnption. And the reason the asswnption is the way it is, is it's based upon 100 percent participation by the property ovmers in the program that have environmentally sensitive lands. Now, that asswnption mayor may not happen. It's not likely to happen. And we don't know if staff and the other calculations were made based upon an assumption of 50 percent. One could say well, that's not going to be enough or it's too little. So what these credits represent are the maximum amounts that could be possible both under the existing program, as well as under the proposed. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, thank you, sir. The next question talked about impacts based on certain elements of regional infrastructure that may not have been given adequate analysis. And the items in particular mentioned were hurricane evacuation and shelter space. Health care facilities, affordable housing as example may not have been adequately addressed and the minimwn standards should have been considered as guidelines for SRA approval. Your response to that was supposedly in Policy 4.16. And I'm not sure it was a response, but I think where I found it listed was after Policy 4.16. And I don't see how that policy addresses any changes. So I guess it's again a matter of the committee. Did they not feel that some of these additional elements needed to be addressed? Do we -- hurricane evacuation routes and how shelter space was to be allocated in new towns and SRA's, where the health care facilities were going to go in the rural lands. MR. McDANIEL: One of the things that was brought up to us, Mr. Chairman, during those discussions, and there were lengthy discussions, and ultimately it evolved out that a lot of those things are -- especially the hurricane evacuation routes, are and can be in conjunction with the transportation system moving the people to and through the Rural Land Stewardship Overlay. As far as -- and again, you can see these comments that came about. I'm just briefing some of them while you were asking the question. There are other portions of government regulation that probably could have a better handle on the specificities for the location of public facilities. It was pointed out to us that there was lacking evidence that there was sufficient -- that slide is up there right now -- lacking sufficient support for infrastructure, government oflices, jails, landfills and such. You cited a couple others that were there that could necessarily be probably more easily regulated within the LDC than in the Rural Land Stewardship Overlay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. I think the intent was to look for some requirement that they be addressed. Because I found the document I thought silent on those matters. And I know you referenced the main elements of our AUIR in element A, but you didn't reference B. I guess in some cases you did and other cases you didn't. And when we get into the language, I'll point that out. But I was concerned that there's no requirement to produce a hurricane evacuation route that is meeting the level of service needed for hurricane evacuation for a particular SRA. How do we know those people will be able to evacuate? And that's kind of why the question was originated. And I don't know if there's an answer for that. Maybe that's something that will come out of Nick Casalanguida, but that was a concern. MR. McDANIEL: And again, that's a -- predominantly it's a transportation issue that we have been working in conjunction with transportation throughout the process of these -- of our meetings. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: As we get through the policies, maybe we can get Nick to comment on them later on then. MR. McDANIEL: Ms. Caron? She had her hand up. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Donna? Page 48 16 I JalUary zA2(r COMMISSIONER CARON: Well, that may be true of evacuation and shelter space, but it certainly doesn't address affordable housing or health care facilities, or jails or-- MR. EIDSON: You know, I think -- I think that the charge -- I mean, I guess that our -- as we perceive the charge that we were operating under, we were trying to get a blueprint, an overall blueprint to make this a little better. It wasn't -- that language isn't there now. And what we're trying to do is to tune it up. Now, we didn't perceive that we were going to get into micro-detailing every inch of the way with this. And your comments, you know, you're bringing up are -- I mean, it makes -- there's some interesting ideas, but those are ideas that we didn't pursue. We were trying to make sure that we met the overall goals that we had, which was preserving the ago land and the environment and so forth. We didn't climb down that deep. And maybe in another three or four -- if we had another year or two to do it, perhaps we could climb down that deep, but that's not where we were going initially. At least this guy wasn't going there. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, the problem that I see with that is this five-year -- first of all, we did address the ag., the environmental and the development five years ago when the plan was first put into action. With the requirement that in five years we would revisit it and see what needs to be improved upon. These were just suggestions for improvement. If we didn't address it five years ago and we now have passed five years, we've had more time to think about it and we looked at better planning, wouldn't it be better planning to be looking at some of these necessary infrastructure needs after five years? And I think that's why my questions were originating is it's time we now looked at them. If we don't do them now, does that mean another five years and before you know it, it's a decade before some of these bigger issues that will involve huge amounts of infrastructure support get addressed. And I don't mean just roads. I mean water, sewer, I know we can do package plants. But then you've got jails, you've got police, you've got law enforcement, you've got all kinds of things. And I notice there's some other questions. Ms. Caron, did you finish with yours? COMMISSIONER CARON: Yeah, that's fine. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Wolfley? COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: At the very beginning, our first meeting of the RLSA program, we were provided a page that listed four goals. Those goals were to protect agriculture and prevent premature conversion of agricultural land to non-agricultural uses. Two, to direct incompatible uses away from wetlands and upland habitat. Three, to enable the conversion of rural land to other uses in appropriate locations. And four, to discourage urban sprawl and encourage urban development that utilizes creative land uses, planning techniques. That's the only four things that we dealt with. COMMISSIONER CARON: But that -- but what Mr. Strain brought up is a planning issue. And that was nwnber four on your list that you just read to us. COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: But that was within each urban whatever we came up with, each sector. We were not asked to develop an entire infrastructure plan for the rural lands. COMMISSIONER CARON: No. Nor did you really need to. What you needed to do if you were going to put forth GMP amendments is to say that -- have your GMP direct that standards be detailed in the LDC, which would have been for another time. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And it looks like that didn't get accomplished. That committee saw their goals differently, so we'll just move on to the next question and j ust get our answers and -- Neno? MR. SPAGNA: Thank you. I can't speak for the group, but only for myself. But I didn't feel like it was my job to get into all of these specifics. I thought if we laid out the framework that the zoning, the land Page 49 16JaLl28,20A 6 use would all follow in sequence when people came in with their specific plans. We did look at certain things that I thought were relative, such as the roads, water, perhaps, the effect on the environment and so forth, but I personally didn't get into all that specific stuff. I just took for granted that that would be taken care of in time based on what we submitted and what you all looked at and recommended and that our job was simply to layout the framework to look at what we had, to look and see what worked, to see what didn't work, to improve what didn't work, maybe to eliminate some of the problems that had occurred since the initial plan was put in place. So that was my view on the matter. I just simply didn't get into a lot of the things that you've talked about. Although I appreciate that they're very tangential to the work that we did. And maybe if we had the time and the instructions, that we could have gotten into this some of them. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you, Ncno. I appreciate it. Maybe the solution is with staff. Mr. Greenwood, whenever the next level is gotten to, the transmittal level, your department has got to do a data and analysis on this plan. Would your data and analysis include a review of the elements that we just mentioned as being of concern? MR. GREENWOOD: Yes, they would be. MR. McDANIEL: Only preswning that is a direction of the Planning Commission to staff as we come through that process at this particular -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Oh, I -- at the end we'll probably make a recommendation, yes. At least I know that at some point the question has got to be answered then before the transmittal occurs so we can study it to see if the answer actually has addressed the issue. So with that we can move on to nwnber four. Nwnber four is talking about the retained uses on ago two that are not preservation, yet they are proffered as such in subsequent development analysis. Where this came into play -- and again, I don't mean to keep using Ave Maria as a bad example. It's a -- it went through the process. They have absolute right to go forward what they're doing out there. But during the process of the review of Ave Maria we were actually able to take the application of the RLSA for the first time and apply it. And in that application hopefully we leam things. One of them that we saw was that there were numerous environmentally sensitive spots in the massive area of Ave Maria that weren't taken into consideration because they had a right to by the basis of the SSA that was put up. And the SSA that were put up to support Ave Maria were argued that they were preservation areas. They put all these preservation areas into play so they get their credits. Rightfully so, absolutely they did. The problem is when you hear the word preservation, I think a lot of us are thinking of pristine areas where there's habitat untouched and unspoiled. That's not exactly what is considered preservation in the RLSA. And the only thing that this question was getting at was is there a way that that could be differentiated when it goes up for the approval process of an SRA. For example, native preservation was X, but agricultural preservation was something different. And I think you may have accomplished that by creating stewardship credits for ag., which is another question in this batch. So with that, unless there's any other questions on nwnber four, we'll just keep moving on. You want to argue about anything, Bill? MR. McDANIEL: Silence is golden on that one. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Number five, the -- we've heard it today, too, and this is just a comment more than anything else, that under the standard zoning everybody has said one to five is much worse than what we have with the compact rural developments that we're going to be putting in here. And I question the value of really saying that, because in a one-to-five scenario, how realistic is it Page 50 161 J}uary 2A~ that we would actually develop that one-to-five scenario throughout 200,000 acres in Collier County. And it was only a statement more than a question. And I'm just reading it now for the record, because honestly, I've heard you say it today and I've heard others say it today, and to think that we're going to build out the rural lands in a one-to-five and use that as a hammer as to why we need to have these new reductions -- I mean, new changes in the acreage and uses out there, I don't see that as a good reason, so -- MR. McDANIEL: And as a further point in that line, the -- you know, from moving from a regulatory standpoint for growth and development into an incentive based system such as what we have, the Rural Land Stewardship Overlay, there is a lot of additional public benefit that comes not just from the manipulation of where the development ultimately can go, but tl1e access of government agencies to get the lands that they -- prior to the institution and the voluntary consent of the folks to participate in the program -- am I saying too much? MR. JONES: No, I'm just waiting for the bench. MR. McDANIEL: There's a tremendous amount of information that comes to the general public that wasn't afforded to them before. There was almost a penal system that was in place for environmentalists to get on to environmentally sensitive pieces of property to ascertain what was utilizing them and how they were in fact being utilized. And through this program there's more value other than just the protection of those environmentally sensitive lands. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Jones? MR. JONES: Thank you. I think Bill did a pretty good job hitting that. But I think it really goes back again to the genesis of how the program was developed. And with rare exception, there aren't a whole lot of people in this room that were around when this program was developed. I don't think there was any insinuation -- you know, urgency to protect the environmentally sensitive lands. What we did with the ruraJland stewardship program initially was create value to landowners on lands that the public had deemed to be environmentally significant. Now, the public has never put up any money to acquire any of these lands that these landowners own, but there's certainly volumes and reams ofregulations available and penalties if we go into these quote, unquote, sensitive areas. And what this stewardship program did was now create value among the most environmentally sensitive lands through the generation of credits that could be then transferred to less environmentally sensitive areas. We didn't have a sense of urgency. This was really a sense of fairness. If we were to propose to go out into the Okaloacoochee Slough at one unit per five acres, they'd be lined up from here to the Okaloa. Granted, not very many people know where the Okaloa is, but they'd still be lined up out there. So what we did was create a program that generated incentives to take these lands that society has deemed to be significant, and for once create value for landowners to preserve those lands. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. Any questions from the Planning Commission? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's the first five general questions that we had. Does anybody from the public wish to comment? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, next page, nwnber six. MR. McDANIEL: One second. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Hi, Brian. MR. GILLIGAN: Brian Gilligan, Barron Collier Companies. I just want to address a few of the points. One was on the FlAM. And I think it came up that FlAM Page 51 t~al212oo19 A 6 should be done every year, as opposed to the five years. And I think that basically you need to allow projects out there to mature. It's really not fair to impose, you know, each and every year starting out of the blocks with that regulation. It's really -- you get a much better look after five years and every five years thereafter. I can tell you, though, the question has come up in Ave Maria in terms of where it is financially. And we have run our FlAM, and we do know that it's net positive. A lot of people look at that and say okay, well, on the revenue side there isn't as many homes and therefore, you know, somehow there's a deficit. But I can tell you, on the service side the costs haven't been there. So we did the developer contribution agreement, and on a net basis we know that on that project we are significantly positive. The other thing that came up was affordable housing. On Ave Maria we basically stepped up, and we stepped up to a commitment which I think is the largest commitment that anyone has made on a large-scale project in Collier County. Basically wc stepped up to I believe 19 percent of our homes are going to be in the affordable range. So I think there rather than mandate it, I think on a project-by-project basis, it is appropriate to take a look and, depending on the particular project, determine what's appropriate at the time that each project comes through, as opposed to trying to put regulations on the front end. Thanks. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Brian, one question. If you have an FlAM that's already laid out and all the statistics are there and it's on a spreadsheet, and I know that particular document contains yearly projections for absorptions and it contains yearly revenues as a result ofthose absorptions to the tax base, whether it be impact fees, ad valorem taxes or whatever. And it's all generated from just one page of input nwnbers. And I'm just trying to understand why -- and why would it be so concemingjust to update the yearly information so that you could see that you're maintaining a steady positive. And I'm not saying that if it goes negative every year that it's got to be corrected. But at least you would know by, say, every fifth year that the negativity is persisting and we now have to do something about it. There's a mandatory review at that point. But just to supply the nwnbers on a going forward basis to show we're being consistent with the absorptions -- because that was a big discussion I had with your representative during the meeting of Ave Maria was the absorption seemed really high. And I think today, sure enough, they are really high. I know the project's doing well in regards to absorptions as a whole, but they were predicted to be higher than I think they are today. I didn't see that as a big work effort, that's why I was -- MR. GILL! GAN : Well, it is. I mean, in terms of -- there is a cost associated with running that model every year, consulting costs and things of that nature. But I do know this: I do know there is some misperception out there. And I think -- and I wanted to clarity that. I mean, I think there's misperception that somehow Ave Maria is a drain. And I can tell you that when you look at something like that -- I mean, let's just understand what Ave Maria is. We did a developer contribution agreement. We paid almost $8 million in cash upfront for the design of Oil Well Road. We donated 130 acres ofland for right-of-way. We've made significant contributions. And that -- and on the capital side there hasn't been all that much from the county expended out. And on the operations side we are also positive. Mark, to your point, I'm more concerned if there was a financial measure every year and if there was a net check that had to be written one way or the other every year. I think that would be -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I wasn't looking for that. I was just thinking a tracking method so that then every five years we'd have to balance the books, more or less. But certainly not every year, no. But I thought it would be good to know where we're heading with things. MR. GILLIGAN: I can only tell you, there is a cost associated with that ongoing, you know, Page 52 1 (;mfais,2ooA 6 regulatory requirement, if it was put in each and every year. But again, I'm more concerned on the [mancial side to try to, you know, somehow have it w?ere a check might be cut one way or the other. . Although I can tell you, based on the compact sustainable nature of the developments that take place in the Rural Land Stewardship Area, I'm very confident that it's always going to be a positive fiscal impact. I mean, if you compare it to the Estates or other areas like that, where the county's completely under water, developments like this make sense and they throw off positive surplus revenues to the county. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, thank you. Anybody have any questions? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody else? COMMISSIONER CARON: Excuse me. Just on Ave Maria, we did our first review after five years, and then initially it was going to be every three years after that, correct? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No, it stayed at five. COMMISSIONER CARON: But now it's -- it got changed to five years, every five years, right? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I believe when Ave Maria actually got approved, it was for five years, was it not? MR. VARNADOE: The first -- COMMISSIONER CARON: It was for five. MR. VARNADOE: Excuse me. George Vamadoe, for the record. When we came before the Planning Commission, Mark was after every year, and I'm saying the LDC, it says every five years, and Ms. Caron said would you agree that if it's negative after five years you do it every year. And that was certainly what we wanted to do to make sure we didn't get further in the hole. So that's what the development -- the SRA says now, that we do it every five years. But after any five-year period, if it's negative, then we do it every year thereafter. COMMISSIONER CARON: Yeah, thank you. MR. VARNADOE: You bet. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. I knew you'd be able to clear it up, George. MR. VARNADOE: Well, no, I just remember you and me. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I do, too. We never have many bad words, do we? That moves us past -- oh, Allen, hi. MR. REYNOLDS: Hello, Mark. How you doing? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You look different than Bill, but okay, you're about the same height. Go ahead. MR. REYNOLDS: For the record, my name is Allen Reynolds with Wilson-Miller. And we represent the Eastern Collier Property Owners, and probably have done so since 1999 in working with the rural land stewardship project. The second question that was raised, Mark, had to do with the maximwn scenario for stewardship credits. If you look in tab three, Page 75, and then there's a nwnber of pages beyond that. What that analysis does in part is go through that exact process. What we recognized, as has been pointed out before, that when the program was first put in place there was some features of the program that could not be estimated. Specifically the restoration program. So the committee wanted, and we assisted in providing our analysis, the county provided their analysis. We went through that quantification process, as you had asked for in that question. So I think without -- and we can obviously go through that in some detail, if you'd like. But that Page 53 1 6 JL128, ~of> was an attempt to show what can be realized in terms of credit generation under the program. All the facts are docwnented, all the asswnptions that are built into that are documented. So I think all of that information is there. And frankly, the committee spent a fair amount of time going through that process to try to get a good understanding of what the potential was under the credit system. So I just wanted to point out that that is in the docwnentation. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No matter what the potential is, it can't exceed -- it wouldn't be able to exceed any cap now that's being placed on it. MR. REYNOLDS: That's correct. Yeah, there's a -- you know, there is probably a plus or minus nwnber of credits. Because again, it's a voluntary process that you have to opt in. But regardless of how many credits would be generated at the end of the day, with this new cap feature that was not in the original program, you could never go beyond the 45,000 acres ofSRA's. And I think the actual credits, with the calibration that the committee has done has brought the credit generation in very close alignment with what that cap would be. The other point I'd like to make is on the comment on question nwnber three which has to do -- COMMISSIONER CARON: Before you go further, Mr. Reynolds, I just wanted to ask a question. Is it possible to reach the cap without 100 percent participation? MR. REYNOLDS: You could probably get close to it. The 100 percent participation basically, just to recap, would mean every property owner -- COMMISSIONER CARON: Right, I know what that means. And nobody expects that. MR. REYNOLDS: Right. COMMISSIONER CARON: What I'm asking you is if60 percent of the people are involved in the RLSA, can you reach this 45? MR. REYNOLDS: No, I don't think you can. COMMISSIONER CARON: Okay. And I don't mean that as an exact figure for you. But -- so if there is some sort of diminishing. Ifn you know, if75 percent of the people are involved, you can only get so far, and if 60 percent or 50 percent, you can only get so far. MR. REYNOLDS: That's true. COMMISSIONER CARON: Okay. Now, as to the cap itselt; where in the docwnent does it say we can never go beyond 45,000? MR. REYNOLDS: That would be n COMMISSIONER CARON: What page? MR. REYNOLDS: Group policy four. Let me see if I can find it. If you look under-- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah, on Page 56, I think, in Policy 4.2. Total SRA designation shall be a maximwn of 45,000 acres. MR. EIDSON: You must have been at our meeting. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No, I've read this multiple times, so -- did you see it? COMMISSIONER CARON: Uh-hul1. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Does that answer your-- COMMISSIONER CARON: Well, it tells me what it says today, but it doesn't tell me that that figure can't ever be changed. It says we shall do this right now. But GMP amendments -- MR. REYNOLDS: What is being presented -- COMMISSIONER CARON: -- people come in lor-- MR. REYNOLDS: Sure. COMMISSIONER CARON: -- cycle changes all the time. MR. REYNOLDS: What's being presented to you is the committee's recommendations. For those Page 54 16 tanr 28,~<6 recommendations to become law, tl1ey will have to go through a Growth Management Plan Amendment process, through the county. The Department of Community Affairs will have to fmd them in compliance. They will then have to be implemented through land development regulation modifications to the program. So there is a process that would probably take at best a couple of years to complete before that standard or any of these standards would be put in place. Once those are put in place and if it's part of this Growth Management Plan Amendment package, the only way that it could be changed was to do a further amendment. And what you've already done through the committee's recom -- or what the committee has recommended is to set up a periodic re-review during the EAR process that preswnably this program will be looked at, like the rest of the comprehensive plan, on a seven-year basis. COMMISSIONER CARON: Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anything else? MR. REYNOLDS: Just on the other comment. And I will, maybe just as a general observation, I know when the committee was starting to go through this, one of the things they discussed early on is that they wanted to take all of the questions that came from the Planning Commission, from the public, from other interested parties and look at them. And they applied a test. And the test was if we have a plan that has been approved, is in place, has been found in compliance with growth management laws, in order for us to recommend a change there has to be one of two things: Either the program has to -- the data, the supporting information has to show that there was a problem, that the program is not working as it was intended to work, or that there has been an enl1ancement to the program that has been brought forward that was deemed to be of significant enough importance to actually change the policy. Because we're going back in and changing a program that's only been on the books for five years. So in many cases you will find as you go through this process that at the end of the discussion the committee's recommendation was either not to change a policy or to make maybe minor modifications to the policy. In other cases they made substantive changes. But that does not mean that it was not -- all of the input was not fairly considered. Because I'll tell you, as I've sat through this process, and as the minutes will show, and as tab four will show, every single question was put in front of the committee, was discussed, debated, it was a very public process. And at the end of the day, the committee said is this something that we think is broken that needs to be fixed, yes or no. If so, how would we fix it. Or if it's not, let's not change the program. Because again, all of this came out of the Stage I report, the Stage I report documenting how has this program been working over the first five years. And I think by any measure, notwithstanding the fact that there's always ways to improve a program, and Lord knows, you know, hopefully this program can be improved. But what that has shown, at least in my opinion, and I think in the opinion of a lot of people, is we have a program that is doing exactly what it was intended to do when it was put in place five years ago. And I think that has been demonstrated by the participation of property owners voluntarily giving up rights to their lands in advance of there being a demand for their credits, which is one of the things that was intended. I think we've shown that we have gone much farther towards environmental resource protection in the first five years than I certainly thought we would, or anybody would, given the fact that people were giving up their rights in advance. The development -- the rate of development I don't think has out stripped demand. In fact, I think the point has been made that in the case of Ave Maria, because of the economic cycle, right now we have more infrastructure and more facilities in the ground out there paid for with private dollars than there is currently a population to use. So that's not necessarily a bad result. Because what we're doing now is we're building infrastructure, facilities, services, protecting lands, and we're doing that in advance of the demand, which is Page 55 161anlry 28'Aoo~ '. . really what planning is all about. So I just want to make that general comment. I also think, you know, specific to question nwnber three, and this is another one where I think there's a good further explanation of the question about infrastructure analysis. The county has a definition of what infrastructure is. And that definition is what is mirrored in the policy. And I think Mr. Strain has pointed out that there are other kinds of facilities that need to be assessed, as you look at approving any new projects. But the fact of the matter is, is that hurricane evacuation, affordable housing, health care and a host of other kinds of issues have to be addressed with every single project every time one is proposed before it's approved. And if the project exceeds a certain size, it has to go through the DRI review process. And I will tell you that that is an extraordinarily time-conswning and detailed analysis of the project point by point. And Mr. Strain is very familiar with what the DRI process is about. And before you can get a development order from the local government, you have to have addressed all of the points that have been raised in this question. So really the issue becomes how much of this can you address in advance when you're putting a plan together that looks out 25 to 50 years, and how much of it must you address only at an appropriate point in time. And I think what we've tried to do collectively with the county and everybody in putting this program together is to try to figure out what are the issues that can be looked at prospectively looking out over a long-range horizon, a large-scale environmental protection, large-scale transportation networks, general suitability for development. But then there are other issues that you just cannot assess until you are at the point in time where there is enough of a market demand to say, you know what, it's time to plan a new town out here. And then you go through a very detailed process. And I will tell you that the process that Collier County has created for the SRA is almost -- I won't call it identical to, but it certainly covers much of the same things that the DRI process covers under state law. And for those things that don't get covered by the SRA, they are covered by the DR! for any project that would exceed a 2,000 unit count. So again I think, you know, it's not that the committee didn't think that it was a good question or that there isn't an appropriate time to address details such as how many affordable housing units are you going to build. The question is at what point in time do you have enough information to make a good assessment and figure out what the best solution is for that. And that's what I think the committee and the program has tried to do is to seek that balance. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, Allen, thank you. MR. REYNOLDS: You're welcome. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, Chris, welcome to the crowd today. MS. STRATON: My name is Chris Straton, and I'm here as a former member of the Affordable Housing Commission. And I just wanted to make sure that the record is clear as it relates to the issue of affordable housing. Brian used a nwnber of 19 percent for Ave Maria. It's my understanding that the definition of affordable housing that was used by Ave Maria includes units that only have to be affordable for two or five years, which no longer would meet the standards of Collier County. So for the viewing audience or anyone who was not involved with the Ave Maria project, don't think that these communities are going to be bringing you 19 percent affordable housing units. What Ave Maria did was unique and would not meet -- my understanding, it does not meet our current definition of what's considered affordable. So I wanted to get that on the record. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And I believe the current definition is ] 5 years, Chris? Do you believe that? Is that right; do you know? MS. STRA TON: When I left, it was 15 years. So Ave Maria has units that only have to be Page 56 16Jfut 28, ftOr, affordable for very -- much less than that 15-year time period. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: They do have a-- MS. STRATON: So if you're waiting for affordable housing units out in the new RLSA, there's not going to be that many units. And I'm sure Brian will want to -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But just so you know, that there are about 300 units, I believe, either on-site or off-site that were going to be reserved for 15 years. MS. STRA TON: Right, but that's not 19 percent. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right, I agree. Jeff? MR. PERRY: Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman and Commissioners. For the record, my name is Jeff Perry. I'm with Wilson-Miller. I just also wanted to point out something that's actually on the screen that was not mentioned by the committee spokesman but I think is very important. And if you didn't get back through any farther than group -- or Section 2 in your binder, if you get all the way back to section five, there is a policy that actually came out of the committee's effort that is actually a policy recommendation to the transportation element, not to the rural lands future land use. Which actually lays out, if you read it all the way to the end, lays out a requirement that the county do regional planning, not only for roads, but also looking at many of the things that you're talking about here today. Dealing with things like infrastructure, like jails and public health facilities and things like that. And in fact, the vision plan, as it's sort of been named by Nick, will do just that, and it's something that they have already embarked on. A lot of the information that they will be dealing with at the build-out level will come out of the work of the Horizon Committee. Because that is in fact a build-out plan for this area. And the county already has good urban area build-out information that includes a lot of the numbers, a lot ofthe things that are required for this long-range planning. Keep in mind that the Growth Management laws only require you to look out in this case in Collier to 2025. And I think it's admirable that this commission and the Horizon Committee and in fact the Board of County Commissioners want to look at to build-out and say we really need to be looking out a lot farther than just 20 years for the kinds of infrastructure that we think -- we've done it with transportation to some degree, we also need to do it with the other kinds of public facilities. And I think if that other Policy 3.7, I believe it is, gets put into place, it would ultimately require the county to take that step to do that long-range vision planning. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you very much. Anybody else have any questions of the -- anybody? (No response.) MR. JONES: I apologize. I was -- I need to go back to comment four for a minute, because I was rearranging my books under my chair and it took me longer than I expected. But comment four, I wouldn't want to leave the Planning Commission with the impression that by establishing an SSA it relieves the land developer of an obligation for mitigation. The SSA's are established to entitle it. The mitigation areas that -- the required mitigation is developed through the state permitting process and is developed through the federal permitting process as well. Unfortunately we keep using Ave Maria as the example, but all the wetland impacts for Ave Maria were mitigated under the 404 section from the Corps of Engineers, and they were also mitigated for in the ERP process through the South Florida Water Management District. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. I understood that. But my point was that there was a lot of thought that said all the preservation that was put up for SSA's to get Ave Maria permitted was -- was the word Page 57 161 A6 ~ 1 fa;tary 28, 2009 preservation. It's not all of preserve like we think of it. It's a lot of it ago land. Nothing wrong with that, I was looking for clarification. MR. JONES: Well, and again, but, you know, to people less informed than you, they may come away with the impression on comment four that we do no mitigation as a result of establishing the SSA's, and I wanted to clarity that. It could be my misinterpretation. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Any other questions from the public at this point before we move on? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Then let's go on to nwnber six. Number six is a moot point because it involved the incentive program that I guess is complete. It ended this month, if I'm not mistaken; is that right? MR. McDANIEL: Correct. Tomorrow. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Tomorrow. MR. JONES: That is correct. And again, to clarity for people that weren't involved, the early entry bonus program was a request that came from the Department of Community Affairs at the inception of the program. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Nwnber seven, the Governor's order was aimed at creating a balance between agriculture and development. This is really lending to the argwnent that we needed to have more inccntive for ago I think that's been accomplished, or is proposed to be accomplished, I should say. So again unless, Bill, you want to argue about the point, I think it works fine. MR. JONES: How about me? I can argue. MR. McDANIEL: No, no, no, we're not going to let him talk on that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Number eight, the vesting issues and concurrency were not adequately addressed as a result of separate developer contribution agreements. And this is an issue again. Boy, Brian, I'm sorry I've got to keep using Ave Maria as an example, but you're the only guys that came through the SRA process, so unfortunately we learned a lot of lessons and I have to keep bringing it up. Their dcal is over and done with. What they got they got and we need to live with it and make sure we abide by it. But the point of this nwnber eight was that in the DCA process that they had, it happened before I think all the impacts to the development were really understood. It was before, I believe, the approval of the DRI and the PUD and othcr documents. Looking back at that now, I've heard concerns over the fact that the DCA was put in place thinking a certain value to that DCA at the time, but the cost to the county to now meet the intent of that DCA with no way out has become a lot more than the county expected to bear. And so my comments to number eight were strictly to suggest that we shouldn't put DCA's in place until we know exactly what that development's going to be, whatever SRA it is out there, whether it's a DRI or a PUD, so that we know that their absorption rates, their type of marketing, their impacts are better known to us. And I was suggesting that DCA's not be allowed by language in the GMP until such time that the development's zoning has gotten to a point where we are more locked into to know what they're going to be having out there. MR. McDANIEL: And just as a point, DCA is the developer contribution agreement, not the Department of Community Affairs. I saw a lot of folks flinching out there while you were saying that. Anybody have a comment they -- Page 58 16 tt28A6 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Oh, sorry, double acronym. MR. McDANIEL: -- want to say about that? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I didn't see it addressed to any changes as a result ofthe language, so I'm assuming the committee felt that it was adequately addressed the way it was. MR. McDANIEL: I'll go along with that, sir. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Nwnber nine. The indices were weighted heavier toward environmentally sensitive lands when in actuality those areas are least likely to ever be used for development, based on various agency regulations. I know that we're trying to preserve the development, but the agencies are also trying to preserve the development. So to give environmentally sensitive lands the highest indices would seem to indicate there's no protection for them already when there's a lot of layers of protection for them. But this also leads to the argwnent that the agricultural needed more protection. MR. McDANIEL: That's correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So -- and I believe you were suggesting more protection for ago the way it's written now. MR. McDANIEL: That is correct, sir. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody else have any questions on that one? MR. McDANIEL: Without taking away from the importance of the protection of the environmentally sensitive lands at the same time. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I understand. In essence we're getting to a lot more credits. But then you're asking for a lot more land, so you get -- one works with the other, so -- nwnber -- yeah, I wanted to wait until after -- thank you. SSA's can be created in noncontiguous and piecemeal fashion, thus assuring no functionality of wetland land mass. Now, the concern there is emphasized by the panther corridors we saw earlier. What good is a panther corridor if you have all the land acquired for it but one landowner in the middle is holding out and it doesn't become a panther corridor? So I'm wondering how we can address that, and I didn't see it addressed in the language that was supposed to respond to this, which is your temporary SSA's, 1.6.1. And Tom, it looks like you get the hard ones. MR. JONES: No, these aren't hard. The -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: We'll work on that. MR. JONES: I think the Stage I portion ofthe report clearly indicates that the concern expressed in the comment really didn't come to fruition. If you look at the pattern that the SSA's have been developed in thus far, they've been in large contiguous swaths of property or they've been standalone SSA's adjacent to federal or state properties. So that didn't occur. And when these comments -- I don't know if these comments were written in December of'05, but we didn't even talk about panther corridors in 2005. But I think to the point about the panther corridors now, that's why we're trying to develop an incentive-based plan. This north corridor that's being proposed by a number of people involves multiple landowners. And if we don't have an incentive-based program that can entice them into the program, I don't know how those occur. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Are there any regulations in the language that you could cite us to that addresses the concern that if a landowner didn't want to for some reason, even if the incentives weren't enough, they wanted to not put their land into that panther corridor that seems so vital to everybody, how Page 59 1 6a!arL~, ~009 A 6 does that panther corridor then get completed? MR. JONES: That panther corridor doesn't get completed if the landowners don't voluntary participate. And there isn't a regulatory mechanism to do it. And I think it would be premature -- one, it's a voluntary incentive program. But I think it would be premature to even broach regulatory constraints to make something happen. Because there's no agreement on where the corridors should go or what the form of the corridors should take at this time as well. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, anybody have any questions? (N 0 response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: With that I'll ask for any public comments for the last five questions we went through. Russell? MR. PRIDDY: Yeah, to the question about assigning higher credit value to environmentally sensitive lands, I think there is another way to do that. We can spend $350 million for acreage like they did at Babcock. I didn't get to read the article this morning, but the Governor I think, even in hard times and laying people off, put $250,000,000 back into Florida Forever for purchase. Yeah, we as a public can go out and buy those lands is another way to do it. Or through this voluntary incentive program we can let the landowners put that land in preservation. By the way, we'll keep paying property taxes on it, and we'll manage it. So I think it's a fairness issue to -- you know, if the public wants it preserved, that's the funding mechanism to get it preserved without the public having to pull money out of their pocket. Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. Any questions? Mr. Varnadoe? Brad. MR. CORNELL: Brad Cornell, with Collier County Audubon Society. And I just wanted to address that same line, which has a philosophical element to it that really underpins the whole mralland stewardship program, and it's not a point that should be overlooked at all, and that is that there's some justice in the public providing some extra value to resources that benefit the public. I think that was the rationale for adopting this sort of upside down regulatory approach. In other words, the regulatory approach would in essence devalue private property owners' land that had important public resources on it. And in the way of eagles nests or panther habitat or wetlands, that sort of thing. And the flip to turn that upside down would be to say, well, if the public really feels that this is important for public benefit, then we should ascribe a higher value to that. And that's always been difficult for us in the environmental community to come to terms with what happens in the regulatory environment, which is penalizing private landowners for having good public resources and being good stewards. We want to reward that. And this was one way that we found through the market system an incentive so we could do that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. Okay, George? MR. VARNADOE: Let me talk about developer contribution agreement for just a moment. In general, the committee decided that the developer contribution agreement should be treated in the Rural Land Stewardship Area just as they are in the urban area. And that's why, Mr. Strain, there were no changes to the policy. As far as Ave Maria, the developer contribution agreement was approved prior to the adoption of the development order in the SRA but after the Regional Planning Council had evaluated the proposal and issued their report and the parameters of the development were the same before the DCA as they were Page 60 161 ,~,n A6 an10lry 28, 200M adopted in the development order and SRA. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. We'll agree to disagree on one point. MR. VARNADOE: What point is that? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I still think DCA's ought to be done after the development and not before. MR. VARNADOE: If you do it after the development order, you're never going to get a development order approved. Because you haven't -- potentially you haven't shown how you're going to mitigate your impacts of the SRA or DRI or whatever kind of development you're paying. Now, if you think they should be done simultaneously, then suggest that to the county commission. Because I don't have any problem with that. But I think you really do, in most instances, have to have some agreement on what you're going to do to mitigate your impacts, particularly on transportation network, before your commissioners, being public servants, are going to want to approve whatever you're proposing. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You are correct. What should have -- the way that should have been worded is concurrently with the Collier County zoning process. And that means when we get down to the point where we know what the impacts of that development are. So thank you. Anybody else? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, we'll move on to number I I. This one is suggesting that we have SSA approval by the lower boards, EAC and CCPC and not just the BCC. I think today's presentation even highlighted the need for that even more to get a handIe on where this process is going from a suggested or proposed temporary basis and how it fits into the corridors that are being shown on here, and how some of the primary panther habitat may be developable habitat, may be developable land on one program that's been introduced. So I'm just curious as to why -- where the committee decided to go with that. I didn't find that listed anywhere, so I may have missed it. MR. McDANIEL: Again, we had discussion on it. But -- MR. JONES: The discussion that I recall is that it fell back to -- and we had public comment on this, I remember in particular, that the discussion fell back that this is a voluntary program on the landowner's part. He's giving up rights. And from a landowner's perspective, we're not quite sure what value the EAC and the Planning Commission would add to a landowner proposing to give up rights on his property. I think it could play out with another committee's proposal that well, you need to give up more rights or you need to give up less rights. It just didn't seem to be in spirit with the establishment of the SSA with the rights being voluntarily given up by a landowner. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, the SSA is a process in which indices are used to determine the value of the SSA and the layers taken off. And that part of it, that science, that review, that detail is what J thought the committees could participate in and maybe he a benefit to the Board of County Commissioners with any comments that would make it more palatable or whatever it needed to be before it got to them, so MR. JONES: Well, I think somebody else can probably address the nuances of the scoring and all probably better than I can. I don't get into that level of it. But it's a very prescribed methodology. It's a very transparent methodology. The application is created by the consultant. All that information then is given to county staff. The information is vetted through them. They run the same models that were used to develop the scoring. And, you know, it's kind of like a two plus two equals four kind of thing. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And I understand that. MR. JONES: And then that was the sense of the committee, with all due respect. Page 61 16 Ilul6009' CHAIRMAN STRAIN: In that same way, though. if we accepted that philosophy, then Planning Commission doesn't need to be here for zoning and other matters because staff does the analysis on those as well. So -- and that's where I was coming from, Tom. MR. JONES: Well, we could talk about that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. MR. JOHNSON: Good afternoon. For the record, Bruce Johnson, with Wilson-Miller. I'd just like to address your point about the necessary -- the necessity of having commission review of the SSA applications. I think there's a couple of clear distinctions here. One is when the commission is normally dealing with applications, you're dealing with impacts. And what we're dealing with here is a voluntary program where we're actually creating a public benefit, environmentaJly and otherwise. Secondly, I just want to expound a little bit on what Mr. Jones just said, and that is when we submit an SSA application, it is completely transparent. In other words, the relationship between the raw natural resource data and the scoring is apparent. So they have a FLUCCS -- county staff has a map and we also provide it in large format, so it's extremely detailed, not just an II by 17. The staff performs a site review with us on-site. In some case a helicopter, if access is an issue, to review the FLUCCS map in detail, to look at the listed species data. They have the NRCS soils map. In short they have everything that is in the stewardship credit worksheet, the raw data available. And as Mr. Jones indicated, they take the same raw data that we have provided and they put it into a model and they basically recalculate and verity our credit calculations. So there is no real capacity for there to be an issue with the calculations. In fact, the only time we've ever had an issue with calculations. we had an issue where I had underestimated the base credits for something because I had transferred some spreadsheet cells inappropriately, copied -- or formulas instead of values or vice versa. So the bottom line is the current review process works exceedingly well. And since this is a voluntary program, the landowner is going to decide how many land use layers they're going to take off, what's appropriate for their property, and the rest is just meeting the criteria that's put into the program. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. Mr. Eidson? MR. EIDSON: The other -- I was just recalling the discussions that we had -- Gary Eidson. One of the things that we were concerned about was that there's a small portion of this equation that's owned by smaller landowners. Not a whole big section of it. but -- and we were trying to find a way to entice people to get close to that 100 percent. And so I think we were trying to streamline this thing, as I recall, as best we could without, you know, hurting either side of the equation. So that was another thing that had occurred to me was that we felt that there was protection involved and that it would work. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. Okay, with that, we'll move on to the next question, which is the evaluation -- the question was talking about the consumptive use permitting and the comparison between agriculture pumpage and the volumes permitted for development area. And I think Terry Bengtsson made it pretty clear this morning that they're not going to be looking at the consumptive use for agriculture in the same way on a use basis that they're looking at new development. Is that, Tom, what you heard or what -- MR. JONES: To an extent. My interpretation with what Mr. Bengtsson said was that there were sufficient water resources in Eastern Collier to support future development, primarily through the utilization Page 62 16 I rUlf6009 of the Hawthorne Aquifer. The paper I distributed to the committee also took it a step further, and the issue raised in the comment was using a comparison of agricultural pumpage versus permitted allocations. And the example that we ran through for Eastern Collier actually went a step further and analyzed actual ET and then took a percentage of that to come up with it from the lower Tamiami. But I think Mr. Bengtsson was clear, the Water Management District pretty much is forcing people to deeper aquifers. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And what I got out of his discussion was that there will be no new non-alternative sources. Existing uses, and existing sources seemed to be acceptable to the point they are today, but they weren't authorizing any new alternative sources. Is that what you heard too? New non-alternative. I'm sorry. They've got to have new non-alternative. MR. JONES: Yeah, they're going to deeper aquifers and alternative water resources. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. And that resolves the issue that I had raised in number 12. Number 13, the concentrated centers of development will produce nighttime glow from electric light sources. This is the dark sky issue that's come up. And in prime example is what Nick did to Immokalee Road. Is he here? I love giving Nick a bad time when I get a chance. MR. McDANIEL: No, he's not here. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Oh, dam. MR. McDANIEL: He's watching, I'm sure. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Immokalee Road is a nicely brightly lit roadway now, and it's out in the rural area. And it's those kind of nighttime glows that I was concerned about limiting in the rural area to keep that rural atmosphere that we've sought and the DCA even suggests needs to be kept. I know you've got language in one ofthe elements. MR. McDANIEL: In two policies. In the group four policies and again in the group five policies for those folks who don't voluntarily consent or participate in the program. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. So I think that's been covered as much as I can understand it at this point. The next item is number 14, the water storage areas from South Florida allowed -- oh, this is WRA's. And this is an issue that is certainly going to get into in the exact language. When they use WRA's, they're actually opening up more land for development. In the 45,000 acres that you all are proposing, that doesn't include the WRA's, unless they're used exclusively for the development. The word exclusively is in the language, which means someone could use one-tenth of one percent for ago or for natural runoff, and because it isn't exclusively used for development, that WRA is getting an additional 15 percent of development credit, more or less. Because that's what Water Management generally takes up as rule of thumb. I think that hurts your argument that -- the 45,000 acres development pattern, because it's actually going to be more than that, more intense than what people would expect. MR. JONES: This is probably a little bit more difficult one to understand, so I'll wade into it and somebody else may have a better answer. But actually what the committee was trying to do with the language that was incorporated in these policies was to correct what we viewed as a potential deficiency in the system. And what we were trying to get at with this is that WRA's that are used as part of the water quality treatment for your ERP needed to be included into the -- into the acreage figure. In other words, if they're being used to meet your stormwater requirement, they have to be included into your SRA, just as if it was a lake that was being constructed. So what we were actually trying to do was to recognize that under the Page 63 1 6mJai8, ~09A 6 existing policy, if you used a WRA for your stormwater quality to meet your ERP, you didn't have to include it into the SRA. Now if it is being used for your water quality component, as opposed to on-site water quality through your stormwater management system, then it has to be included in the SRA acreage. But to take it to an extreme and say yeah, somebody could use a small percentage and say it's not, yeah, I guess they could. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But I definitely think that we need to look at that language. I know you changed the policy. I'm not sure if it was because of this question or because you realized through other sources it needed to be changed. But when we get to that policy, the word exclusive is concerning in the WRA's, because I doubt if any WRA's today were built in a manner expecting or anticipating the size of development that might be next to them. And so it would be almost unilaterally not counted. And if you're saying they should be counted on a pro rata basis or a proportionate area of use, that changes the program. That certainly makes it a lot different, and that's something we should talk about when we get into the GMP language, if that's where you're going. MR. JONES: Where we were going was trying to capture something that we had -- that we thought was omitted. I don't know if it was prompted by this comment or just general discussion with respect to WRA's and whether or not they were in or outside the SRA acreage. But it was definitely an attempt to quality that they needed to be included, if they were meeting the -- if they were fulfilling your requirements under your ERP. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, good, that would be helpful. MR. McDANIEL: And just for the record, water retention areas are WRA's and ERP's are environmental resource permits. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Tor, does that work for you? Tor's the acronym guy. He always wants acronyms every time we get talking. And I forgot all about that. MR. McDANIEL: It just helps a little bit. Again, there are a lot of folks watching and actually here in the room that haven't lived these things the way we have, so -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Good point. Number 15 talks about the indices. Again, in fact, Ave Maria. When the study of Ave Maria was brought forward, there was a grid pattern overlayed on the property being developed. And if a grid had -- a certain percentage of it was ag., it was looked at one way for indice (sic) valuations versus the balance of it. And it seemed that it would be a hetter process to average those out instead of just taking the 51 percent quantity and applying it that way. And here comes your indices expert. MR. JOHNSON: One of the few things I'm an expert on. The issue -- if you think back to the -- I think it's -- you can recall the SRA application for Ave Maria. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes. MR. JOHNSON: Everything, first of all, again is mapped in vector. So we map all of the land cover for Ave Maria as you do for any normal FLUCCS map. The GIS requires -- the system requires -- to do the arithmetic in adding up the index scores, it requires you to apply a grid to each layer. So you will take your FLUCCS map and you will chop it up into one-acre cells, and you'll tell it -- you'll assign a score to each cell, okay? That's the only way the GIS can add all of these layers. So the base data is dead on, it's exact. Once you grid it, yes, the cell must choose one value or another. But if you recall, in the SRA application we had to demonstrate that none of the areas within -- or we had to identity areas within Ave Maria that exceeded the].2 threshold. Page 64 16 I luary 2~<S And when we first did the run, indeed we came up with about seven, 10 acres, I forgot what it was, that said it had exceeded 1.2. When you looked at those cells on top of an aerial, what you saw was that was the interface between a farm field and a natural area. And in each case you could go through and manually replace the value on one side ofthe dike with an agricultural field score, and on the other side with a natural cover score. And so we had the original table in the SRA application that showed there were potentially some areas exceeding 1.2. Then we had an amended table with the graphics to show the changes, saying this is why the values have changed. And at the end of that process there were no areas greater than 1.2. Now, one thing I'll add to that is again, this has absolutely no bearing on regulatory issues. Any, you know, one-acre wetland out there or .8-acre wetland that was identified in the FLUCCS mapping still had to go through all the Section 404 and ERP permitting process. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. I wish you were there at that meeting. I don't remember -- recall you telling us these things at the meeting. MR. JOHNSON: I tried to hide. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, thank you. Well, that's the end of number 15. There's three or four more on this list. But before we go to the rest, are there any public comments on the last five? MR. PRIDDY: Yes. The one about bringing SSA's before the EAC and Planning Commission. Folks, this is not the Army. You don't volunteer for something and then find out later what it is you volunteered for. I as a landowner am going to bring in an SSA application stating specifically what I'm willing to volunteer for. And as far as I'm concerned, the county commission can go thumbs up or thumbs down, but it is what it is. Now, if you think the Planning Commission needs to question me or have me bring my kids and ask if! really understand that I'm getting ready to put a permanent easement on their inheritance, maybe there's some benefit to that. But I'm at a loss. And I spent a lot of time thinking about this, because it's been brought up over and over. Shoot me a question from the Planning Commission or the EAc that is going to change my mind on what is in that SSA. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: See that northern panther corridor, the one that -- where it turns 90 degrees and heads south? MR. PRIDDY: Uh-huh. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: There's an application in right now to turn that into a mining pit. It doesn't make a too effective panther corridor if the rest of you come in and want SSA credits for that, knowing that that situation is sitting there. So that's one example that the Planning Commission could possibly weigh in at in regards to the person who wants to put that mining pit there. MR. PRIDDY: But does that person wanting to put that mining pit there need credits to do that, or are they operating outside of this system? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: They're operating outside this system, but that-- MR. PRIDDY: Okay, then it's got-- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No, because if they're going to disrupt that corridor by putting a pit there, it takes a value of our need for your SSA down a notch or two. And that's what needs to be considered. Those kind of things are what the Planning Commission is involved in a lot more actively than some of the other boards in the county. That was why the suggestion was made. You may be right, there may be times when it's so plain and simple, nothing needs to be done, it just gets passed through, there's very little discussion. But there are times when it may not happen. Page 65 1 6J1u1. 2~rt96 MR. PRIDDY: Yeah. Well, I'm not sure about that. But let me tell you, I'm the little guy in this ordeal. I'm one of the large landowners, but I think I'm number five, I'm the little guy. There are a lot of folks out there that are a lot smaller than me. I have a lot of land. Unfortunately I don't have a bank account that equates to that. If you want to encourage the little guys to participate, you've got to keep this, you know, somewhat a way for them to get through the process. I think I had to pay the county $9,SOO for the privilege of putting in an application to give them an easement in their favor. I don't know that that's exactly right, but that's the rules I understood when I wrote the check. I'm not going to embarrass myself or Wilson-Miller in telling you how much they've charged me or how much I've paid them to get the information to get that SSA in. So I think if you have to take it another couple of steps along the way, you're just absolutely not going to get anyone that owns much less land than what I own that's going to participate in the program. I think you're just going to financially make it not feasible for them to even attempt to volunteer. Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. Anybody -- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Question, Mark. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- else have any questions on the past five questions? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Just a question. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Go ahead, Brad. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Maybe you can answer, Mark. Is there a public notification in the SSA process? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I don't know. Does anybody know? MR. GREENWOOD: Yes, there is. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: There is? MR. GREENWOOD: Yes. There's a public hearing that's scheduled before the BCC. And a report on the SSA is there. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And the adjoining neighbors are notified prior -- or during the application? MR. GREENWOOD: No, the only notification is done through the Naples Daily News and normal notification. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: In the areas of the SSA's, the adjoining neighbors may be far and few, I think. MR. GREENWOOD: And again, with an SSA, in reality you're not increasing impact, you're decreasing possible future impact. It's just the opposite of what you normally review in your development projects. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, we'll move on. Bill, there's three more questions on these pages before we get into another section. The buffers for wildlife habitat. I think -- MR. McDANIEL: You addressed those. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah. those have been addressed. Number 17, the analysis is needed to determine how the long-range transportation plan is coordinated. And I think we've already -- you've started that with this plan here, but I -- and Nick? Nick is here. MR. McDANIEL: I told you he was watching. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Good. Page 66 16 tan~ 2~r6 Nick, the question is an analysis is needed to determine how is the long-range transportation plan coordinated with the transportation needs plan and the transportation financially feasible plan for this area? MR. CASALANGUIDA: For the record, Nick Casalanguida. They've looked at and used the 2025 plan, which is what's only in our GMP right now. We have a 2030 plan and we're in the process of doing a future LRTP update. So they've looked at the network that's existing on the books right now as part of some of their concept plans. They've done a good job at least overlaying that. If you're asking me about that, that plan that they have up there right now, they have those additional roads that aren't on the LRTP. They haven't really looked at that with us. And we haven't done that yet. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: How would you approach this from a fmancially feasible plan? MR. CASALANGUIDA: That's a whole different ballgame. And I really -- I don't think today's a good time to talk ahout how we fund that network. I think you've got to come up with what the network needs to be and then present it to either the Planning Commission or the board and say how do you want in the long run to pay for something like this. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I think the purpose of the question that was put in this paper was simply to make sure that if there was some language needed in these RLSA changes that protected the overall communities, citizens or residents from having to pay for items that are particular to a site or something else out in the RLSA, that the paragraph is there to do so. Have you reviewed the proposed GMP language yet? MR. CASALANGUIDA: Consistent with what Mr. Varnadoe said, I agree that DCA's can be done concurrently with approvals. They shouldn't be done ahead of time. And you couldn't do them in the back end, they have to be done at the same time. There'd have to be some sort of agreement in place as a town, such as Big Cypress, and we're working on one right now, that it's done concurrently so the board could evaluate the impacts, financial and into the system at the same time before the approval's done. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. That's the point of the question. You've responded. Thank you. Anybody else have any questions on that one? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you, Nick. MR. CASALANGUIDA: You're welcome. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The last one is number 18, and this came to light as a result of the early study of the Pepper Ranch. As those of you have followed that closely know, the Pepper Ranch had some contamination problems that showed up on some earlier issues, and they had to get cleaned up, or they had to be excluded, I believe, from the sale and purchase or some format. But I'm wondering if there's any provisions to be looking at SSA's in that regard. Because it looks like the SSA's created and there's no study done, Phase I environmentaJ audit. And I don't mean the environmental meaning the trees and the land, I mean the environmental meaning contaminants study on the property to see if the property is worth the conservation effort, whether or not it's polluted. Cattle vats are a prime example. Oil wells are another one. Has anything -- has the committee taken a look at including a review of that as a potential for an SSA? MR. McDANIEL: Mr. Jones I believe -- MR. JONES: We didn't propose any changes to it. There was a lot of discussion. I think that the state has a published list with respect to cattle vats. And just from a historical perspective, the state required that those cattle vats be constructed and utilized. I think, and I can't remember when, it was in the Forties, I believe. Page 67 li1J 2tOO~ 6 MR. JOHNSON: 1933. MR. JONES: 1933, thank you. About the same time I think a fence was constructed across State Road 60 from the East Coast to the West Coast to confine cattle on each side of it. But the state required landowners to do that. And the state has removed the obligation from landowners to remediate those sites. It's the state's responsibilities to remediate those sites because they're a required action by the state. And there is a list of where those cattle vats are. I think getting into a -- and there's probably a way to address it through that list. But to do a Phase I audit across those areas would be cost prohibitive. I mean, using Ave Maria as an example, and I know I hate to do that, but we set aside 17,000 acres. And I don't know how much money it would cost to do a Phase I audit across 17,000 acres. It may not be as much as I think, but because they would narrow down on potential hot spots. And, you know, they may zero in on the cattle vats, but the cattle vats have already -- those locations have been identified by the state. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The committee then didn't have a response to this other than the verbal you just gave me. There's no written changes to the -- MR. JONES: No, there weren't. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I didn't see any. Okay. MR. McDANIEL: And it was a consensus discussion during the discussion that, you know, again as Tom Greenwood pointed out, it's kind of -- the cvaluation process with respect to an SSA is based upon the disturbance of -- an SSA is almost a protection area action, and we really didn't find it necessary to put that in there. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, if! was someone and wanted to make sure my land -- ifmy land was contaminated, the best way to get rid of it is give it to the govemment, without the government knowing that they were getting it. MR. JONES: I think one other thing, too, maybe a little scale and scope of it. These cattle dipping vats are usually a couple hundred square feet by a couple hundred square feet. They're not big facilities. It usually involved -- Russell Priddy probably knows more about it than I do. But they're very small areas. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. Anybody have any questions on that? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's the last of the questions from this first phase. Anybody from the public have any comments? Jeff and George. MR. PERRY: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Again for the record, Jeff Perry. I just wanted to point out on item number -- on question number 17 to the point about the analysis. Every SRA that comes through the county's review process is required to submit a transportation infrastructure assessment. In most of these, as we can probably expect, will probably be DR!'s, many of them will be at least in the future, as Ave Maria. And the DRI process requires a lookout through to build-out. The analysis that's done, while it may not be 30 years out, if the build-out of the project is, you know, predicted to be 10 years, the analysis goes out 10 years. It just doesn't look at the first five years. In the case ofDRI's and now in the case of even sub-DR!'s, SRA's, an analysis of financial feasibility, how you're going to pay for the necessary improvements that will ultimately be required is part of that process. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. MR. VARNADOE: Talking about SSA's and potential contamination. The committee should -- the Page 68 16 I lanuA 62009 counsel should look -- the commission should look at Page 127 and 128 where there was a pretty in-depth discussion and some references to state law and how oil spills are handled and the cattle vatting. The one thing, Mr. Strain, I want to make sure I was -- didn't misunderstand you. On these SSA's, the land ownership does not change, and any responsibility or liability remains with the landowner if there is contamination on the property. It does not shift to any govemmental entity. Because it's an easement and not a change in ownership. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, good, thank you. Appreciate it. Are there any other questions from the public? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, that gets us past the first chunk of questions left over from six months ago. We normally take a break for the court reporter. Before we do, though, I'd like to layout what we're going to start on when we get back. At the time, in May oflast year, two other organizations submitted requests for questions. One of those was The Conservancy and the other was Nancy Payton. 'The Conservancy is here. Is Nancy here? MR. DeRUNTZ: No. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. I know Nancy is closely involved with the committee. I don't know if she still has concerns on her questions, but I wanted to give her the opportunity to be here to vocalize those during -- just as I had with the questions I had written up. I intend to do the same with The Conservancy when we get back from break. Tom, do you have an input on where Nancy might stand on these? Not that you could speak for her, but -- MR. JONES: No, I'm never going to speak for Nancy, trust me. I would just offer a suggestion. You can obviously do what you want. I think for these remaining questions, I think it would be probably a lot more cohesive if we went through the policies and addressed the questions, as opposed to trying to address fhe questions and look for the policies. The way we addressed these in the committee was that a group was formed and they took all of these questions and grouped them under the appropriate policy. So it wasn't a matter of the committee trying to address one question from this group or a question from that group. The questions were all grouped by policies, and that's how the committee went through it. I think it would be a lot more coherent if we followed that same process and started through it. But it's certainly your prerogative. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, thank you. With that, we'll take a break till 2:45 and resume at that time. Thank you. (Recess. ) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, if everyhody will please take their seats. Cherie' advised me that I'm talking too fast again, so I'm going to slow down. But the sad part is, Nicole's going to speed up. So where we ought to go next is I've got a series of questions that The Conservancy wanted to ask in May. Some of the questions may be more appropriately addressed as we go through the GMP language. And if that's the case, that's fine. But I want to give Nicole, who wrote the request from The Conservancy, an opportunity to address us on any of the questions that she may not be able to get to in the GMP language or needs to express any concerns over prior to going into the language. And I'll do the same thing with the sheet that we received from Nancy, if she's here. If not, we'll just move on. Nicole, if you want to use the microphone. MS. RYAN: Thank you. For the record, Nicole Ryan, Conservancy of Southwest Florida. And I don't want to get too much into did they address the question or did we just not like the Page 69 16 Iln~~~l?009 answer and battling that here. I think we can do that in the policies. I will say that the issue of dark skies we don't believe was really addressed sufficiently. There was some discussion and it seemed to be deferred to later and later, and later never seemed to come. So -- and the other I guess concern that I have is going back and looking through where our questions and comments were. At each point in the document the Eastern Collier Property Owners' attorneys answered the questions. Their comments weren't comments, their comments were how they interpreted I guess how the committee should respond to our comments. So I don't know if that in any way predisposed the committee to act or not act on our comments, but I did find it interesting that everyone else's issues and concerns about a policy were related to the plan itself, and the Eastern Colliers Property Owners' attorneys were addressing each and every question, some starting out with The Conservancy does or does not acknowledge this or that. So I just wanted to point that out, and we will get into specific issues and questions as we go through the policies. Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, any questions of Nicole at this time? And again, I don't see Nancy in the room, so I'm going to assume we'll just go past her line of questioning and move right directly into the Land Development -- or the GMP amendments. MR. McDANIEL: I'll speak for her, if you want me to. No, I'm kidding, I'm kidding. That's ajoke. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, okay. By the way, as we work through the policies, if any of the Planning Commission members or public have other questions that don't relate to a specitic policy that we're on at the time, save those, because at the end of the day any and all issues that hadn't been discussed, we will open the floor to discuss those to make sure that everybody's issue is vetted as thoroughly as we can. And at least they're on record for their concerns at this meeting either today or Friday. MR. McDANIEL: If! might make one -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Surc. MR. McDANIEL: -- suggestion. And based on what Nicole just had got donc saying, I was one of the committee members, and there were a tremendous amount of comments and information that came to the committee and myself personally. I endeavored to regularly take consideration for all of the comments as they were for what they were and then the impacts on the Rural Land Stewardship Overlay themselves, not necessarily being, as she suggested, predisposed in the decisions that we came up with. It wasn't that we didn't necessarily or I didn't personally agree or disagree with something that The Conservancy had to say or the Eastern Collier County Propertics Association had to say. Those were taken in aggregate and then the decisions of the committee were then brought forth by vote. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. Okay, the Planning Commission has always taken these documents a page or a section at a time. So we'll take these a page at a time. And what I'll ask the Planning Commissioners to do is respond to any page when we call them out. As far as the public goes, we'll probably work into either every page or every couple of pages, depending on how much data's in each section. Then I'll ask for any comments from the public on the policies covered up to that point or through those pages, and we'll go from there. MR. McDANIEL: Do you have a heading on what you're actually looking at? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, we're going to work off of Phase II, Section 2. And that starts on Page 45. We're going to work through that document. And] guess there's 71 pages, 72 pages, 73 pages to it, it looks like. So that's the section we'll be working from. Page 70 1611 AJ,f,ary 28, 2009 MR. GREENWOOD: It ends on Page 73. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Seventy-three? MR. GREENWOOD: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That seems to be the most comprehensive section of the GMP amendments. And since the Planning Commission's main issues are planning and GMP, that's what I feel we'll be focusing on. Is that okay with the rest of the members? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, with that, the first page is an introductory page and it starts with a group one discussion. And it's Page 45. Does anybody have any questions from the Planning Commission on Page 45? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ifnot, we'll move to Page 46-- MR. GREENWOOD: Just a minor -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Go ahead, Mr. Midney. MR. GREENWOOD: -- change. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Oh, go ahead, sir. MR. GREENWOOD: Tom Greenwood. The word employs in the goal, that should be underlined. That's intended to replace the word utilized, which is crossed out. But, you know, again, those kinds of word-smithing can be pointed out later on. I just wanted to point that out. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, appreciate you pointing it out. Paul? COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Yeah, this goes to the phrase or the deletion of the phrase to prevent the premature conversion of agricultural land, non-agricultural uses. And it was the response of Mr. Jones that premature conversion is not something that's definable I think was what he said. And I think it is definable and I'd like to define it here. I think we're finding out in the current recession, global recession and in some of the cconomic decisions that have been made with regard to the amount of building up that was done in Collier County, that economic decisions were made that at the time seemed very sensible, but looking back with hindsight we realize that they might not have been the best decisions. Sometimes the decision to convert agricultural land to other things may at the time seem like a very important and reasonable thing to do. But I think when you look at the long view of it, the importance of agriculture in Collier County is irreplaceable. We have 20,000 seasonal residents in Immokalee; the majority ofthem depend on agriculture for their livelihood. And another 20,000 migrants who also depend for a good part of the year on agriculture for their livelihood. And I think that as the country changes and we move towards that 2025 and 2050 horizons, agriculture will be even more important. Because as transportation and energy costs increase, vegetables that are produced and citrus that are produced in Southwest Florida will be more economical to ship throughout the United States, especially the northeast, than bringing it from California or Mexico. So I think that we can't -- just normally we think of short term as being, you know, two, three, five years. But in this case what we're planning for, the eventual disposition of what the county's going to look like say in 2050 at build-out, we have to be very, very careful. And I think that there is a danger that agricultural lands can be prematurely converted on the basis of economic decisions that, you know, may Page 71 1 6 ta1l6~'0: seem good at the time but later on may not seem to be quite so good in hindsight. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Does the committee have a reason why they need to have that struck? MR. McDANIEL: Absolut -- well. I believe so, yes, sir. I mean, and I was -- I remember when I first -- Tom jumped up here. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: He just popped right up, didn't he? MR. McDANIEL: Yeah, he did. MR. JONES: I got a short answer. MR. McDANIEL: Then we'll let him go first. MR. JONES: I don't think you can make us farm forever. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: No. I don't think that you can make that either, but they're talking about premature -- MR. JONES: I didn't hear the definition for premature conversion, though. MR. McDANIEL: If! might add, and again, this isn't from a farmer's perspective necessarily. If you'll recall when I was making the presentation with respect to the substantive changes that we made, our goal throughout the process was to provide clarity, to take away judgmental or discretionary decision-making processes throughout the entire Rural Land Stewardship Overlay, Paul. And the -- because, as you've just seen in two comments over the same subject matter, and not to take away from the importance of the farm workers and the economic viability of farming at large, there is a disparity there and a discretionary item that doesn't really have a predisposed definition. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Mark? CHAIRMAN STRAfN: Brad? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Yeah. And Paul, I like the removal of it. First of all, the way they've changed it by wiping out protect, it's really stating that they're going to protect agricultural activities. The concept of premature conversion gives the illusion that there's a conversion inevitable, and I think this words it a lot tighter. For your goals, too. MR. McDANIEL: And there's language there with respect to the retention of agricultural lands, to protect and retain those lands. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Right. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Greenwood, by the way, just for clarification, the word protect is crossed out. I assume the word retained needed to be underlined? MR. McDANIEL: No, I believe it was part of the original goal. MR. JONES: It was the existing language. MR. McDANIEL: It was the original goal. Yeah, we just struck the protect aspect of it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So the two words were linked together? It doesn't even read right. The goal is to protect retain? MR. McDANIEL: The goal is to retain. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I know. But if you had left protect in, because you're saying that was the original language, it would have rcad, the goal is to protect retain? MR. McDANIEL: I believe so, yes, sir. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Well, that just seems an odd grammatical way to do it, so-- MR. McDANIEL: There was a lot of odd grammatical ways in this particular program. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. But Paul's point about removing the language, you all felt some meaning for the words premature conversion that was necessary to remove it. And that's where you're staying. And Paul, I don't know if you have any other argument you want to put forth on that, but -- COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Well, I have a further question. Page 72 16 I 1 Janu~ry~, 20~9 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Sure. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: If they're going to use these agricultural credits, doesn't that mean that they are committing to perpetual agriculture? MR. McDANIEL: Absolutely. And there again, during our earlier presentation, that was one of the items that we talked at length about, to protect, to retain, necessarily, and incentivize the retention of agriculture in perpetuity through that incentivization process by generating those credits on the ago lands. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No, I don't think you're saying you're going to use those lands for agricultural uses in perpetuity. But you're not going to use them for anything else. Meaning that -- I don't think -- I think Tom was right, you can't force them to farm property that they deem in the future either is non-farmable for its value or it's just not profitable for any economic reason. But I think what they're saying is those lands will be retained for ago or no other use. So if they don't use them for ago they just go fallow. I think that's the point. MR. McDANIEL: And that -- and that was a fine correction on my behalf. I misstated that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, it's not my -- I saw George grimace when you said that, so I figured that there must have been something wrong with what you said. So that's why I locked onto it. He just walked out. MR. McDANIEL: He grimaces every time I speak. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But I'm not sure that we've -- Paul, has your question been answered to the point it can be? COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: It's been answered, yes, thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Tor? COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: Yeah, just a minor question on the bottom of the page. Not a question but a correction. On the fourth line up it says Rural Land Stewardship Area Overlay, and then it repeats overlay after that in parenthesis. I don't know why it has to be overlay-overlay. MR. GREENWOOD: It's just placed that way because we use the word overlay in future sentences. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: It's like an acronym. MR. GREENWOOD: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Instead of using -- instead of saying that's how they're going to refer to it, they're going to refer to it as overlay. COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: That's generally placed the first time the word is used, overlay. And this is -- MR. GREENWOOD: And that's the way the present language is. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, no, the word overlay is used prior to that. I think that's where he's getting at. In fact, it's up in the objective statement. So maybe hased on that comment, you may need to take the parenthetical and move it up to the second line of the objective statement. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: You actually use just the word overlay in that upper sentence, too, so -- MR. McDANIEL: But it is part of the Rural Land Stewardship Overlay in that entire sentence. And it is only used singularly after the parenthesis are put around it describing it as the overlay property. Did I miss one? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Yeah, up above-- COMMISSIONER CARON: Up above in the objection-- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: -- in the end of the first paragraph they use. MR. McDANIEL: Okay, included in the overlay. I see what you're saying now. Page 73 t~t,l:~ 6 t'~ MR. JONES: I'djust like to make a point of clarification. That's all the original language from the original document. We did a lot ofword-smithing, but we may have missed some of it. And I don't know the most effective way to go through the word-smithing exercise for all this. But that was the original ".'rite-up. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I can assure you, we'll probably get through it for you. We do a lot ofword-smithing as well. So with that, let's turn to Page 46. There's policies on that page. Policy 1.2, 1.3, 1.4, 1.5 and the beginning of I .6. Does anybody have any questions on Page 46? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I have one. The third line of Policy 1.6, the very end it says, land becomes designated as an SSA upon petition by the property owner seeking such designation and the adoption of the resolution by the BCC. We're not to 1.6.1 yet, but because of the way you wrote 1.6.1, wouldn't that have an impact on the way that sentence designates the land? Because you're looking at a temporary basis in 1.6.I. If that policy would survive and you have a temporary SSA, then it really doesn't become an SSA upon petition, because it's a temporary, but it doesn't become a permanent until such time it goes through the process that you guys are asking for in Policy 1.6. I. So I'm suggesting to you if 1.6.1 succeeds, then 1.6, you may want to refme that to clarity that it's subject to the temporary conditions on 1.6.1. I know it's not language that you messed with. but it seems to have an impact from the language that you've modified. Now, we've gone through a couple of pages. We aren't really to the meat of the whole issues yet, but -- because there's not been many changes in these two pages. Are any comments from the public needed on these two pages? Nicole? MS. RYAN: Nicole Ryan, Conservancy of Southwest Florida. Policy 1.2 was an area where The Conservancy did submit a question to the committee. And it is part of the last sentence that states, the overlay includes innovative and incentive based tools, techniques and strategies that are not dependent on a regulatory approach, but will complement existing local, regional, state and federal regulatory programs. And our concern is that as we've shown, the primary panther habitat, which is considered by the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service to be essential for the continued existence of panthers, that area should be protected, in The Conservancy's position. However, under the current program and under the proposed amendments, you can put SRA's in the form of towns and villages right in the middle of primary panther habitat. We believe that that is inconsistent with the intent of the Endangered Species Act. So we would like to see policies that focus the RLSA to be consistent with both the Endangered Species Act and the Clean Water Act. There was some discussion about 90 percent of the panther telemetry points are captured under the current HSA's, FSA's, maybe WRA areas, if it's a cypress head. However, only about a third of the cats are collared, we don't have all that much nighttime telemetry, and we also know that part ofthe habitat mosaic are those ago fields that are important. That's where the prey base is going to be for the most part. So we would like to see further refinement in the program. And I know I have to be careful, because this is something that will be coming before you, but you can actually have a proposed town or village that could be almost 100 percent in primary panther habitat, have 63 panther telemetry points and Page 74 16. ITanuaA60091 have it consistent with the RLSA. And we believe that that is a problem that should be corrected, and we don't believe has been corrected as part of this review. Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Before you leave, I want to make sure we vet your concern to a point where we're either recommending or thinking of suggesting language changes or whatever. You brought this out through Policy 1.2, and you particularly pointed out the last sentence. MS. RYAN: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: What in the last sentence are you suggesting needs modification? MS. RYAN: Well, we would like to see modification actually to what is considered open area on the RLSA map for what is eligible on the map for towns and villages. And we believe that the map that we had presented earlier where you direct development to the non-primary panther habitat would in fact make the RLSA consistent with the federal regulation and then compliant with this last sentence of the policy. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. So your cause for Policy 1.2 is to point it out to us that that policy is -- your map is supportive of that policy. MS. RYAN: Correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Anybody have any comments? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, thank you. MR. JOHNSON: For the record, Bruce Johnson with Wilson-Miller. I'd like to make one general point first. And we've stated it many times, but I don't think we can overstate it. The RLSA program is an entitlement program. There is -- it conveys no exemptions from standard regulatory reviews, including those by U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service. In fact, when you go in to have any sort of major impacts with an SRA or any other sort of development, you will fall under the consultation process under the Endangered Species Act with U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service. And since they are the ones responsible for the Panther Recovery Plan and they're also the ones reviewing your application, one would assume that they would be the ones to point out any inconsistencies between your application and those of their recovery plan. I would like to get on record some basic facts, because The Conservancy has come up to the podium several times today to talk about primary zone, and they've shown you a map of primary zone. This paper, which I believe the paper by Randy Kautz I believe is in the appendices, is it not? This was effectively -- I'd like to back up for just a moment. We actually sat through the meetings in Vero Beach of the scientific team that was responsible for developing the primary, secondary and dispersal zones for panther conservation. So we are intimately familiar with what went into the sausage. We watched the process unfold. This paper by Kautz and others that was published in 2006 in the Journal of Biological Conservation is basically the scientific journal version of that federal process. And on Page I 19 of that document, in the introduction the authors define the primary zone. And I'd like you to pay close attention to this definition: Areas of suitable habitat that have been consistently occupied by panthers in the past 20 years. Okay, occupied habitat. Now, the most basic point you can begin with for panther biology is starting with the records of where we know they have been. The telemetry data that's been collected since 198 I represents nearly 30 years of data collection. I doubt there are many species if any that have been so well studied. There are well over 100 cats that have been collared over the years. And the database right now stands at 90,000 telemetry points overall and nearly 10,000 points within the RLSA. So we're not dealing with small sample sizes here and there's not much ambiguity. If you take thosc data points for each individual cat on an annual basis, you can use computer software to estimate the home range for each cat. Page 75 1611 A6" January 28, 2009 When you look at the raw telemetry data and you look at the home ranges for those cats -- and again this by their own definition is what the cats are occupying, the habitats they're actually using, the RLSA overlays do accommodate most of those home ranges and most of those telemetry points. Now, cats and other animals will make exploratory movements. They will go out in the middle of an open field or a vast citrus grove and they'll decide that there's not enough there to keep them employed, so they will leave. So you will see telemetry that falls outside. The question is, where are they really living, where are they doing their business. Now, it is interesting, because by these -- by their -- in the paper they are defining panther habitat this way, and they're defining the primary zone this way. Tim Durham this morning properly pointed out that there is an inherent contradiction between their own definition of primary zone, what the cats are using, and what they actually drew on the map. And I'd like to just briefly tell you why that is. Because I think a lot of people are scratching their heads. When you look at the habitat that cats are actually using, if you could picture a habitat where the cat's occupying something like a five-pointed star shape. okay. A five-pointed star shape would be the way that they calculated home ranges for this paper, okay? And it does represent the actual area that the cat is usmg. There is another older technique for calculating home ranges where you would connect the outer points of the star, fonning a pentagon, and you would say that's the cat's range. But the truth is, it's not. The cat is not using everything within that pentagon, it's only using what's inside the five-pointed star, okay? The problem is when they defined and analyzed panther habitat usage in here, they have tables detailing what land cover the cats are using. When they were looking at the land cover the cats were using, they used a fixed-kernel home range method, which is the one that creates that five-pointed star, or whatever shape, but it creates a fairly limited shape, limited to the telemetry that the cats are actually laying down on the landscape. When they went to draw the primary zone, however, it tells you clearly in this paper that they used minimum convex polygons or the maximum possible interpretation of those points. So again, I would get back to Tim Durham's original point that if we're concerned about protecting panther and protecting the habitat that they're actually using, the telemetry and the fixed-kernel home ranges are adequate, and the RLSA overlays do accommodate those very well. And that is why Darrell Land, the lead panther researcher, said he was 95 percent happy, because the land that the cats are actually using is being accommodated. One la~t point. When we devised the habitat stewardship areas back in 2002, we recognized that there were 14,000 acres of active agriculture within the 40,000 acres of HSA. And we deliberately included those agricultural areas because it's the context that's important. Ifthere's an ago field within a vast area of forest, the cats will tend to use it or cross it or accommodate it in some way. However, if you have a huge block of agriculture with no forest near it, in that context the cats do not use that habitat. So I hope that clears up some of this. But we need to be on record as saying get back to the data. And the data says the cats are using predominately forested native habitats, we know where we are, we know what they do. And the current RSLA overlays sufficiently protect those habitats. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Before you leave, does anyhody have any questions? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Tor, do you have a question? MR. TOREKY: No questions, I have a comment on one of the pages. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, before you leave then, I've got -- Nicole specifically stated that there Page 76 16' t.(,j "'". Ie.. nuary 21:'2~ are the possibility based on the plan that shows the 45,000 acres, the 2050 plan, that SRA's could be developed in primary panther habitat. Do you agree or disagree with that statement? MR. JOHNSON: I disagree that they will be -- that SRA's will occur in the definition of a primary zone, which is the lands that the cats are consistently occupying. The SRA's will not be in an area where the cats are consistently occupying and utilizing habitat. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, but are some of those lands considered to be primary habitat right now today? MR. JOHNSON: The map that the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service is using, what they've mapped as primary habitat covers a larger area of the RLSA than our overlays do. However, if you look in the portions of the primary zone that we have not covered with our overlays, the density of telemetry points is extremely low. It does not show any sustained utilization by panthers and largely represents exploratory movements by the cats. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And I understand the give and take and the shove and push here, I do. And I know you're saying your words very carefully, using words mostly, 90 percent and you're being very careful on what you say. Ails I'm trying to do is focus down on what we're -- actually where the disagreement is. The Conservancy's position is that some of the 45,000 acres is utilizing primary habitat. And you're acknowledging that's a true statement? MR. JOHNSON: Repeat that again, please? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That some of the 45,000 acres that you want to utilize for development is considered primary habitat for panther. Is that true or -- MR. JOHNSON: I do not agree with that statement. Not by my definition of primary habitat, nor the definition of primary zoned as stated in this published paper. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. And there is other published papers, though, that may consider contrary to what you're saying. MR. JOHNSON: I want to make it clear again, there's a discrepancy between what they have defined as primary zone and what they have mapped as primary zone. And that is the fundamental problem we're having here. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I just -- that's what I'm trying to get to. Basically it's a definitional problem between you and Nicole's definition. MR. JOHNSON: I think we both -- I can't speak for her. I think the definition is solid. I think the map does not match the definition. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. MS. FLEMING: May I say something? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Tim was going to come up next, but I think he doesn't want to now, so Elizabeth, absolutely. MS. FLEMING: Elizabeth Fleming, Defenders of Wildlife. I think we're having a black-and-white discussion here. The truth lies somewhere in between. And you have to look at specific parcels and where they lie in the landscape relative to the other habitat features within the larger matrix. One example where we all collectively realized where there was primary zoned designated, which was being consistently used by panthers, is that southern corridor. And that's one reason that we all advocated that that change be made to the map. But if we're going to pursue this, really getting into the panther science, I say let's bring in some panther scientists and ask them these questions. Page 77 16 r 1 A6q January 28, 2009 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, that would be nice if we had time to do that. I have no problem with doing that. The problem is that we have to get this accomplished in the time period allotted to us and it has to move on in some manner or form. And I don't know if panther scientists can be here. If you can bring one in for Friday, I have no problem talking to somebody. I think that -- this is an open public meeting and anything we can settle here is less that's got to be settled at the Board of County Commissioners level. So if that's what you can do, do it. If you can't, then we'll just have to go on. MS. FLEMING: I'd feel more comfortable having somebody professionally qualified to answer these questions, rather than us bantering it back and forth amongst ourselves. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, we're bantering the language. and the language unfortunately can't open up some areas that maybe shouldn't be opened up, or vice versa. So we're just trying to get to the bottom of it. So any way that helps us, we're all in favor of that. Thank you. Anybody have any other questions? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Tor, did you have another question on that Page 46? COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: No, I'm on 47. Sorry. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, with that any -- Bill, are you -- we're going to move on to Page 47. Forty-seven starts a new policy. Let's take the whole policy in one jump. Starts -- it's Policy 1.6.1, and it finishes over on the top of Page 48. It's a full page plus policy introducing a new concept for the SSA's. And I'll go with questions from the Planning Commission on that policy. Tor? COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: Just a minor question. On the left-hand margin it's noted four and five and six numbers. What happened to one, two and three? MR. GREENWOOD: I think it was a computer glitch. Actually four becomes one, five becomes two, six becomes three. C becomes A and D becomes B. It's just something that happened. It just needs to be renumbered. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Not a problem. Okay. Go ahead, Brad. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: You know what I was wondering? Is there a way somebody could explain this in -- I was going to say 25 words or less, but that's -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, they won't be able to answer questions that quickly, but we can certainly try. You want to explain the process here, Bill? MR. McDANIEL: I'm going to defer to Mr. Jones. MR. JONES: I haven't had anything to say in a few minutes so it's my turn. Policy 6.1 probably could be coined as the Scofield policy amendment. And just like with some of the ago preservation credits, we were trying to correct something that was not apparent when the initial program was established. This policy 1.6. I, I'm not going to explain all the nuances line by line. It was vetted between the county attorney's office and attorneys for the Eastern Collier Property Owners. The point that we were trying to get at in this -- the Scofield example has Circle L Ranch east of Immokalee established SSA's on their properties under the notion that they were going to be able to sell these credits. The deals all fell apart and the Scofields then were faced with a situation where they now had easements placed on their property. They had the credits but they also had easements in perpetuity placed on their property. What further complicated it was a policy shift at the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service. Whereas Page 78 16 1011/:2&6 previously they could have used that property for panther mitigation, once an SSA was established on it they no longer had the ability even to use it for panther mitigation at that time either. So essentially what had happened is the SRA that they thought was going to be entitled with their credits never came to fruition and they were stuck with the easements on their property and the inability to use it for anything other than what was established in that. What we're trying to do is get to a fairness issue hcre that ties the stewardship credits to the full entitlement of wherever those credits are going. The permitting process for an SRA extends well beyond the county approvals. Probably the most complicated and convoluted process is the federal process. And you could be looking at a situation where a landowner, not the Scofields now, but another landowner takes down SSA's, intends to entitle an SRA, and at some point in the process they can't get their approvals. So what they've done is they've encumbered their property to entitle another piece of property that they now no longer have the ability to develop. And it didn't seem like that was an equitable situation, that a landowner could go so far through the process, encumber his property on one end of it but he had no repayment on the other end of it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Don't go away, unless -- are you going to answer the questions that have come up? I've got a series of them on 1.6.1, but I'm sure others may have, too. Heidi? MS. ASHTON-CICKO: Mr. Chairman and other Commissioners, I just wanted to let you know that as this was vetted through the RLSA, the County Attorney's Office had recommended that the details and language be included in the LDC and not in a GMP amendment. This proposal is, I understand, favorable to the property owners in the area and that's why it's being pushed through as a GMP amendment. I had proposed alternative language. However, what is proposed, if it's the desire of the Board of County Commissioners to adopt this language, it's more of a policy issue. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, thank you. Questions rrom the Planning Commission on Policy 1.6.1? Go ahead, Brad. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: So what you're saying, though, is that if you created an SSA and you -- with the intent of putting it into a specific SRA and that deal falls through, then you can pull the SSA off the property? MR. McDANIEL: It sets a time frame for the expiration of those easements that are put in place for the creation of the SSA. I think that was one of the things that we found where a property owner could in fact entitle an SSA and then not have a place for those credits to go, but he's encumbered his property. And there was no language in the original program to allow for the reversion of those easements or take those entitlements off. MS. ASHTON-CICKO: Yeah, the current program creates a permanent easement at the time the SSA is approved. What this is proposing is that that be a conditional easement essentially for a period of six years. It's five years with the potential to extend it one more year. During that time period the easement could be terminated. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: But they do have the credit. The credit exists. They just -- MS. ASHTON-CICKO: Yes. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: -- have no market for it, therefore, they want to back down. I mean MR. JONES: In simple terms, yeah. Page 79 1 to. l ~1' 11.6' ~ h'nu ry , 20 The other caveat that plays into this, I know it's probably unheard of, but you could establish your SSA to entitle a piece of property and go through the process, and then somebody challenges you in court over your approvals. And that could drag on for years. Or you could lose the case. Again, you've entitled a piece of property that you were going to utilize, you've encumbered a piece of property that you were going to use another -- to entitle another piece of property and now you no longer can do that. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: But in the SSA prob'fam -- MR. JONES: And when it reverts back, then the land goes to its existing baseline uses and the credits disappear. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: In the creation of the SSA, you're getting just a credit essentially, correct? In your mind, you're the one that was going to use it on that other piece of property. Is the SSA ever tied to another piece of property? I mean, you're creating a credit that's a marketable -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Slow down just a minute. You okay? You want to take one of your cough drops? Let's take a five-minute break for Cherie'. 3:30 we'll start back up again. (Recess. ) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: If everybody will please take their seats, we'll resume. Cherie' survived, we can continue. Okay, I've been asked by numerous people what the rest of today's schedule will be, and because Cherie' and Bill McDaniel can't be here past 4:30, we will stop at 4:30 today. We're afraid if Tom got here in place of Bill for the rest of the day, it would be too problematic, so-- MR. McDANIEL: Exactly. Everybody say thank you for the early release. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. So with that in mind, we had left off on a discussion of Policy 1.6. I. And I don't remember exactly what we left oflon. Brad, were you asking questions? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Yeah, I think so. I was just trying to understand it. So essentially what you're saying, the credit is established. When it's established, it's not earmarked for a specific project at that time, correct? So it's a marketable thing, you could turn around and sell it to somebody else. MR. McDANIEL: Sometimes it can be specified or earmarked for a particular SRA. But it's not -- the case is to establish an open marketplace. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Correct. And then what you're saying is that if somebody sits with it, they can't achieve what they expected on the market, they can then opt out of the program and drop all the easements and everything. MR. McDANIEL: Basically. Necessarily there was no provisions in the original plan to allow for the removal of those encumbrances that were put on the property to establish the credits if the credits were not ever consumed. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. And you feel that that could be a trap or something. But if that exists, people would he reluctant to use the program, or -- MR. McDANIEL: And again, this is an incentive-based process, Brad. And in order to incentivize folks to encumber their properties to establish the credits, if there is no marketplace for the credits -- and it's been brought up on several occasions, ifthere is no marketplace for the credits, then a property owner has to have an opportunity to be compensated at some level for those encumbrances. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: All right. I'm good, thanks. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, Ms. Caron? COMMISSIONER CARON: Yeah, what happens to the SSA land during this five-year period? Is it still being worked the way it was before or are we essentially four to five years stripping whatever we Page SO 16 tt2sA6 intend to strip off of it? MR. McDANIEL: The easements are placed at the creation of the SSA, and the property rights that are extinguished by the creation of those easements taking -- in those layer discussions that we've had in the past, Ms. Caron, those are enforced during the term of those easements. COMMISSIONER CARON: Okay, so for the five-year period you treat it as ifit is the SSA. MR. McDANIEL: That's correct. COMMISSIONER CARON: Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Any other questions from the Planning Commission? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Mark, one more. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Go ahead, Mr. Schiffer. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: How many SSA's are out there that have not been accredited towards an SRA? MR. McDANIEL: We taJked about that earlier. I believe it's five. I'm not positive. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Five? MR. McDANIEL: I believe so. In the earlier presentation there was a discussion of -- go ahead. MR. JONES: There are two SSA's that are out there that have not been tied to an SRA, with the exception of a number of the SSA's that Barron Collier took down to bank the credits. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Any other questions? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I have several. When I first read this, I understood the problem, and I empathized with the problem for the landowners. If you're going to do something, you should be allowed to do it. And if you can't do it, you should be allowed to go back and say well, I can't get that, it doesn't work, I need to have it fixed. I have no problem with that. So I'm not -- my questions aren't coming out of concern for an unfairness level here, but it's coming out of an issue involving planning. The window for concurrency and everything is basically five years; five years for the road system and everything else. You get into a process for an SRA and you go down through the process to get all your development orders in place, your permits, your discretionary approvals necessary to commence construction, including subdivision plat and site development plan. But at that very last moment it doesn't work, you pull out -- all that planning that would have been put in place or had been figured to apply to your development is down the tubes, the SSA that may have been set aside in conjunction with other SSA's to secure a panther corridor or something else is down the tubes, and the whole planning effort is kind of in limbo. Now, that's the part that I'm concerned about. I'm not saying this doesn't need to happen. I'm trying to figure out a way that good planning can be done around a program that is temporary for -- and it's actually up to six years. So that becomes a real problem I think from all levels of concurrency and from Collier County planning. And I don't know if planning staff has thought about this or not and can offer some comment on it, or who. I'm looking for a solution. And by the way, for the people that have not sold the SSA's, transferred the SSA's, transferred the credits from them, sold the credits from them, utilized the credits from them -- I'm making sure I use every word possible for Bruce -- but every type of word you could throw in here to mean what I'm trying to get at, they should have the same reverter option for their property, if it's not been utilized to date for a certain Page SI 16 tlry 28'~0~ period of time should this pass. But thinking of fairness in all that, how is the planning going to be done with this kind of a program? Tom, do you want to comment? Mike? I don't care. MR. GREENWOOD: I don't have any easy, simple comment, but yes, there is uncertainty. There's uncertainty as to the credits, whether they're going to be employed and whether they're going to be employed in an SRA. But the whole program is a voluntary program and we really can't predict the future. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, okay. That didn't get us anywhere. MR. PRIDDY: I have an answer. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Go ahead. Anybody can help with an answer, let's go. MR. PRIDDY: If! as a landowner with SSA don't come forward early, I hold back to the end, the county's no better or no worse off, because you couldn't get started with your planning now because I haven't come forward with the SSA. So you're no better -- the county's no better or worse off -- no worse off by having this in there than they are today. Now, what I as a landowner and a strong supporter of this rural lands program, I was trying to be a good guy and jump in and add certainty to the program of what was going to be set aside and give some definition for planning purposes too. But, you know, I'm doing that with a leap offaith that govemment agencies are going to approve some project that somebody else is doing down the road, or that the one or two buyers out there are going to buy from me at some point and, you know, that there's a market for these credits. So I guess if you don't have language like this, you're not going to see any SSA's come in until there's a marriage. It's a little easier for a couple of the landowners. Barron Collier, Collier Enterprises, they've got enough land, SRA land and enough credits to entitle, you know, their share of that. But for all the rest of us, you're either on one side of the fence or the other. You either have receiving lands and no credits or credits and no receiving lands. And until those can get matched up or married, you know, it's just a bad spot for me with SSA to put myself or my family in encumbering lands five, 10, I 5 years ahead of when those credits might be used. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Russell, I empathize with your position. I'm just trying to figure out how to properly plan around it. When a project comes in and is predicted to go on a piece of property or an acreage, county staff has to start calculating when infrastructure will be there; we have AUIR's that are done on a yearly basis showing five-year projections within the five years. If they know a project's going to go in and it's an SRA, they're going to try to start moving facilities and budgets to accommodate that. They may do it for a period well before the six-year period is up that this temporary SSA's in place for. I'm not against what you're trying to do. I'm trying to figure out how to get it there practically without having a problem with planning efforts that have to go coinciding with an SRA. George? MR. VARNADOE: George Varnadoe. And Mark, I think you bring up a valid point. And I'm going to say this not by trying to get around what you said, but just to throw it out there. That would be true if we went through, got the SRA, it was challenged in court by somebody and we never got the final permits, it was rejected for whatever reason. We have the same problem. You've done the planning. It doesn't come to pass. The poor guy with the SSA is stuck, and all we're trying to do is un-stick him. I think you have a valid point and we ought to try to fInd some way to work around that. Page 82 1611 A6 January 28, 2009 My suggestion, if you agree with the concept that those who are doing SSA's should have a reasonable period of time to fmd some utilization for those credits or have the ability to rescind their SSA, if you would, and get back to the status quo, then I suggest that you say this is okay but what we want during the transmittal process, for planning staff and others to see what we can do to minimize the impact on the planning process. But I do think you raise a valid point. Of course, you know, the project has no impact on county facilities until construction starts. And even if we did this stuff, I don't know how we'd get around it. Same is true today with projects in this environment that have been entitled and aren't going forward because of the economic environment. I'm not trying to downplay your concerns, I think they're valid, but my suggestion is if you like the concepts, you say we like the concepts. But as this goes forward in the process, if it goes forward, we'd like some consideration given to what this does to the planning effort and how we minimize the exposure to the county. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody have -- Brad, then Ms. Caron. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Mark, is your concern that the person with the SSA would actually retreat, causing the collapse of the project, or -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No, no. Because once the SSA dedicated credits to the project, they couldn't do it. It would have to be the project that didn't go forward first, and then the SSA could choose to opt out. That's from what I'm reading. Because once the SSA credits have been dedicated, until that dedication is removed, I don't think the SSA can go away. That's some of the criteria they seem to have here. MR. VARNADOE: That's correct as far as it goes, Mark. But there's also a method in the Land Development Code that lets you get your SRA in place as long as you provide the credits within a certain time period. I think looking at the other side of that coin, that is, why do I want to buy SSA credits if! can't get my SRA approved. So there is a process to let you get your SRA, and then within a certain time frame you have to come forward with the credits or you lose your SRA. So it could happen simultaneous, it could happen before, or it could happen over a certain time period after. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But once an SSA credit, even one, is dedicated, you can't take that SSA away then. MR. VARNADOE: That's correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's correct, okay. Ms. Caron? Oh, I'm sorry, Brad? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And then the other thing is that what would happen in a situation where like we're doing here, changing the credits? Would somebody then collapse their SSA and then bring it back to life to get more credits, or -- MR. VARNADOE: I guess that's a potential, Mr. Schiffer. But given the cost of going through this process, I'm not sure the juice is worth the squeeze. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: All right, thanks. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ms. Caron? MR. VARNADOE: That wasn't as good as Tom Jones who said we're trying to sneak daylight past a rooster in the last meeting. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Sound bites for the press. But anyway, go ahead. COMMISSIONER CARON: I'm not sure I remember my question. But essentially, though, the way this is worded, you can pull out at the 11 th hour for any reason, not Page 83 16 Jnu128, ~oP just because you didn't get a permit, the way the language reads. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, it says-- COMMISSIONER CARON: It's totally-- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- all necessary final and non-appealable development orders, so-- COMMISSIONER CARON: Right, so for anything. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, ifthey decided the economy didn't work, I don't think they could pull out. But it would have to be something related to approval, wouldn't it? COMMISSIONER CARON: I'm not sure. I would read this that they could. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. MR. VARNADOE: That certainly was not the intent. Once you go through an SRA and a DRI, you're going to have hundreds of thousands of dollars. And you don't go into that lightly. You don't go in it with the idea, well, I'm going to pull out. But I think the concern was to make just absolute, with absolute certainty you had the right to go vertical construction before you were -- didn't have the ability to collapse the SSA, in the event you could not go forward with your development, Ms. Caron. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody else') Mr. Vigliotti? COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Mark, I have a suggestion. Would it help to shorten the amount of time and put a caveat that if there is a lawsuit and it is appealed it can be extended on a year-to-year basis? MR. VARNADOE: We've got people who do permitting here that can answer that question. But all I can tell you is that we were well into the fourth year with Ave Maria before we could go vertical from the time we started the process. Maybe longer. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No, it will take that long. MR. VARNADOE: It takes -- and I wish I could say yes, but the truth of the matter is you've got to go -- the environmental agencies aren't going to start processing your permit until you have your local development approvals. So you go through two years of DRI/SRA review, then you apply for your permits with the feds. DR. HUSHON: Another two years. MR. VARNADOE: I'm sorry? DR. HUSHON: Another two years. MR. VARNADOE: Anothcr two years. So you're -- it could well go five years. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I would agree that the time frame's right. Okay, any other questions of George at this point? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you, sir. Mitch, next. MR. MITCHELL: Just to that point, and Chairman, I appreciate your point. I think the comment that you made was your issue was primarily about the planning associated with it. And I guess my point to the committee would be to understand that that's an issue that exists across the county today. So I would encourage you not to look for a specific planning solution just for the rural land stewardship. If you're going to address it. you need to address it countywide. The specific issue in the rural land stewardship is that there's a tertiary property owner that's adversely impacted. All we're asking for is the tertiary landowner to get some relief If there's a planning issue that needs to he addressed, let's address it county-wide, not specific to the rural land stewardship. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, we are addressing it county-wide and that's why it becomes a Page 84 16 I Jalary'28, lop problem with Policy 1.6. I. County-wide we address it in the AUIR on a regular basis yearly and a five-year plan for the infrastructure in the known zoned areas. In the Rural Land Stewardship Area, you're introducing sporadic zoning, mean you have rights to plan and build somewhere. We don't know where until you come forward. At that point we got to start mobilizing to meet your needs. That's the difference between the coastal area and the RLSA. And that's why I think it's more of a planning issue for the RLSA, because the planning issues in that regard have already been addressed in the coastal area. One way that might help is we have issues here that, as Heidi noted, may not need to be in the GMP but could be in an LDC. Ifwe move forward this in the GMP, the scrutiny of it is going to have to be on a different level than the detail that we could have it in the LDC. I've been asked numerous times by elected officials, why do we have such a backup in compo planning with so many compo planning changes? Well, the answer is simple. We put too much in our compo plan. And constantly putting all this detail in there means any word that has to be changed is going to result in a compo plan change. And that's going to take anybody to do it years. So why don't we instead take a look at Policy 1.6. J. for its first paragraph and instead of the word therein at the very end, substitute the words in the LDC. And then we -- if this policy survives and there's reasons -- if there are continued good reasons to keep it, then we detail it out in the LDC and we just put the concept in this document. Now, that's one suggestion to get past it. And that would give us plenty of time to work out the planning problems that staff has not reviewed yet in regards to any of this language, but especially this one. So that's one suggestion that may be helpful. I don't know if the committee explored it or not. I know Heidi, you said you had discussed it. I don't know to what extent you did. The only other thing I would suggest is that if this turns out to be a better program and it gets adopted, then everybody ought to have the same right by it. And that means whether -- SSA's prior or future that have not been utilized. One of the big benefits from that would be as a standardization of the process. I am very concerned the other language we're going to be getting to that separates out this credit system to those before a certain date get calculated by staff at eight units per acre, and those after a date get calculated at the new rates, which is proposed to be 10 units per acre. If that comes to fruition, everybody in this room knows how difficult it is to find consistency in the permitting process because we change hands over here so rapidly. And if some staff come and go and people don't pick this up, you're going to -- into problems that we don't need to have if we can have more consistency in the programs. So that's one item I think we ought to consider if this policy has enough merit to move forward. And with that, ]']] ask for any more comments from the Planning Commission. (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Then public. Nicole? MS. RYAN: Nicole Ryan, Conservancy of Southwest Florida. The Conservancy supports further exploration of this temporary easement. But one of the things that is really going to need to be explored is that -- and it's as part of the planning process that you haven't touched on. But for example, when wildlife crossings, panther crossings are planned, oftentimes the agencies will want to know that the land on both sides is permanently protected. So how do you do some of the wildlife management that we're trying to do with the proi,'fam when you have temporary easements that mayor may not become permanent after a certain number of years? So Page 85 16 J!1U128, 2!96 ~ that's another question that needs to be sufficiently addressed before this would move forward. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, Nicole, and the suggestion of just accepting the concept in the GMP subject to definition in the LDC, I think that gets us past the concept point and gets us into more of the detail the LDC's normally used to. So that's another -- it might solve your concern, too, at the same time in that regard. MS. RYAN: Yeah, we'd support exploring that, yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Bill. I don't think there's anything else on I.6.I. Does anybody else have any comment? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Mark? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Brad? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Do we want to, you know, incorporate that suggestion? Because it is a good one. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I'm making notes of all the things. And as we normally summarize in the end, I was going to do that. Because I'm not sure how much in thc rest of this GMP language could fall back in this policy. Because I do have other areas in here where if we have something that's temporary, it affects another part of the GMP. So we may want to look at the whole thing first and flush everything out, so -- With that then we'll move to Page 48. That starts with Policy I. 7 and ends on the page of Policy 1.10. Does anybody have any issues with those policies or the language on Page 48? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Bill, I've got one. In Policy 1.7 you added Florida Fish & Wildlife Conservation Commission, which is fine. Why does anybody care if the rest are left in here? MR. McDANIEL: Again, my perception and recollection of those discussions was that it was just to provide clarity and that thc Florida Fish & Wildlife Commission were the main regulator with regard to those areas. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, let me tell you something that happened to me. I had an occasion to meet a requirement for conservation land dedication on 400 acres, and that land was adjacent to some conservation land owned by a state agency. But their policy changed. They couldn't accept any more conservation land. And their attorneys were all upset over it, but they couldn't change it. So another agency had to take that land. And now their other agency, the first agency who owns contiguous property has now decided they could take land but it's too late because it's been given to another. All I'm suggesting is if you put a definitiveness of one conservation entity, one agency in here, you may find that state policy or something else changes down the road and that's not going to work any longer, and then we're boxed into a problem with changing the GMP. MR. McDANIEL: Don't refute what you're saying, but I mean, there are two agencies that these are recorded with and that's with Collier County and the Florida Fish & Wildlife Conservation. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, but it needs to be two agencies. And if you lose one, it doesn't mean it should be accomplished by the other. In Collier County, it takes the change of the political climate to undo something, and it would be better if multiple agencies were involved so that can't happen very easily, especially if someone's willing to do the dedication. I'm just -- are you guys set on that? Does it have to stay that way? MR. JONES: Yeah. There was a lot of discussion related to this one. And again, ails we're doing is conveying the easement. We're not conveying land to anybody. Page 86 16IJ~~'A. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I realize that. MR. JONES: So I think as far as changing policies and state agencies and stuff, I'm kind of missing the point of what the issue is. It's conveyed to two entities. The way the original language read, it was -- there was a smorgasbord of agencies that could be conveyed to the county, as well as one of the following. and there was a lot of public comment that, you know, people didn't like us being able to convey these easements to the Florida Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services. There was insistence that it be given to the Department of Community Affairs. And it seemed like a good equitable solution to having it conveyed to two parties was convey the easement to the wildlife agency, as well as the county. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I don't think that's a good move and so I guess we'll agree to disagree on that one. Anybody else have any comments? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: This will all come out in the end of the day, so we'll just keep moving forward. Any there any citizen comments on policies through I. I O? Elizabeth? MS. FLEMING: Just on this point? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Page 48 is what we're on. MS. FLEMING: On that same point right there, we were very much in favor of having the Fish & Wildlife Conservation Commission be one of the two, but we wouldn't have a problem with the others, if there were cases where it would be helpful to add in addition to one of the others, if there was a case that merited that. So if it would help by not deleting that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, what I was thinking is why wouldn't it be Collier County or, and then you list them all. Who cares what the other agency is. I mean, I'm not sure why we want to limit --I'm not sure how it's to the benefit of those property owners to limit themselves to one agency. To me that's just the opposite of what they ought to be doing. And I don't know what it hurts to open the possibility up to others. MS. FLEMING: If the point was stewardship credits and it was -- it's for natural resources, imperiled species, we thought that the natural resource agency was the local -- the logical state partner. But -- and they had had the agriculture, Department of Agriculture, we would not object to that being a third entity. We just wanted to see the Wildlife Commission a~ an entity, a signatory to the stewardship easements. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, and you know, you brought up a good point. If an SSA still has retained ago lands, it would be probably more proper to make sure the Department of Agriculture is a part of that than even the Florida Fish & Wildlife Conservation. So now you're suggesting a third entity. But I certainly think your reasoning clearly shows that those single entities is not still the right way to go. So I don't know where it's going to go, but I'm sure this commission will have a series of suggestions before the day's over on Friday. Thank you. Anybody else? Nicole? MS. RYAN: Nicole Ryan, Conservancy of Southwest Florida. My comment is to Policy 1.8. This was one of the issues that The Conservancy has been very concerned about. And guess what? Primary panther habitat is what we're still concerned about. This idea that the map of the primary zone and the just recently released revised Panther Recovery Plan that states that primary zone in its spatial entirety needs to be protected, and now we're going back and Page 87 1"+212A6 revisiting that. We believe that the science is very clear, and we believe that the primary should be protected, and that's why we had wanted to see this natural resource valuation system updated, because there are many areas that are currently considered open and therefore suitable for SRA's that should not be allowed for future towns and villages. And I guess the best way to really give you a visual on this is to show you an example, so I'm going to put this graphic up on the visualizer. I have a few copies, probably not enough for everyone. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: If you put it up on the visualizer, that will be enough, Nicole. Since that way everybody can see it equally. MS. RYAN: It's a little hard to see. Maybe if we could just turn the light down for a second. This is for the proposed Phase I part of the Town of Big Cypress. On the left-hand side you can see that the areas in pink are the open areas, which are considered under the RLSA to be appropriate for development. And in the circle is the general area where the town of Big Cypress Phase I is proposed. On the right-hand side, the proposed town of Big Cypress is outlined in yellow. Primary panther habitat is in pink. Non-primary is in the golden color. And you can see that out of the 3,700 acres of the proposed project, 3,400 acres are primary panther habitat. Those little blue dots are panther telemetry points, and there are 63 panther telemetry points within that proposed footprint. Now, some of those telemetry points are within those WRA's, but it's within the footprint of the development. We find that this is incompatible with the Endangered Species Act, and we would like to see the RLSA updated so that you don't have development that is clearly inconsistent with the Endangered Species Act. Protect those primary panther habitat areas hy directing towns and villages to areas outside of that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Now. I hate to ask this next question, because I know some people will jump up and come to the podium. Whose opinion is it that there's primary panther habitat? Which one of the many studies that we've been told that exist out there dictate that; do you know? MS. RYAN: That is the MERIT sub-committee's primary habitat map. This was the map that I had had put up earlier. It's been in the peer review scientific review. And the Panther Recovery Plan, which was recently released, stated that the panther zone is critical to maintain a spatial extent and quality and quantity for the panther. So we base our assessment on that. We also base it on there are 63 telemetry points within that footprint. So 90 percent of telemetry points are captured in the HSA's and FSA's, but a lot aren't. So these are things that we would like to see corrected. We don't believe they were really delved into at the committee level. And so we're asking that you take a look at some of these concepts of directing development away from primary habitat, which also is habitat for other listed species. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, if you turn to your Policy 1.8, which is what you introduced the issue with, what language in 1.8 is problematic as it's written here, or is it in another part of the document that we'll get to eventually? MS. RYAN: Well, if we look at the natural resources valuation system, our initial comment was that primary habitats should be brought into that complicated matrix system that equates to the natural resource index value. However, if there's the creation of some sort of agricultural stewardship area that encompasses the primary habitat, either a sentence could be added here that ties in not only the ago preserve values of those lands, but also ties it to the natural resource value, which we think that you really should keep ago preservation and natural resource valuc coupled together. So it could be referenced here, it could be referenced later, but I did want to bring up that we see Page 88 16Jfnu!~&6 this as a defect in the current natural resources valuation system, because it does allow for development in areas that are clearly utilized by panther. So whether it's corrected in a policy here, whether it's corrected in a policy later, we wanted to introduce it here because it's tied into the system that's referenced in 1.8 and 1.9. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Well, before we are finished with this whole review, if there are language changes that are being suggested by any party, I'm going to ask that they bring that language forward to us at some point where it should be properly inserted, and let us make an evaluation from our perspective. And if we don't go further with it or we do, that's where the chips will fall with us, okay? MS. RYAN: Uh-huh. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. Tim? You're the counter, right? MR. DURHAM: I'm the person who jumped up when you said it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I was waiting for Bruce to come up, but we'll see. MR. DURHAM: We're going to alternate, so you won't get too tired of anyone of us at a time. As I listened to Nicole's words, I realized that the words are very important here. Nicole treats every habitat within the primary zone as being primary habitat. We look at it and say there's a primary zone, and within the primary zone there are habitats that are primary habitats. It also includes other areas, which when you read the report talk about they may form some connectivity or do something else in the equation, all right? So when you hear her talk about primary zone and primary habitat, they may not be the same thing in our mind is counterpoint to that. And that's where this gets real dicey, because -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I think we've realized that. MR. DURHAM: -- we did change in the discussion, so -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I think that became real clear to us a little while ago. So I think we realize that. MR. DURHAM: I feel obliged to point it out again. Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's not a problem. Thank you. Any other -- Mr. Wolfley? COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: May I turn the light on? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I don't -- it's up to you. You're the only one that's in the dark, I think. The rest of us got lights above us, so -- COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: I've been in the dark for well over a year. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Oh, Mr. Midney's in the dark, too. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: No, that's fine. I just had a comment. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: David I think had a question next, then we'll get to you. Did you have a real question or did you want to talk about lights? COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: We could talk about lights, but I would rather talk about the complex worksheet that Nicole discussed. And we're tossing around the words credits, just like they're nothing. The credits really are something. And, you know, some people talked about stripping off credits. Does everyone on the Planning Commission know what that means? I mean, am I the only one that is a little fishy about it? Because I'm not sure that we're all clear on that. And is there someone from the RLSA committee that would -- there you go -- that would like to stand up and go through the stewardship credit matrix? There is a base, correct? And then we have stewardship national (sic) resource index factors, and we can get way up to, you know, eight plus credits per acre, I believe, correct? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Ten. Page 89 ~""'-_._____"""_"'''''._-'___e__1>,''__'''''''''~''''' ,. .. '-'_'_'_~._"'____'___""'_'_~____~~'_'"_~_~_"_'_'_.e' 16 I;J~ry A, 69 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: It's 10 credits per acre after certain -- if this were to pass, it's 10 credits per acre. Anybody that was before this is eight credits per acre. COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: That is correct. And I would like -- I just wondered, Mark, maybe you and I may be the only ones that are close to getting it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I don't know, I think everybody-- COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Everyone understands all of this? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I think everybody understands it. This is a -- we've been around this before. I mean, it's not the first time we've all come across this. Maybe Karen or a few of the newer people hadn't seen it before, but most of us have experienced this before. COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No, that's tine, continue as you want. Ijust-- COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: No, I just wanted to -- I just wanted to go into that. I wanted to make sure everybody knew what this means and possibly the ditlerence between ago one and ago two. And maybe it's not necessary right now. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I think Allen's going to address something in that regard, so Allen, if you want to try to answer David's questions, that would be great. MR. REYNOLDS: I'll certainly try. And let me start by saying I'm not going to stand here and say I know anything about panthers as a panther expert. But I don't know, can you read -- can you see that sheet up there? Can you read it okay? COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Well here, let me turn the lights off. MR. REYNOLDS: Yeah, if you could turn the lights off. COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: No. MR. REYNOLDS: Okay. Well, there's a -- it's in your book as well. And I'm -- hopefully that one's more legible, but maybe the -- COMMISSIONER CARON: Give us a page. MR. REYNOLDS: Okay. Natural resource index is on Page 70. COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: One of the last ones. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: It's too small. MR. REYNOLDS: The natural resource index, which is what the subject of this policy is, is what sets out this particular index system. And what that does is provide the objective measures by which land is scored under the RLS system. This is a planning tool. This is not a substitute for federal regulations that protect the panther, this is a way to identity the relative value of the different kinds of natural resources in the stewardship area. And you're going to see that on that sheet there is an index at the top that starts out by saying if you're already mapped within one of the primary designations, FSA, HSA or WRA, you get certain points. The next one is a proximity index. The third one is dealing with listed species. And you'll see that the first two lines are panther occupied habitat, preferred and tolerated, plus other listed species. And the second one is panther habitat by itself. Those received the highest score under the natural resource index system. If you couple those factual data sets with the other data sets here, which include whether or not you have native land cover, which is the land use cover index down at the bottom, and a mapping, what you find is that the panther winds up scoring the highest of any potential habitat in the Rural Land Stewardship Area. That is the science behind the NRI process. If you take what Nicole is suggesting, what she's suggesting, if you play it out, is to take an incentive-based overlay process and to say that if there is any indication that there is panther utilization of Page 90 16 I Jauary 28A06 that property, you are no longer able to exercise your rights to use this program as a stewardship receiving area. If you take that to its logical conclusion and if you look at some of these maps that show where panther habitat is, you're going to find that it overlays a lot of Collier County. So what I would suggest to you is I'm not sure you have to fall into the [mal, you know, debate about whose definition is correct. What you have to do is just I think step back and think about this logically, which is that this is a planning process, it provides an opportunity for a property owner to utilize it, to make their case. It has a scientific basis. We can agree or disagree about whether the indexes are correct or not correct, but there was a lot of discussion about whether these indexes were working. And there are some differences of opinion, but the consensus at the end of the day is we have a natural resource index system that seems to be working well. It shows places that have panther utilization as the highest scoring areas that need to be protected. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Questions? David, did you have anymore questions? COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Ijust -- yeah, not right now. I'm going to hold them for-- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, does anybody have any questions of Allen while he's up here? I have one -- Tor? COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: Yeah, I had a question. This exhibit that you have in the overhead on Page 70, can I get a large copy of that? MR. GREENWOOD: Sure. We'll bring them tomorrow. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Friday. MR. GREENWOOD: I'm sorry, Friday. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, we'll have one Friday morning. COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ms. Caron? COMMISSIONER CARON: No, that's all right. I'm-- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Allen, you had said -- one of your statements was that the panther habitat has the highest value indices. What if the panther habitat is ago land? Does it still have the highest indices? MR. REYNOLDS: If it's -- the listed species index is measured whether or not it's ago land. So that's just purely on the basis of panther use. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So if a panther's using a forest -- MR. REYNOLDS: Has a higher score. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- it has a higher score than if a panther's using ago land. MR. REYNOLDS: Right. Because these are cumulative -- these indexes are added cumulatively. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, that's what I was getting at. So the highest score for panther is when it's in forested land. MR. REYNOLDS: Correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And it doesn't have the equivalent scoring if it's in an ag.land. MR. REYNOLDS: That's correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. But I think that's the point that maybe Nicole was trying to make over what you're suggesting, that there is primary panther habitat in ago land that needs to have retained value of the panther habitat that other portions ofland do. MR. REYNOLDS: That may he the case, but what she is suggesting is a prohibition of that use. We're not taJking now about a relative value. What she's saying is that that land, because it has a panther classification, should now be removed from the land that has the potential to be considered as open land or SRA. That's what she's saying. Page 91 16 , ~UaryA86~ CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I understand what you're saying. I'm not sure-- MR. REYNOLDS: So it's an absolute versus I guess a relative approach compared to an absolute approach. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Any other questions of Allen? Go ahead, Mr. Midney? COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Just a comment. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you, Allen. I think we're done with that part. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Just kind of in support of what Nicole has been saying, I think that it's hard to really quantity all this stuff: But I think there is a difference between telemetry points that have shown where the panthers have gone and a range. A range of a panther is a little bit larger. On one of the sheets that Nicole passed out, which was excerpts from the Florida Panther Recovery Plan, Page 30, they talk about travel and dispersal corridors and landscape corridors for wide-ranging predators should be halfthe width of an avcrage home range size. And I think when you have habitat interspersed with population, a lot of things become corridors. So if you have panther areas that are now surrounded by farm fields, it will be fairly easy for them to move around within that area. If the fields are converted to towns, what is a panther corridor now may not be in the future. COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: And vice versa. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Are you getting up to respond, or just to be prepared for the next foray? MR. McDANIEL: I have plenty of responses. And I might just add a point for you folks. We at the committee level that weren't necessarily representing one particular faction or another got to hear a tremendous amount of discussion with respect to the information that's again being provided to you folks here today. And we had -- it's quite a dilemma for the novice, myself, for someone who though has had experience with the Florida panther, who is quite a conservationist, who is quite an environmentalist, who spends a tremendous amount of time in the wilds of Florida. Those critters go where they want to when they want to. And the argument about a foot or two here or an acre or two there, really at this particular stage of the game there's a lot of discussion as to what can and cannot be. I mean, if you look at the map that Ms. Nicole put up earlier on and the designation of the primary zone and that they feel that development should be directed away from that particular primary zone, the entire Rural Land Stewardship Overlay is encompassed in that zone, particularly. It's only 50, 35-mile wide, so. DR. HUSHON: No, no, no. MR. McDANIEL: A large portion of it is, I should say. And again, this is my-- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: For those of you in the audience, he has absolute right to speak his mind. Please not interfere. He hasn't interfered with yours, so -- MR. McDANIEL: I'm sure someone will correct me. The long and the short of it is, is thcre are -- a balance. As I shared with you early on, a balance has to be reached. This is a tool for planning of the future population of Eastern Collier County, and a balance has to be reached. It can't be all necessarily one way or all the other. And we battled with that a lot during the process of making the decisions for these particular amendments to the Rural Land Stewardship Overlay. And I do apologize if I misquoted what was said. There was a perception thcre more than anything as far as specificity. And I did preface it by saying that I'm not an expert with respect to those cats. But I do know for a fact that because we establish a corridor to the north that travels east and west, Page 92 16JJnu128,2A6' ~ if that cat gets to the end where it turns south and chooses to go straight through, he's going to go. And that's something we need to remember as we're discussing the boundaries, if you will, of the habitat. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, thank you, Bill. With that we will move on to the next page. Page 49 has one, two, three, four, five, six policies, starting at I.I I through I.I 8. There is no committee changes except one reference that apparently was maybe a granunatical. Other than that, there isn't much change in that. Is there any comments from the Planning Commission on those pages of policies? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody from the audience have any issues with those policies? Oh, Mr. Wolfley, you got-- COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Yeah, I started bringing it up earlier this morning. And there was certainly -- and I was thinking of bringing it up later, but I'm just going to bring it up now. Can we get some discussion on what these credits stands for? Is it acres or units? So we're all aware of what's going on. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, each acre is worth four units and it takes eight credits now to quality one acre to be developed. You can take that four units and use it for -- those four units per acre and collate those under a single parcel, if you want to, at a higher density. But the gross is just like it is in the urban area, four units per acre. You buy the acre with a number of credits. Either it's eight credits in the current plan or IO credits in the new plan. So does that -- did you want me to answer that or did you want Bill? Unless you want -- MR. McDANIEL: That's pretty good. COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Just when I brought it up before, half the people were saying-- well, there was not an agreement. I'm hoping everyone agrees with that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, let's stop there. We want to reach agreement. If someone has a concern, I want to hear it. Does anybody not understand the way the credits and the acres are partitioned out? If there is, ask the question and we'll get it clarified. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Let me just -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Oh, you don't understand, Brad? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I think I understand it. Dave, go to Page 73. Essentially eight credits will give you the use of one acre. And that one acre could be used in any of these characteristics on Page 73. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. But his question was related to density, so that's why-- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: The residential density on that page would be -- it's different in different -- where it's located. But essentially four units per acre. COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: I understand. I was just -- there was a little bit of disagreement earlier. I guess everyone's in agreement now. Thank you. MR. McDANIEL: And just as a point, David, you asked me that question and I have an interpretation of that that probably was not nearly as eloquent as Mr. Strain's. I mean, he clarified it completely. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Are there any other questions on Page 49? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Nobody else, we'll move on to Page 50 at lightning speed. It starts on Policy 1.19 on top and goes through to the beginning of the group two policies on the bottom. Page 93 16 !nuL 28,&6 ~. Comments from the Planning Commission? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anyone? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: On Policy 1.22, you substituted in the EAR -- for those acronym people, evaluation and appraisal report -- process in lieu of the five-year anniversary. Just so we understand, that takes place every seven years; is that right, Mr. Greenwood? MR. GREENWOOD: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. So we're going trom five years to a seven-year review, basically. I think that's what -- And then where it says -- the last sentence of Policy 1.22, the specific measures of review shall be as follows. Then it starts outlining one through eight. I just want to make sure that whenever we develop this temporary policy language in 1.6.1 that somewhere that has to fit in to the way that this area's reported on. So I'm not sure how that fits yet, but it probably will just be another line on a chart as a temporary use. And Bill, while we're at this on Policy 1.22, where in those numbers one through eight is there the reference that suggests an expansion of the anticipated acreage use from 16,800 to 45,000? MR. McDANIEL: There is nothing in those particular eight, sir. And again, with reference to that, the representations early on were based upon best estimates and information available at the time. We've had. as you have brought up, Ave Maria and a lot of experience in developing of SSA's that had not been prior to that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well. I know. The review -- the five-year review's intent was supposed to be limited to those items one through eight. That's why I asked the question, because it certainly is going to be an issue, having gotten so much larger than originally anticipated. MR. McDANIEL: Well, and I'm not -- I don't refute the point. I mean, I can certainly understand how you feel the way that you do. But there were those of us that didn't necessarily hang on all the words that were the initial projections that came forth when the Rural Land Stewardship Overlay was in fact adopted at the time. There was -- at least personally I felt that there was a tremendous amount of information that had passed through to give us a much greater foundation for making the representations that we have now. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Questions, anything else from the Planning Commission? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody in the public have any questions on that page at this time? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, we'll turn to Page 51. It starts with your Group 2 policies. 2.1 is the one up on top, and we move on through to Policy 2.4. Any questions? Mr. Midney? COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Yeah, could somebody please walk me through -- did you have some sort of economic analysis, or how did you come up with the figures for 2.0 credits for non-ASC lands and 2.6 for ACSC lands? MR. JONES: You know, you can't please all the people all the timc and sometimes you can't please anybody any of the time. But, you know. one I don't want to say criticism, but one jah, lob at the program historically has been, well, it's too complicated. Okay, we kind of took that to heart, and we said we're going to develop an agricultural preservation component to this and generate credits and we'll simplity the process. So to simplify the process, we looked at what the average credits being generated on high value Page 94 16 I JlaA609 environmentaJ lands were, and it came up somewhere around 2.6. Recognizing that these lands are within the area of critical state concern because of their location within the area of critical state concern, a defined boundary by state law, that there was probably some extra incentive to value those higher than we were valuing outside the area of critical state concern. And what we're really attempting to do, and where those numbers came from as far as an economic analysis, to be perfectly candid with you there were a lot of discussions among the landowners who owned the land within the area of critical state concern, and through discussions we arrived at landowners would probably participate in this preservation component ifthere were 2.6 credits per acre. You know, it wasn't real complicated, but if you want to get to an economic analysis, sometimes to their fault farmers don't get real complicated, and that's how we arrived at the 2.6. The additional -- and so that's where it came from. It was from discussions with landowners. And the other thing that we were trying to accomplish within the area of critical state concern was to potentially consolidate a land base of consistently used habitat. And that occurs within the area of critical state concern. And there's a number of parameters that allow development within the area of critical state concern. Although in the original program it was scaled down. You couldn't do everything in the area of critical state concern that you could do outside of it. But there are significant development allowances that can be developed through there. So we looked at it at a number of different levels. And every now and then you just -- something makes sense intuitively and you just kind of draw down to the point and that's where it is. We tried to simplity it. Landowners felt 2.6 inside the area of critical state concern was enough of an incentive. It accomplished something within that boundary. And then outside of the area of critical state concern we arrived at 2.0 credits. Again, you put it up against high value environmentaJ land, it's not there. So we just dropped it down to 2.0. And it made sense to the people that were participating in the program at the time. And we had extensive discussions, from landowners as well as others, in front of the committee about how to arrive at the -- you know, how do we do this stuff. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: I certainly would respect those guys, the landowners, because they probably have a better idea than other people about the economical value of it and so forth. But I would still feel more comfortable if there was some sort of agricultural economist who had weighed in on it. Because this thing is so important. What if it doesn't work? What if the incentives are not enough and nobody wants to do it? Have you thought about getting an agricultural economist to try to do more analysis of it? MR. JONES: I'm going to go back to the farmer mindset. And I don't know that an agricultural economist has ever proved anything to us with respect to what we could -- what value we could derive from our properties. I don't mean that in an arrogant way. But, you know, you could line PhD's up from here to the area of critical state concern and, you know, whether you're going to convince anybody they're right or not, I don't know that that would occur. It was an intuitive process. The people who owned the land believed that this was a significant incentive and that's what we went with. And we did have a number of agriculture economists come in and taJk about agricultural land values and these types of things throughout the process. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Did they seem to concur with it, or-- MR. JONES: I think at the time that we came in -- that they came in, I don't know that we were discussing it. A lot of their focus was on the future viability of agriculture in Southwest Florida and along those lines. Page 95 161Jaiary 28406 I think another important component to recognize is that -- you know, and we taJk about retaining land for agricultural purposes. What these two-credit programs do is I think it's somewhere in the neighborhood of 55, 56,000 acres are potentially available for agricultural lands under this credit preservation -- under this credit program. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: I just hope it works. MR. JONES: We do too. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Wolfley? COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Paul, I just wanted you to know that Tom and I had gone around a couple of times with these numbers when they came out. And I just said, you know, where do these things come from? And I finally had to just say well, it is what it is. I mean, I don't know -- no, because I didn't know of anyone -- I couldn't find anyone that knew more about it than he did. So I just had to say, I give. MR. McDANIEL: That's a scary thought. COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: I didn't know any better. I was finally convinced. MR. McDANIEL: Just a layman's perspective of it, because I was part of that, right along with David. Thcre are already restrictions on lands that are included in the area of state's critical concern, a 90 percent overlay and protection for environmentally sensitive habitats and such. And there really was never any compensation to any great extent offered to property owners in there. So for an oversimplification for myself and again on the premise that one of our goals was to incentivize the retention of agricultural lands in the Rural Land Stewardship Overlay, an increase in the credits associated with the lands already included in there was an additional benefit for that particular landowner. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: I think it's a great idea. I just hope that it works and that it-- MR. McDANIEL: We all hope it does, Paul. Candidly. I mean, you know, and that goes to what Russell Priddy has said on a regular basis. and a lot of landowners have said, at the end of the day there has to be a marketplace. There has to be an equality and a -- we can create all the credits that we want. If there is no marketplace, they are of no value. We all hope it works. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, I need someone from the Planning Commission to make a motion to continue this meeting till 8:30 Friday morning in this room. COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: So moved. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Made by Mr. Wolfley. Seconded by? COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Second. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Vigliotti. All in favor? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Aye COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Aye. COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: Aye. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye. COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Aye. COMMISSIONER CARON: Aye. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion carries. See everybody back here Friday at 8:30. Page 96 1 "~1s, 20A> 6 ***** There being no further business for thc good of the County, the meeting was adjourned by order of the Chair at 4:30 p.m. hairman These minutes approved by the board on JV! AIL ,rr: ? 06 c; as presented corrected . L.-- or as Transcript prepared on behalf of Gregory Reporting Service, Inc., by Cherie' R. Nottingham. Page 97 TRANSCRIPT OF THE RLSA MEETING OF THE COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION Naples, Florida, January 30, 2009 ..~ A I 16Jt~;0,2 6 RECEIVED MAR 1 7 2009 B03[t..~ Of (' .....OUI1;'. '-.. . '..1 L.crnmISSiJn">r,' "." 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 8:30 a.m. in SPECIAL SESSION at Collier County Development Services Center, 2800 North Horseshoe Drive, Room 609-6 19, Naples, Florida, with oJ)~ Fiala Halas Henning Coyle Coletta the following members present: CHAIRMAN: Mark Strain Karen Homiak Donna Reed-Caron Tor Koltlat Paul Midney Bob Murray <Absent) Brad Schiffcr Robert Vigliotti David 1. Wolfley ALSO PRESENT: Jeffrey Klatzkow, County Attorney Thomas Greenwood, Comprchensive Planning Heidi Ashton-cicko, Asst. County Attorney MIsc. COITes: Date \-;'L,t\ Page 1 16 I rtanua R ~~~9 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, we're 8:30. Everybody, we need to come -- start the meeting. I ask the audience to quiet down, please. Everybody rise for pledge of allegiance. (Pledge of Allegiance was recited in unison.) Item #2 ROLL CALL BY SECRET AR Y CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Will our secretary please take the roll call. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Commissioner Schiffer? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I'm here. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Commissioncr Kolflat? COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: Here. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Commissioner Midney? COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Here. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Commissioner Murray is absent. Chairman Strain? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Here. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Commissioner Caron? COMMISSIONER CARON: Here. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Commissioner Vigliotti is here. Commissioner 1.lomiak is absent. And Commissioner Wolfley? COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Here. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, thank you. Item #3 - Continued from the January 28, 2009 Mceting FIVE YEAR REVIEW OF THE RURAL LANDS STEWARDSHIP PROGRAM PHASE II REPORT PREPARED BY THE RURAL LANDS STEWARDSHIP AREA REVIEW COMMITTEE, DATED JANUARY. 2009 Just so everybody understands what we're going to be doing today. we left off on Page 51, and that's where we'll pick up with our review of the GMP amendments. Once we complete the GMP Amendmcnts, we'll then go into review of any remaining docu -- questions from any of the remaining documentation that any member of the Planning Commission may have. And then after that, general questions that may have come up through the rcview of all this. Then finally after that the Planning Commission will go into its discussion prior to making a motion. (Commissioner Homiak enters the boardroom.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So with that in mind, on Wednesday we left off on Page 51. And we only had gotten into a very light amount of questioning at that point. Let the record show that Ms. 1I0miak is here. So we'll resume then. Brad, I think you asked the last question. I assumc it got answered. If I'm wrong, somebody -- does anybody havc any other questions on Page 5 I? Lct's just start therc and we'll move right into it again. Page 2 16 JltoAo' Paul? COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Yeah, I'd like to know ifthere's any prohibition on intensification within ago For example, changing pasture into row crops. Or is it ago ag.? MR. McDANIEL: With specificity in the designation of the individual ago designations, Ag-I and Ag-2, if you will -- COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Right. MR. McDANIEL: -- when you're in those -- and not to lead you down a path, Paul, with that, Tom could probably answer it a little bit better. But -- MR. JONES: Good morning again. Once you take a land use layer down to a particular level, that's what it's frozen at. Improved pasture is an Ag- I designation, so within Ag-I, it could be converted to either row crop or citrus. Semi-improved pasture would be an Ag-2 layer, and it can't be intensified once it's taken down to an Ag-2 layer. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: But if you started oft. where you are, you know, what the fields look like now, it couldn't be intensified above that? MR. JONES: It just depends on how it's classified. COMMISSIONER MfDNEY: Okay, thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: If you're Ag-l, you can go to Ag-2, but if you're Ag-2 you can't go to Ag-1. MR. JONES: Right. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And if you're Ag- I growing tomatoes and you want to switch ovcr and grow peppers, you can do that. So you can change the type of row crops in Ag-], but you can't go above Ag-] for use. And ag-2 is ranching and grazing and stufTlike that, more passive, isn't it? MR. JONES: Right. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Does that-- COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Yes, thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- need you where you need to go? Any other questions on Page 51 ? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, let's start at the top. The crossed-out sentence that says, analysis is shown that SRA's will allow the projected population of the RSLA in the horizon year 2025 to be accommodated on approximately 10 percent of the acreage otherwise required, if such compact rural developmcnt were not allowed due to the flexibility afforded to such development. Well, let's -- for round numbers we're looking at 200,000 acres, and 10 percent of that would have been 20,000 acres, which is when you take the real numbers, that's maybe how we got to the 16,008, because that was nine percent of the real numbers. Why are you crossing that sentence out? MR. McDANIEL: On a couple notes, Mr. Strain -- do we need to name ourselves again or are you okay with all that? THE COURT REPORTER: I'm fine, thank you. MR. McDANIEL: A suggestion that I might add is when the adoption of the Rural Land Stewardship Overlay program was put in place, there were estimations as to in fact what was going to transpire. And there were communications and estimations of credits to be generated, acreages to be generated, so on and so forth. And there was a rather lengthy explanation given at some stage of the game -- I don't believe it was to you folks -- with respect to thosc initial estimations as to the credits to be generated Page 3 161'1 A6 January 30, 2009 and the acreages that could ultimately be developed into SRA's are somewhat misleading. And if you'll recall a few days ago during my -- we weren't intentionally misleading, I might add, but during our presentation -- or my presentation of our report, our goal from a committee's standpoint was to provide clarity and to reduce ambiguity throughout the entire Rural Land Stewardship Overlay. And from our perspective on the committee's level. these were -- these particular eliminations, if you will, were somewhat skewed as to what in fact actually transpired for the adoption of the actual Rural Land Stewardship Overlay. And misleading. A lot of folks hung on that 10 percent nun1ber, when in fact after -- there was a transition of time from when it was actually developed until it was ultimately implemented where there were additional credits that were allowed to -- that impacted that ultimate acreage, up close to the -- and again, with specificity. If you'd like, I can have Allen come up here and share those specificities wjth you as to the transition of events that occurred. But this particular section we at the committee level found to be contradictory to ultimately what transpired with the implementation of the program. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Why didn't you, instead of striking the section as you did or the piece, the couple of scntences, why didn't you just take the 10 percent and use the number that it really is? MR. McDANIEL: Well, we neccssarily addressed that over in the group four policies when we set a cap out there for the ultimate developable area. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. MR. McDANIEL: And so therefore elimination here we felt was a clearer path to travel at that time. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But inclusion here makes it very clear to the public the percentages ofland that is being developed. And you're looking at 25 percent compared to the 10 percent that's here now. MR. McDANIEL: And again, with respect -- and again, you know, the committee, we went through this process. But this particular Group 2 policy revolves specifically around agricultural lands and incentivization for the retention of agricultural lands in the Rural Land Stewardship Overlay. And we felt that this information, where it was necessarily plugged in here. wasn't really flowing along with the entirety of the Group 2 policies. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Another reason this 10 percent may have been important at the time is it's consistent with what our -- the DCA had thought that the developable areas ought to equate to from the original format of the agricultural areas, meaning you would be able to develop so much at a one-to-five. And if you multiply that out and you condense it into a compact rural area, then they were looking at within -- that area should take up about no more than IO percent of the gross area that it would have previously. So maybe that 10 percent was therc for a reason, basically to signify some -- and I know we don't have to concur with DCA because we're ahead of the curve in regard to their rules. But maybe that was an attempt to do that. I don't know, but I thought it'd be more obvious to the public. instead of saying 10 percent, you just change the number to what it really is. MR. McDANIEL: And we did. sir. And in so doing struck the language with respect to the entire Rural Land Stewardship Overlay and established a cap of 45,000 acres. But we did that back in the Group 4 policies where there is spccificity and designation for the entire Rural Land Stewardship Overlay in its entirety. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Did you use a percentage anywhere? MR. McDANIEL: Not to my knowledge. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, that's what I was getting at. MR. McDANIEL: And so -- I mean, in your discussions with respect to DCA and that sort of thing, I mean, they were ultimately participatory in some of the ultimate changes that occurred that impacted that Page 4 1 ~J~J30,~09 I 10 percent number at the end of the day. I believe there was -- it was their suggestion to implement the early bonus program for incentivization of credits. And that wasn't part of the original process. I know that there were several items that came about. The restoration credits came in necessarily, if you will, after the fact as we were already going through the process. And those were -- those were items that had impacts on that percentage amount, which led to, as you have suggested, some misleading items to the public. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Is therc any other questions on this before I move on? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Then the next paragraph, Policy 2.2, you added under the second sentence, the protection measures for SSA's are set forth in policies, and it listed them. And you added Policy 1. I O. I've read 1.10 and I can't figure out why you added it. What do you feel it does that needed to be in that sentence? MR. McDANIEL: Do you havc an answer on that? I don't recall, Mr. Strain. I don't recall off the top of my head. There was -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, because it says the protection measures for SSA's are set forth. And I don't see Policy IO talking about any protection measures. MR. McDANIEL: Other than the fact that the number of uses eliminated in SSA's and in respect to the natural resource value. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But that's what you've got -- you've got that in 1.6 and 1.7. MR. McDANIEL: Priority of protection for SSA's. I think that was just some cleaning up language that we felt tied those two policies together. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, I don't sce it, but it may not be that important. Although I don't understand why it's there. Further on down in the middle of that new underlined added sentence there's a sentence that begins with open lands. It says, open lands are those lands described in Policy 4.2. If you turn to Policy 4.2, there is no reference to open lands that I find in there. So I'm wondering what definition it is that we're saying are open lands, if the defirlition isn't -- maybe I'm missing it. Do you have -- in 4.2, if you could point out a definition of open lands. MR. GREENWOOD: Mr. Chairman? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes, sir. MR. GREENWOOD: If you look at 4.2, there is a second sentence and it says, land proposed for SRA designation. SRA's can only occur in open lands. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Where is the definition that ties the words open lands? Because it's capitalized to a definition in 4.2. MR. GREENWOOD: Open lands I think on the overlay map is capitalized. But the open lands are the only areas in which SRA's can be located. And there's specific criteria, you know, that are outlined in this GMP as well as the LDC. MR. McDANIEL: And as a definition standpoint, the last sentence on Page 55 has somewhat of a definition with respect to lands that are eligible for designation as SRA's of similar physical attributes and they are consisted predominately of agricultural lands which have been cleared and otherwise altered for this purpose. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So what you're saying is everything listed the under 4.2 FSA's, HSA's, WRA's, SRA's, everything here are open lands? MR. McDANIEL: No. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, well, then what is open lands? Specifically. Can someone tell mc Page 5 1611'A6~ January 30, 2009 what open lands are? Is it agricultural fields -- MR. McDANIEL: There's a definition -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- is it WRA's? MR. GREENWOOD: Open lands are lands that are not in SSA's, SRA's, water retention areas, habitat stewardship areas or flow way stewardship areas. In other words, it's everything that falls outside of those designations. So if -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Then why don't we just say that -- leave that, and that's in that same paragraph, and that's what I circled. If that's the definition of open lands, why do we want to refer it to Policy 4.2? MR. GREENWOOD: Because 4.2 also refers to the standards. they tie back basically to the SRA designation and the criterion standards described in Group 4 policies. So they're all -- these are linked, okay? And that's why this was proposed by the committee. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: It says, therefore in lieu of using the natural resource index on lands designated open. Now, what lands are designated open? Because now we've got a new definition. We have one called open lands and now we have one called open. What is open? MR. GREENWOOD: I think they'rc onc in the samc. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Should we use the same reference to them? MR. GREENWOOD: Probably. C:JlAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Wolfley? COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Would it be -- in going back to Section 4.2, would it be wise in the first sentence to be -- because all privately owned lands within the RLSA shall meet the criteria set forth. And then it says, it goes on, except land delineated as the FSA's or HSA's and so on. Couldn't we just say prior to that are opcn lands eligible for designation? COMMISSIONER MJDNEY: It's almost like by process of exclusion. So we're saying -- we probably need to clarify that and say anything not designated as FSA, HSA, WRA or land that has been designated as SSA is open land. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: It says that in the paragraph Policy 2.2. And that's why ]'m -- and I'm not arguing whether or not it's right or wrong. ]'m simply saying let's clearly define it so there's no question about it. I had it understood until I read the reference to Policy 4.2. And I couldn't see in 4.2 where it was made clear what open lands were. MR. McDANIEL: And if I might add. from a committee standpoint, maybe trom the Planning Commission, that's one of your recommendations as we go forward with this. I mean, we at the committee level felt there's def -- therc is somewhere in bere a list of definitions as to what FSA's and HSA's and all those sort of things are. I can't point to them right this moment. But wc felt that the designation and the tying of these two together over to the 4.2 was sut1icient at that particular juncture. MR. GREENWOOD: I might also point out -- for the record, Tom Greenwood -- there's about 25 pages in tbe overlay. There's about 67 or 68 pages in the Land Development Code. The Land Development Code does spell out a lot of the things that are not spelled out here. The overlay is intended to be more general, but directive to the LDC. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I understand that. I just -- if you're going to reference a definition, I just think thc definition ought to be clear. That's the only point I was trying to make. MR. GREENWOOD: Yes. sir. MR. McDANIEL: A really good comment to -- Page 6 1 Qnb1A06 ,.~ CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Next sentence says, therefore in lieu of using the natural resource index on land designated open -- now that will be open lands -- these lands shall be assigned two stewardship credits. So really what we're saying is all open lands are ago lands; is that a true statement? COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Not necessarily. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Because if we are saying that, then why don't we just say ag.lands? Because otherwise that sentence is going to give two credits to add to open lands that may not be ag., and was that the intention of what the committee was proposing to do? MR. McDANIEL: The intention was to incentivize agriculturally used lands. And I hate to utilize the statement all open lands are in fact ag., because I'm sure somebody could find something somewhere that could be designated as open that isn't necessarily utilized as ago But, I mean, it certainly was the intent to -- the entire policy, group of policies, is revolving around agricultural land. And our goal with this amendment to the policy was to incentjvize agricultural lands and their retention. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, should we then say that ag.lands within the open lands shall be assigned? And that way it's limited to those, so that if there's some oddball piece of open land that doesn't fit any of those categories that someone's not getting two credits for it because -- MR. JONES: That was never the intention. MR. McDANIEL: I think that would be another fine suggestion as we're moving through here, to help clarity, if there's a perception that that's somewhat misleading. Again, our goal was to clarity and reduce interpretation issues. So anything in that regard to assist is certainly welcome. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Mark? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes, sir. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: I think that's a really good point you bring up. Is the committee implying that any land that's ever been farmed is still ago land? You know, things that might have been farmed 20 years ago, abandoned fields, is that still classified as ag.? I think we need to define it more closely, since these are all going to be given credits that will be worth something. MR. McDANIEL: And again, the definitions of agricultural lands, Ag- I and Ag-2, have vcry specific uses that can in fact occur or do in fact occur. And a layman's interpretation of a particular use as far as ago land, either prior or in the future, could he misconstrued. And I think the Chair's suggestion for clarification there would certainly reduce that option for interpretation ofopcn lands, if you will, if there were a swath of land out there that wasn't necessarily ago but it could bc construed as being open, so -- COMMISSIONER MJDNEY: Yeah, I think we need to have a definition. Because, I mean, it's obvious, stuff that's being farmed now is ago land. But where do you draw the line? I mean, there's a lot of lands now that are -- you know, they used to do a lot of farming around Everglades City and Chokoloskee. But those lands have been so long abandoned that -- I mean, you can still see in aerials where the irrigation ditches were, but you would hardly call those ago lands anymore, because they've been out of it for so long. MR. McDANIEL: And there is farming practices. And just as a point of reference, there are -- you know, those lands down around Evcrgladcs City and such certainly aren't a part of the Rural Land Stewardship Overlay. COMMISSIONER MfDNEY: No, I'm just using that as an example. MR. McDANIEL: There is a farming practice of rotation of crops and allowing regeneration of soils through letting the fields grow fallow and refertilization and that sort of thing, so -- and therc is definitions here with respect to estim -- good estimations, relativcly speaking, of the ago lands and their current uses and what they were five years ago when the prob'Tam was initially developed and what they are in fact now. And we had rather lengthy discussions ahout that, the fallow issue, if you will-- Page 7 16 I 1 "'1 A 6 ~ January 30, 2009 COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: What is fallow and what is not fallow. MR. McDANIEL: -- and whether it's good or not. And that really isn't necessarily the intention here. I mean, the underlying uses are in fact there, they're going to stay there. And thcre is a specific definition for ago lands in the Rural Land Stewardship Overlay that I think would -- that I think helps us. I think what the Chair's suggestion here is helps clarity that with respect to the incentivization process that we were looking to get to to assist in the retention of ago lands throughout the Rural Land Stewardship Overlay. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: I still don't see a sensc of definition, though. Are we going to say that any land that was ever farmed is ag.? Or there has to be some sort ofa cut-off in terms of years that it's heen fallow. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Before you answcr that, Paul, and I -- having a break between these meetings was kind of nice, it allowed morc time ti)r research yesterday. After you had made your point on Wedncsday about how important the preservation of the ago was -- and it's one that I had made and others have made as well -- I got to thinking about what you may have even thought you were saying. And if you couple that with the statement you made in the beginning about the Farm-workers Coalition being involved in this document, I'm not sure where farm-workers come into play on all levels of ago But the way this is written, any level of ago would he getting two credits for preservation. That includes pasture lands, ranch lands, as well as row crops and citrus and other things. So -- and it's not difTerentiatcd. I mean, thcre's more lahor needed and there's more maybe value in regards to some people's thoughts on row crops as a conswner product than there is ranch lands. Yet all ago would be getting the same benefit, two per acre. So if someone wanted to keep their land at Ag-2, basically pasture minimal and cattle to limit -- some minimal amount, they would get two credits per acre. But I don't know if that accomplishes what you were thinking in regards to the helping offarm- workers who usually are thought of to be more intensified in row crops and things like that. So I just thought I'd throw that out for food for thought for you, because there is a difference in the way the ago plays out with this two credits per acre. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: If] could, Mark, I wasn't really thinking so much in terms of that. I know that in terms of the row crops they're morc labor intensive, thcy're much more valuable to our farm- workcrs in Immokalec. And just if] might add, where the rest ofthe economy of the county is going bad, the farm economy is going good. I mean, we're having as good of a year as we always do. It's a normal year. And that economy is helping Immokalee he in a lot better shape than a lot of other areas. Jt's something that shows the value of diversification of the economy. But I just think that it would have been better, not so much the coalition of lmmokalee workers, I never made that suggestion, but something where the interests of the people whose livelihood depends on farming were at the table. But thank you. Mark. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: TOIll, did you havc something you wanted to contribute? MR. JONES: No, I don't think so. I think you answered the agricultural question cloquently. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Well, I was just trying to clarity it. The other question on that same paragraph I have is right now I think there's about -- and let's just say for round numbers 90,000 acres of ago Is that a fair statement? MR. McDANIEL: Of designated open lands. yes, sir. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Let's just talk ahout ago Page 8 16 I ~:taA,60~ MR. McDANIEL: Okay, yes, about that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Because I think in your Phase I report you call it ag., 89,357, to be exact. MR. JONES: I think that's right. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Let's just say 90, because I can multiply and subtract with 90 a lot better. MR. JONES: I can, too. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: In the 45 -- oh, you got a calculator. That was a good idea. As long as you don't rent it to me more than four bucks a day. In the amount ofland that you're asking to become the new development footprint as a maximum, 45,000 acres, 40,000 of that is agricultural land. Is that a-- MR. JONES: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. So out of the 90 that's currently present, if the development were to proceed as projectcd by this document, we would end up with about 50,000 acres of ago left in Collier County. And that 50,000 acres of ago could not be developed as an SRA, because all the SRA was already developed -- all the ago land that would be SRA would have been developed in the 45,000 that's basically mentioned in this document. MR. JONES: Yes. To reach the proposed 45,000-acre cap, you would have to include the balance of all the open acreage under the agricultural prcservation credit SSA's. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. But tile balance meaning up to about 40,000 acres, based on the paper you all passed out last week and other statements I've read. Of the 45, 40,000 is expected to be agricultural lands -- MR. JONES: Sure. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- that will be part of that 45. MR. JONES: Right. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Because that leaves you 50,000 of ago So the 50,000 of ago then can't be developed because it's outside and above the 45,000 that you're being requested to be entitled here. So then why arc we giving two credits per acre for that additional 50,000 acres if it can't do anything else anyway? MR. JONES: No, I think you've missed the point. In order to reach the capped acreage, you have to generate credits from the agricultural lands to reach that cap. If you don't take down the open agricultural lands, then you can't generate a sufficient number of credits to reach the 40,000 plus the 5,000 assumed public benefit. So if you don't have an agricultural preservation credit, one, they don't get any credits, and under what we're proposing you would probably only reach the 43,000. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. But if you didn't-- MR. JONES: Well, you wouldn't reach the 43 either. I think what we estimated when we were going through it -- I don't remember what the credit -- go ahead. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: If you have the -- if you have the ag., though, that can't be touched because it goes beyond the threshold of the developable area, what does it matter whether it has credits associated with it or not? I know you want the credits so you can get to the developable area, but it doesn't do anything to incentivize more ago from being preserved because it can't be used anyway. I think that was the intent of the statements made, how are we encouraging less ago to be used? And I'm trying to figure out how that's happening with this paragraph. MR. JONES: There's a couple things. One, the agricultural credits disincentivize the one-in-five development. Page 9 1 Qlato, ~~6" But what you've got to go back to is the entire -- the credit generation scenario. And in those calculations, under the baseline on the restoration credits, X number of credits could be generated. In addition to that, because therc was no agricultural preservation credit, then these were designated to be able to generate credits additionally. That number led to a potential development of 57,000 acres. Then the calibration was done from eight credits per acrc to 10 credits per acre to bring it back down in line to a 45,000-acre cap. So what we did, we had a number of suggested changes to the existing program. One of those proposed changes was to establish an agricultural preservation credit. One, it was done to establish credits for agriculture, because there really essentially weren't any. And two, they were generated to disincentivize the one-in-five. Thcretore, when you took a look at the sum total of all the changes that were being proposed, it took it up to 400,000 plus credits. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: 421. MR. JONES: 400,000 plus credits. That wm; then recalibrated at the 10 and dropped back down to the 45,000. So you can't look at just one little piecc and say there's no point to do it. It was done as an improvement to address a hole in the program where therc were -- whcre there was no incentive for agricultural preservation. And after that was coupled with all the other proposed changes. then thc model was recalibrated to get to 45,000. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Because this seems like the credits for ago were created to justity more credits to get to the 45,000 developable area, rather than really preserve ago Because what I thought this was going to do when I suggested that we needed something in my questions a long time ago to help incentivize ago to remain to create that balance that the Governor's order always strived for, we would be looking at a way not to develop so much ago That's already done. Ag. isn't going to go above 40,000 acres. MR. JONES: It's only done if it's considered as a part of the whole. Take a step back to where we are with this thing. We have no agricultural preservation, there's no cap, okay, under the existing program. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: There's no cap on acreage. MR. JONES: There's no cap on acreage under the existing program. We have 90,000 acres of open designated lands in the Eastcrn Collier area. And under the existing program, through the credits that can be generated, we can develop approximately 43,000 acres. That leaves us -- let's just round to 45, okay? That leaves another 45,000 acres of open agricultural lands that are eligible for the one unit in five-acre development, okay? The committee took a look at that, recognizing that there were no incentives for agriculture, because under the existing system, agriculture generates about two-tenths of a credit per acre. There's no incentive there for somebody to keep farming at two-tenths of a credit per acre. Therefore, we addressed the system and created a credit system for the agricultural lands. That system then, cither the two or the 2.6 on the 45,000 acrcs was then added to the existing program. So if you add those credits to the existing program, now you're in a range of probably 380,000 credits that are sitting out there. So then you take the -- the changes to the restoration system were incorporated into it, panther corridors were incorporated into it. All these proposed changes to address a need were then laid on top of the existing program. Then the program was recalibrated to pull it all to 45,000. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And I read all that, Tom, I understand it. Page 10 16'1 tAt{i~~09 MR. JONES: Well, without the -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Let me --I think what a lot of people seem to be hanging on is that if we don't incentivize the ago with something so that the rest of the 45,000 can utilize those credits, then the ago will be developed with one-to-five housing and the 45,000 acres will be developed as well, is that -- MR. JONES: No -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. MR. JONES: -- I don't think so. COMMISSIONER MfDNEY: Mark? MR. JONES: I think we're just not hitting it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Paul? COMMISSIONER MfDNEY: I think I might be able to help you a little bit. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. COMMISSIONER MfDNEY: What you're doing with the ago credits is you're going to take 40,000 acres and keep them in agriculture. And in exchange -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: 50.000, actually, but -- 40,000 is going to be part of the 45. COMMISSIONER MfDNEY: What you get in exchange is about 9,000 acres of developable land. So you're making a trade. Preserve 40,000 or 45,000 of ag., and you're only adding 8,900 developable acres. So the ratio is very good. And it's going to make these developments very, very attractive. Because not only are they going to be surrounded by natural land, but they're going to be surrounded by either farms or fallow land. It's -- I'm starting to get a little bit excited about thc concept of this. I think it's really good. And you are -- the only way they can get those developable acres is to set aside that 40,000 acres of farmland. So it really is going to work in the sense of preserving agricultural land. MR. JONES: Very well said. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: What do you think you're preserving agricultural land from? Let's go there first. MR. JONES: One-in-five development. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. That's what I want to ask. So now let's go back to round numhers. You have 200,000 rough acres out there. If you develop it at one-to-five, that's 45,000 homes. We're trying to avoid that. So now we're coming up with this program. We're going to have 45,000 acres that we can develop at four units per acre. So instead of 45,000 homes, we're looking at 180. So now you're telling me that after we have the potential for 180,000 homes, towns, industries, schools, everything to go with it, you think that we're going to develop the remaining ago on a one-to-five basis. I don't see it happening. And that's why this constant threat of one-to-five is pretty impractical, because I don't know how you're going to get there. MR. JONES: I think you missed what Paul said. The agricultural-- and I'll try to -- he did say it very well. The agricultural preservation credits weren't established to get to 45,000 acres. CHAIRMAN STRAIN : You just said that a little while -- MR. JONES: No, no. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. MR. JONES: The agricultural credits weren't set up to get to 45,000 acres. The agricultural credit was to disincentivize one unit to five acres. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, when you started out, someone said that the 45 -- or the credits for ago got you from 43,000 to a cap of 45,000, so -- MR. JONES: No, we were getting all confused with numbers. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Mark, can I try again? Page 11 1611 A 6~ January 30, 2009 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah. I mean, don't try to convince me. I'm just asking a question, and the answer's going to be the answer. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: No, absolutely. And your questions are excellent. I think a lot of people are thinking the same way you are. But what they've done by adding in the agricultural credits, they've put more into the pie. But at the same time, by readjusting from eight credits to 10 credits, they've sort of taken away. So they've added and they've taken away. But what they've done is changed the mix so that agricultural is a part, is going to become a permanent incentivized part of it. But, I mean, they probably havc raised the amount of developable acres some, but they've also taken back some of it too. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I understand what you're saying, Paul. Thank you. And you too, Tom. I just still have a concern the way it's calculated. So we will continue on, but I'm sure it's going to come up again in a policy in a fcw more pages, so we'll -- MR. JONES: Well, let's -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- have a chance to re-explore it. MR. JONES: Well. why don't we just try and nail it down now instcad of later? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Becausc maybc in discussion on how the 45,000 cap came about, I can better understand this issue here. Because I ran some calculations last night, and J still am trying to figure out where the incentivization is in ago And Paul, I know your cxplanation, and Tom. I know yours, but it's not making a lot of sense to me at this point. But maybe it will as we go through this. And that's the purpose of going through the whole document, so we'll keep working at it. Don't give up. MR. JONES: I'm not going to give up. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Because one way or another we're going to understand this when we leave here. MR. JONES: I've got my pen and a piece of paper. I'm ready to go through the numbers now. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Mr. Chair? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes. sir. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I have a question on how we add this in. So essentially you're going to take two in lieu of the natural resource part of the calculation for the credits, correct? MR. JONES: Right. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: So you'll be adding it to -- well, it can't be another full one, because you're not removing the agricultural layer. So what is the most somebody would get for each? MR. JONES: Two credits per acrc. As opposed to going through the -- know, it's like -- I don't know if! said it yestcrday, I don't know if I said it thc day before, hut we were trying to streamline that credit generation process. A lot of criticism, wcll, this thing's too complicated. Okay, we're going to streamline it. So instcad of going through the NRI scoring for the agricultural credits, we will assign those credits. So you're going to get two crcdits per acre, period. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: But the NRA (sic) scoring is added to the base-- MR. JONES: The NRI scoring has nothing to do with the agricultural preservation credits. Thc credit is assigned, and there is no NRl scoring associated with it. Page 12 16 1" 'J 6 i'~ Janu~ 30, ~O COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. But in the worksheet, the NRA scoring is added to the base credit. l MR. JONES: No, not for the agricultural preservation credit. There is no scoring on the worksheet with respect to the agricultural preservation credit. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. Well, should we make that clear, that the total credit would be two? In other words -- MR. JONES: Yeah, that could be a rccommendation, surc. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Because essentially what happens is you start with a base credit, maximum of one, depending -- MR. JONES: I think it does say it's assigned. Go ahead, I'm sorry. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: It says assigned two stewardship credits. MR. JONES: Yeah, open lands, da, da, da, da, da-- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: These lands-- MR. JONES: Therefore, in lieu of using the natural resource index on land designated open, these lands shall be assigned two stewardship credits per acre. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Right. Now, my point is, though, is the natural resource credits are added to the base in the process, according to this chart. COMMISSIONER CARON: It says in lieu of. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Not so? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: It says in lieu of using. MR. JONES: In lieu of: COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. [ mean, ails I'm doing is I'm looking at the worksheet and -- MR. JONES: For anything other than the ago preservation credits, yes. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. But this worksheet does say base credit plus natural resource credit. MR. JONES: Right. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: The way you phrased this say in lieu of the natural resource credit. You're not saying ignore the base credit. That's my point. COMMISSIONER CARON: Right. MR. JONES: The base credit's included in the NRI scoring, though. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Not according to my view of the worksheet here. But we can go over that on the break. MR. GREENWOOD: Mr. Chairman? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes. MR. GREENWOOD: Mr. Chairman, Tom Greenwood for the record. It might be well, because we're talking numhers, to look at section thrcc, if you don't mind. Because CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No, I'd rather wait and get to section three in order. Ifwe start going out of order we'll be all over this book, Tom. And [ can -- I know what I'm going -- MR. GREENWOOD: No, just in understanding -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- to need to a~k in section three, I have it laid out that way. And I'm sure we all have read it in order, so let's just keep moving on. One thing that this policy doesn't address is the different values of ago As we heard Wednesday, there are some -- there's arguments both ways that some of the ago is primary panther habitat. Would there be a benefit to utilizing a higher credit for that ago to discourage that ago from being Page 13 1 bual120~~ 6 " used over ago that is not considered or questioned as primary? Once the study is done another study, apparently -- I don't know how many studies are going to be done. MR. JONES: In our committee discussions, we didn't think that warranted being done. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Why') MR. JONES: We were focused on an agricultural preservation credit, and there isn't unanimity of agreement with respect to the primary zone of panther habitat. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Mark? MR. JONES: I mean. that's really a panther discussion that you're about ready to launch into. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Go ahead. Paul. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: I think in a sense they have assigned 2.6 to the ACSC and 2.0 otherwise. Because the ACSC to me is pretty much crucial panther habitat. That's right in the area. So I think there's at least some differentiation. Not, you know, on an acre-by-acre, but in a general way. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, the only thing I was thinking about, at some point the study that's been undertaken by the private partics will COl11C out. It mayor may not coincide with one of the other studies. But if it does and we needed to consider protecting the primary ago lands and there was a way to incentivize that protection to discourage those lands and encourage ago lands that weren't so primary, because there obviously are plenty of more ago lands, there's 45 -- 50,000 leftover acres ofland in ago that could bc uscd ovcr what may be the primary ago areas. Ifthose primary match up to any new studies or certain studies are now further qualified. It just seemed like a natural way to go. I understand the committee's position, so I don't need any further explanation. But I thought I'd make that statement. Because it is something I should havc been -- might have been considered as a solution to some of the concerns we've heard. Next on that -- MR. JONES: Well. there were concerns on both sides. You've heard concerns -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: We heard them from both sides. MR. JONES: And that's the point I'm making. There were concerns -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's my point. too. MR. JONES: That's my point, too. There's a -- there is one train of thought that thinks the agricultural credits should be tied to natural resource values of panther habitat, and there's another side of the discussion that says they shouldn't bc. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, and I was looking for a possible compromise or a solution that might help wecd it out when the final analysis came down again. So regardless -- MR. JONES: Well, where the final analysis really comes out. Mr. Strain, is through the consultation process under the Fish & Wildlife Service. I mean, there is an Endangcrcd Specics Act in place. People who want to develop their land have to go through that process. The SRA, the rural lands program in Collier County isn't an island. And although we can get approvals at the county level or the state level to move in these directions to develop SRA's, we still have to go through an extensive federal process that makes the deterrnination whether or not those areas can be impacted. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I'm familiar with it too. so thank you. MR. JONES: That was for the benefIt of the rest of the committee. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I notice you struck all of Policy 2.3. MR. McDANIEL: Correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: If you're so concerned about ag., and rightfully so, everybody is, wby would you want to strike that? Why wouldn't that committee come out and be as a benefit for future reviews when they come up every seven years in the EAR process? Page 14 161'f~IL~'!j JanlJ..ya, 2009 MR. McDANIEL: And from the committee's perspective, that direction was given to be -- that committee was directed to be created within one year of the adoption and the creation of this program. And it was not, it has not. And so therefore again, in a move to provide clarity we chose to strike it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Why wouldn't you choose to reignite it? I mean, why would you choose to strike it? Do you see it as not a benefit to the agricultural industry? MR. McDANIEL: There really wasn't a lot of discussion as to whether it was or it wasn't. Our -- that was our decision at that particular juncture. These questions of why, Mr. Strain, are a difficult thing, bccause ofthe diversity of opinions that travel along here. I mean, there can be henefits to a lot of different things. Our goal at the committee level was, amongst other things, to provide clarity and reduce ambiguity, and that was a clarification move that we at the committee level made. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. I mean, I understand what you just said. I still -- to me it would seem to have an advantage to have a committee like that open to the BCC. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Mark? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes, go ahead, Paul. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: I would like to support that idea, too. Because I really think -- I love the guys on the committec and what you've been doing and I like a lot of what you've done, but I really think that if we're relying on the landowners to necessarily be advocates for farming, even though I know that's your business, I don't think you can totally rely on that, because I think you're more loyal-- or your allegiance is more to how you can get the most value for your asset, which is the land, than necessarily in the agricultural industry. And so I think that it would be good to have some advocacy and some advisory group that was definitely interested in the continuation of agriculture. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, along with that thought, the same would he for Policy 2.4. It was struck. And if both policies were to come back, that's something we probably need to discuss during our deliberations as to if we feel maybe that you ought to reconsider that. So moving on, Ms. Caron? COMMISSIONER CARON: Yeah, Ijust wanted to make the comment that I -- I'm a little disturbed that we think we can pick and choose which policies we're going to follow once they're a part of the GMP and those that we're not going to follow. And apparently we just opted out of this. MR. McDANIEL: Not necessarily. There's direction there that that was to be created by an action of the Board of County Commissioners, and it never occurred. So be that as it may, there were -- that was the maneuvers on behalf of the committee. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Heidi, can the Board of County Commissioners not respond to a requirement of the GMP without moditying the GMP? I know they can modify ordinances at whim. But the GMP, because it goes through a process through the LPA and evcntually through Tallahassee and DCA, can policies ofthe GMP be modified without a process? Because if the board chose to ignore this atler it was a policy, I'm just wondering on how that could have happened. MS. ASHTON-CICKO: That's correct, it would require a GMP amendment. The board just can't ignore a policy that's in the GMP. MR. McDANIEL: There's an interpretation issue here as well. I, while we were going through this at the committee level, perceived this to be a direction of the Board of County Commissioners. Actually, if you read the policy that was struck, it says Collier County will create this committee who will then advise the Board of County Commissioners and make recommendations as to how to promote agricultural activities in our community. It doesn't necessarily dclineate a delinquency on behalf of the Board of County Commissioners, so-- Page I 5 16Ll~LA6'1 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, who is Collier County? So I mean, ifit wasn't intended to be the Board of County Commissioners, then when this was written, who (sic) do you think the intent was? People just gather up one day and say we're going to be a committee? I mean -- MR. McDANIEL: I'm not going to go there. Again, going back to it, from a committee's -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Have you been talking to Bruce? We're getting into word-smithing here and I think -- MR. McDANIEL: Y cah. we got to put a definition of Collier County in here somewhere. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, well, I think we've talked about it. We got a drift on that. We'll bring it up for deliberation when we get to that point. In Policy 2.5, which has been crossed to 2.3, I'm just wondering from a -- what the value ofthat is. And if you're -- I know you didn't change anything here, but your goal was to change things that need to be changed, eliminate things that were duplication. If -- we have the Florida Right to Farm Act and it supersedes our local laws and our state laws -- or actually this is a state law, why would wc need to restate it in this policy? Heidi, is that a necessity that it be done that way, or -- MR. McDANIEL: I don't mean to interrupt Heidi, hut from a committee's standpoint, one of our goals, one of our charges, one of our precepts, if you will, was not to eliminate duplication. Jiminy Christmas, there's duplication all over the place. This was a stated fact. It is part of the Rural Land Stewardship Overlay, and didn't feel necessarily required to remove this. This isjust, if you will, an enhancement of one of the goals and policies of the Rural Land Stewardship Overlay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Heidi, is it necessary to have a policy like 2.5 to restate that the Florida laws basically apply? MS. ASHTON-CICKO: It's not necessary, but it's, you know, policy decision if the board wants to include it or not. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. That takes care of my questions on Page 5 I. Does anybody on the Planning Commission have any other questions? Mr. Midney? COMMISSIONER MfDNEY: I'd like to ask Tom a question about that open land versus agricultural land. Do you see all open land as being classified agricultural? And if not, how would you classity it? Bccause I think ifthere is a distinction, it needs to be made. MR. JONES: Knowing what I know about Eastern Collier. I would say probably all of it is classified as agriculture. Nearly all of it, if it's not being farmed by and large, it has cattle on it. Maintained green belt on lands that were farmed previously and aren't being farmed? There might be a small acreage that's slipping through someplace, but I think most of the land in Eastern Collier outside the urban area is probably classified as agriculture on the Future Land Use Map. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: But if it's most of it. you know, we're talking about a monetary compensation. Don't you think if something hasn't been farmed for a generation or so, that the owner doesn't necessarily have thc right to this credit. or do you think they do? I don't know. MR. JONES: Well, I think they do. Because again what we're trying to do is retain land for potential agricultural production. And as some land is taken out. land that's an improved pasture now may go back to crops. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, and bef()re we move past the page, we'll turn to the public. Are there any members of the public that wish to address any of the policies on Page 5 I? Page ] 6 16 I 1 J"a(j~009 Allen? MR. REYNOLDS: Good morning. For the record, Allen Reynolds, Wilson-Miller, representing Eastern Collier Property Owners. I want to speak to the discussion relative to Policy 2. I, and spccifically the language regarding the 10 percent, because that language has been widely I guess misinterpreted or misrepresented. And I'll start by saying that the statement, although it's been proposed for deletion, is still an accurate statement. And if] may, let me just walk you through a couple of numbers. You can actually do the math on your calculator, if you'd like. If you turn to Scction 3 -- and I would really encourage, you know, as you go through this, even though I know you're taking these in order, Section 3 has a lot of the explanations to some of the credit calculations that I think would make this a little bit clearer. But if you go to Page 81. And what you'll see there is population projections from various sources for the year 2025. And what I'd ask -- DR. HUSHON: Would you give the number? MR. REYNOLDS: Page 81. DR. HUSH ON: Page 8 I. But what's -- MR. REYNOLDS: I'm about to do that. DR. HUSHON: 3.-- MR. REYNOLDS: No, it's Page 81. It's in the supporting information. And there's a table in there that shows different estimates of what the projected population and unit count will be in the rural land study area in the year 2025. And if you look up there, you can sec it up on the -- 25,700 dwelling units. That's the Collier County MPO's forecast. You can see there's some other forecasts there that are slightly higher and slightly lower, but that's the one that's heen used for the purpose ofthe analysis. Okay, so now if you take that numher and you multiply it by five, you're going to get to 128,500 acres at one unit per fivc acres. That's the number of acres that would be required to accommodate that population under the baseline standards. Now, if you take 10 percent of that, you're going to come up with] 2,850 acres. That's] 0 percent of the acreage that would be required to accommodate that population on baseline conditions. Now, if you'll turn to page --I believe its Page 90 in the supporting data. What Page 90 shows is the projections of acres that will be required to he developed for the purpose of doing transportation analysis in the year 2025. And you're going to see the figure down at the bottom of 10,200 cstimated acres developed. What that means is that it would take approximately 10,200 acres at the densities that are allowed in the stewardship receiving area to accommodate 25,700 units. So what you're going to see if you compare those two numbers is that the footprint of development under an SRA accommodates the same projected population on roughly 10 percent of the acreage that would otherwise be required without an SRA. That's what that statement means. So it was true in 2002 and it's still true, because the simple math is that when you allow average densities of two to two and a half units per acre in an SRA, you can accommodate the same population that would otherwise be required on one-tenth of the acreage that you would have if you were using one unit per five baseline rights. So because this statement has been so misreprcsented I think over time and tied to other things, the committee, when they went through this, as has been explained, felt that it wa~ probably best just to delete it, because now we have provided and vetted I think a lot more accurate estimates of exactly what's going to happen. So I just want to make sure that you can see in fact that the math still works based on that Page J 7 1 GnlaJo, 16 ~ statement. I hope that helps clarity. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: It does, but I still have some questions. MR. REYNOLDS: Okay, sure. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: On the example used on Page 90 with the 10,200 estimated acreage developed, actually that acreage could support by the density allowed 40,000 units, not 24. But you're suggesting that the density that's going to he built out is far less, two to two and a half? MR. REYNOLDS: Yeah. Because if you look at what the market actually absorbs on an average density basis, although you may have instanccs where in certain places you could get up to a gross density of four units per acre, the reality is, is that typically the markets drive that down because it's a mix of single-family and multi-family homes. So whcn you get to the mix the markets actually absorb, you find that the densities generally fall within the two to two and a half units pcr acrc range. Ave Maria is an example 0 f that. Lots of other examples that we could point to. So that's what explains it. Yeah, you can -- what's important I think is when you're trying to do estimates, you need to look at as close to reality as to what markets absorb as possible. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And the realty in collicr County is what you just said in rcgards to density. But I thought the whole purpose of this was to reducc urban sprawl. And part of the reason wc have urban sprawl is that low density. How are we encouraging a reduction in urban sprawl by maintaining the density we have along the coastal area? MR. REYNOLDS: Well, we're not talking about the coastal area right now. But I would -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I know. MR. REYNOLDS: The coastal area --I mcan, let's take the City of Naples, iryou want to use that as an example. I don't know if you consider the City of Naples to be too dense or not dense enough. I think the typical thought process is, is the density is pretty good. Some may argue that it's too high. The average dcnsity in the City of Naples is about two and a half units per acre on a gross basis. When you talk about sprawl, I think now you havc to put it back into the context of what I just described before, which is one unit per five acres. Baseline zoning is. without anybody's question, sprawl. It's sprawl not just becausc it's low density, but it's sprawl hecause it does not provide for the supporting facilities, scrvices, commercial facilities, job opportunities that you get when you create something like a new town. So the way that this solves the sprawl problem, at least in Eastern Collier County, is by substituting more compact development in the fonn of towns and villages as an alternative to one unit per five acres. That's really the simple explanation. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. I know therc's some language up in DCA or Tallahassee t10ating around for a new 9J-5 section called .026. And I understand it's being challenged. But in that section they do have an exam -- and it's for RLSA's. It spells out what the state would like to see fix an RSLA. And I'm trying to undcrstand how it would equate. I know we don't come under it. I understand that. We got in under the wire and we are exempt from these. But one sentencc thcre was a bit puzzling in trying to fit it to what we have in front of us today. And again, l know it doesn't havc to fit, but I'm wondering how it would. It says, demonstration of residcntialland use need is not required if the maximum amount of residential development for the RLSA does not exceed the cumulative amount of residential development allowed by the underlying land uses within the RLSA, as cstablished in the preexisting comprehensive plan. Of course the underlying land use primarily that we'rc constantly here about is the one to five. And for rough numbers, that comcs out to about 45,000 homes, if you use 200,000 acres. The RLSA that we'rc presenting would be 45,000 acrcs. and at four units it's 180,000 homes. Page IS 161 r"'AL~~ January 3Ho09 But if you were to take the density that would apply in a compact rural development and divide it backwards, you'd end up with I 1,250 acres that could be developed under the RLSA program compacted, versus the spread-out program of a one-to-five scenario. Is that the way the state was thinking their programs would be run in the future? Is that a fair comparison for them? MR. REYNOLDS: Well, I don't know how much time you want to spend talking about the proposed rule that you're reading from. But as you mayor may not know, that rule has now been withdrawn by the Department of Community Affairs, because it has been challenged on the basis of being an unworkable rule. So what they had proposed, however, in that rule is that there would be two thresholds, if you will, for a rural land stewardship. There would bc a threshold that would be what they would consider to be -- I'll use the word a safe harbor, okay, which would mean that if you follow that part of the rule then you get an automatic go, if you will, for having been found consistent. And what they were saying in that part of the mle is that if all you're doing is what you just described, which is compacting existing density to a smaller footprint and nothing else, that's -- you're free to go. But there's a second part of the rule that says if you're going beyond that, then you have to do something similar to what Collier County has done, which is to do a rural lands assessment, to go through an analysis, and to show a demonstration of how that all works. So there were two tiers to the rule that provided for both a simplistic process and one that's a little bit more involved. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. Any questions of Allen before we go to any other speakers? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Any other public speakers? Page 5 I. Elizabeth? MS. FLEMING: Elizabeth Fleming, Defenders of Wildlife. I wanted to say a couple of points about Policy 2.2. We have supported the intent ofthis. We understand about the incentives. We were particularly concerned about the area of critical state concern, and we didn't want to see the one per five spread throughout that area and certain areas within open the area west of29. At the same time, we know that there are some areas wherc this -- where agriculture could remain and work in tandem with some of the other land uses intended to go on in the open area, particularly west of 29 where the SRA's are intended to be. And hypothetically, I'm not -- I hope -- who knows who will -- we've discussed this some. But I'm imagining a situation where a corridor could be envisioned. And perhaps it looks thin now, but if that -- if the crcdits rcquircd to do a very wide corridor would make the possibility of it happening next to nil, if that could be planned in conjunction with perhaps retaining citrus, which is not fabulous panther habitat, but it could be buffer, could keep the citrus in place, keep that industry going, and the two could work together to retain the rural character, retain agriculture and we get a panther conidor, that's how I'm imagining this working. I don't see them as mutually exclusive or doubling up on credits. There would be one credit amount applied for the one purpose and another for the other. But I sce them, ifthis program works, with all the parties working together, I think that that could he very beneficial. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Any questions? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Elizabeth, if -- to use your example of the citrus next to a panther corridor, Page 19 16Jry l2A96 ~ if that citrus next to a corridor and the corridor was maybe narrower than it needed to be and the citrus could help widen it, more or less by use, would there be a benefit to incentivizing that citrus to stay there over a town heing there? MS. FLEMING: I would think that it would work with the corridor, if that's -- I'm using this as a hypothetical example, but I think those two could work together. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: See, we had -- I can't remember if we still do because we're not to it yet, but along certain flow ways, we had incentives to restore some of the properties that were closer to the main flow ways than others. And I'm wondering if we shouldn't have looked at some of that as a possibility to where we want panther corridors and primary habitat and things like that. But it was just a question. It seemed like it would be more beneficial. although it hasn't been -- it's not laid out that way right now, so -- MS. FLEMING: During the committee mcetings, there was some language addressing remaining-- some of the adjacent upland where it met with an SSA, a flow way or a habitat stewardship area. There was that intention to have somc upland fix travel corridors for panthers and other species. That's in one of the policies. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. MS. FLEMING: You're welcome. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody clse? Nicole? MS. RYAN: Good morning. Nicole Ryan, Conservancy of Southwest Florida. I first want to address Policy 2.1. because we seem to be going round and round about this. But I think that it docs need to again be pointed out that when the program was initially designed, it was to compress the allowahle units within the RLSA. thc one per live, down to a much smaller, more compact footprint. And that's why we supportcd Policy 2. I. in stating what development would be if participation wcre fulfilled in the program on about 10 pcrccnt of what would otherwise be needed for development in the area. That was really thc only policy within the RLSA that indicated how much dcvclopment we thought would occur. And we see now there are many morc credits than was initially envisioned. But we recommended that instead of simply removing the policy. we'd take a frank look at what is out there, how much is out there, if that is still compatible with the goals of the program, and modity and update that number. So we had asked that that be kept in. We still believe that it would be important to be kept in. So we ask that you, in your deliberations, continue to consider having that stay in the policies. In moving to the Policy 2.2, the ago policies, it's very difficult to take a look at the credits attached to these ago lands without looking at the credits that are also being proposed in Policy 3.11, and also taking a look then at Policy 4.2 which puts a cap on SRA's. and Policy 4.19 that then recalibrates because you've infused so many more credits into thc program that you have to devalue them hy requiring more credits per each acre of SRA. So I would hope that in your discussion of the concepts of do we want to attach additional credits to ago or to other things, that the actual credit numbers may he discussed later, because they all fit together and it's very difficult to say that 2 or 2.6 credits works here without looking at how it impacts the entirety of the program. As far as protecting ag., The Conservancy believes that thc current RLSA program does a pretty good job of setting land aside for ago I f you look at the current SSA's of the 37,000 some odd acres that pave been approved as SSA's, almost all of that has been taken down to its ago uses. So that land has been protected for ago I think only about 651 acres have actually been taken down to conservation. And I believe that that's also the case with many of the pending SSA acreages. So wc see -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You have to slow down a little bit. She's got to type this as fast as -- Page 20 16 I J'flry 3A ~9 ~ MS. RYAN: Oh, I did it again. Okay. We sec that this program does do a good job of protecting ago However, we have always wanted to see that those open areas that do have high natural resource value, that being primary panther habitat, that they also be protected and incentivized for becoming future SSA's. So this idea of an ago preservation category and incentivizing the protection of those ago lands that also have higher natural resource values, directing development away from those in the form of new towns and villages we certainly do support. We think that that is a good concept. However, what you have in these policies, it selectively decouples the natural resource value from the crediting system. Right now you get more credit if an acre of land does have higher natural resource value. In what is proposed, the higher natural resource value of the open lands within the ACSC is acknowledged by higher credits, yet the open land outside the ACSC that is panther habitat isn't treated any differently than non-panther habitat. So we see this as acknowledging natural resource value in one case and not in the other case. And we would like to see all of that primary habitat be treated in the same way. Now, we'll get in the panther discussion I'm sure in the Group 3 policies, so I'm not going to go into that further, but something just to keep in mind. This program was based on tying credits to natural resource value, and this would really move away from that. We believe that you can protect ago and tie credits to natural resource valuc. So we would like to see that being done and really directing SRA's, new towns, new villages, outside of those higher natural resource value ago lands, simply not allowing the new towns there. In the policies, I thought I heard that whcn you take the land down under the proposed policies that if it's in pasture, passive pasture, that it could not be intensified. I don't read it that way here. I read it that for the ago conservation preservation, it's taken down to levels five, six and seven. And that is the Ag-I, the Ag-l support and the Ag-2. I don't see anything that says that you cannot move between those ago uses. So I think that needs to be clarified. Because The Conservancy believes that once you do take credit from that ago land, you should not be able to turn pasture into row crop. I don't believe that it says it here, but I'd like to have that double checked. And just a point on the credits that are being proposed in this policy. Keep in mind from the Wilson-Miller numbers; they're saying that you have approximately 42,300 acres of SRA's available today. Conservancy believes that if you actually applied more restoration credits, there would be more land. But using their number as an example, they're wanting to go from 43-3 to 45,000 acres to cap the SRA's. So that's 1,700 additional acres for SRA's that they're wanting to obtain. This policy would infuse 89,000 additional credits into the system. And if you divided even by that new calihration of 10 credits per acre of SRA, that equates to 8,900 acres of new SRA's. So that's why I say, you don't look at specific credit values attached to this right now. I think that wc really need to dig deeper into those numbers to make sure that we're not just infusing so many more credits in the progrmn that five, 10, 20 years later we find we have credits and all of a sudden we need to remove the cap. We believe that there is too much SRA acreage out there today available, so we would like to see that compressed. But definitely we want to make sure that future incentives are going to be able to be tied to things that aren't going to simply throw more acreage at development. Because from a natural resources perspective and an ago preservation perspective, we really need to compress things down. Tfwe have a lot of extra development out there, where is it going to go? It's going to go on the ago lands. So we ask that you consider those. And just briefly, to the Policy 2.3, this wasn't a big issue for 'Ibe Conservancy, hut we do agree that Page 21 1 ftt 1, 200~ 6 ... if preserving ago is so important, wouldn't a committee that could be a forum for researchers and scientists to come together, wouldn't that be something that was a benefit? Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Nicole, one question, and Mr. Midney has one as well. You reference a number on a computation of the credits that could be generated from the additional agricultural credits. MS. RYAN: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ifwe have about -- and I know it's pretty close to 50,000 acres of open lands, which are considered to be ago lands. Wouldn't that give us about 100,000 credits instead ofthe 89 -- I think you said 89,000 credits. Did you mean -- MS. RYAN: I'm taking that from the supplemental material. So-- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. Mr. Midney? COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Nicole, what would you think about the idea ofleaving the 2.6 credits for the lands in the AcSc and adding all the other primary panther habitat as 2.6 and then reducing the ones that's not primary panther habitat by a proportionate amount so that it came out to the same number of ago credits? MS. RYAN: Well, I think that we really have to look at what credit values make sense. If you try-- if you're going to avoid the primary panther habitat throughout the RLSA, you're left with, excluding Ave Maria, about 32,700 acres for potential SRA footprints. And the concern is that depcnding on how many credits you add in, you may he actually entitling development that would exceed that 32,700 acres and then would have to go on primary panther habitat. So the real challengc is to make sure that as you're directing development to an appropriate area, an appropriate footprint area, that you're not cntitling credits that would exceed that area, thus defeating the purpose of protecting those ago lands or protecting the natural resource areas. But we definitely would like to find a way to incentivize protecting those ago lands that have the higher natural resource value. We just see that as a double benefit. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: But you wouldn't have to do that as long as you kept thc acreage cap. MS. RYAN: If you kcpt the acreage cap, sure. But I think there is a legitimate concern that if you infuse so many credits into the program and then you've hit your acreage cap and landowners have credits that have no value and they can't use them, then what happens? Do you provide a mechanism then for increased density within the SRA footprint so that they have a place to use those credits? Do you allow for transfer of density to other parts of the county, maybe into the urban area where appropriate? Those could be some ideas for making sure that there is an outlet for thosc credits so that you're not creating too many credits that then have no value. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. Russell ? MR. PRIDDY: Russell Priddy. I think if you try in any way to tie ago preservation to the natural index -- resource index, you do away with the ago preservation. Because no landowner is going to be able to generate enough credits out of that system to even think about making it work. So, you know, the two credits is probably a bare minimum. And, you know, I can only eat so many Hershey bars, so don't give me more credits. That's -- you know, because we had to calibrate down to stay with the 45. I think what we're really trying to do -- and Nicole has mcntioned that the SRA's to this point have done a good joh in protecting ago They've done a good job at protecting Ag-2, because most of those SRA's Page 22 16 I Jiary 3A 28~ have been in the ACSC and those areas. What we're trying to do here is protect Ag-l more with keeping row crops and citrus, and giving those landowners an inccntive or a backup, financial backdrop to stay in ago And it's going to take, you know, this 2 credits or 2.6 to accommodate that. And I know while we don't agree, and your Chairman is one of them and rightfully so, that, you know, no, we can't go out there and develop all 200,000 acres at one-to-five, but I think if we narrow this down, Ag- I can certainly more readily be converted to one-to-five. And if that's 50,000 acres, that would be much easier to convert to one-to-five, which we want to stay away from. I think this policy addresses that. Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. Any questions? Anybody else? Oh, Brad. MR. CORNELL: Good morning. Brad Cornell. I'm with Collier County Audubon Society and Audubon of Florida, as well as a member of the committee. I just wanted to make one point, going back to the conversation that Russell just mentioned and that you all had on why have ago preserve credits when it seems like the ago will just be preserved anyway if you build the 45,000 acres of SRA's. And to that let mejust throw this into the discussion, that it was my perception that if you build more and more SRA's, Ave Maria or Big Cypress or Serano or whatever your development is, is being entitled through credits. Once you get -- the more you get out there, the more you're going to incentivize somebody who does not participate in the Rural Land Stewardship Program to avail themselves of conversion to one on five. Because right now it just doesn't seem reasonable that you would expect a farmer, a small farmer or any farmer to convert to one on five, because there's nothing around them. There's no infrastructure, there's no grocery store, there's no place to shop. They wouldn't do it. But as you build these other communities out there, legitimately being entitled, then you have incentives to convert to one on five. They would piggyback -- basically without having to build their own infrastructure, they would piggyback in a sprawl fashion in areas that we don't want to see that. And that would be my perception of why we need that ago preserve. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you, Brad. Bill, you'vc got comments on that page, or are we going to move on? MR. McDANIEL: I do have one final, if! might. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Absolutely. MR. McDANIEL: Just that there's been quite an interesting discussion going here. And I'd just like to offer this up as a thought process from my position on the committee. Time is going to be a huge benefit to all of us as the evolution of the Rural Land Stewardship Overlay goes forward. And I cite the example, look how much we've learned in the last five years with the creation of Ave Maria and such. There's a lot of discussion about the valuation of credits. Those valuations are going to be determined by the marketplace. And I can assure you that if we find that there's a deficit or a disincentivization with respect to the creation of credits, that during the future review processes that we have placed in here, we will make amendments to the process to provide that value. Ultimately therein the goals of the Rural Land Stewardship Overlay are for incentivizing the retention of agriculture and the protection of environmentally sensitive lands. And I just would like to -- there's a lot of accolades with respect to devaluation by too many -- and it's a perception that's not incorrect. Page 23 16Jlnu13A('~ But that actually devaluation has not occurred. And we all know at the end ofthe day there has to be a marketplace for these credits that we're in fact generating. So I would just like to offer the thought process that, you know, with time, as time goes on, we'll have an opportunity to make adjustments, as has becn suggested for the further valuation, either increasing of densities inside the SRA's or relocation of these credits that are in fact created to other urbanized areas that already have infrastructure in such a place. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well. Bill. if we could move credits back and forth and issucs within the GMP policies back and forth at ease, I'd be much more comfortable that the future could adjust any mistakes we made today. MR. McDANIEL: And I -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The problem I have is that along the coastal community of Collier, when the original GMP was put in place, it entitled landowners. And once you give them an entitlement, you can't take it away. So my concerns are not that we can change this in the futurc, my concerns are can we go back if we make a mistake. And so I think that wc have to he overly cautious to make sure we're not giving too much that we can't take back. Because we can only give more in the future, as we're learning now aftcr five years, we're giving more than we intended, or at least wc thought. some of us, five years ago. MR. McDANIEL: And again, a lot of that's perccption. Our goal from the committee's standpoint, it was discussed at length, a tremendous amount of time was spent on assuring that there wa~ a valuation process in place for these credits to be in fact utilized to ensure the success of the program. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And your primary concern is that the credits gct utilized; is that a fair statement? MR. McDANIEL: And that there's a marketplace, yes. I mean, there has to be a value for those. I mean, and again, those values are such and we did our best throughout the process to assure to assure that there was value for those. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, before the day's over, maybe we'll have some ideas that would help with your concern. And with that, well, we're closc to a break time. And beforc we go to Page 52 in Group 3, why don't we take a break till 10 after 10:00 and resumc. (Recess.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, if everybody will please take their seats, we'll get it moving again. Okay, we left off on Page 52. Fifty-two contains basically -- begins the Group 3 policies. There are three policies written on Page 52 with Policy 3.4 on the bottom, starting on that page and going to 53. Very little changes by the committee recommended on Page 52. Does anybody have any questions tfom any of the policies on Page 52? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No? The WRA's on Policy 3.3, there's no changes there. but had the committee discussed the idea that there may be different values, different uses or different values for WRA's? Some of the WRA's are not as intense farm fields with straight line ditches and non-native growth in the littoral areas and things like that, versus other that are more natural in habitat and formation. And I'm not sure this is the right policy to put that in. but] noticed that the -- I don't know how that was taken into consideration, or even if it wa~. MR. McDANIEL: There were discussions with respect to the utilization and the evaluations, if you will, of WRA's and how they're in fact included or were in the past necessarily excluded tfom the overall Page 24 161 '~an16~9 acreage of SRA's. And I think we -- and I'd really like for you to hear from Mr. Jones. He gave a very in-depth discussion yesterday with respect to that process. He's not back yet from the break, but -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's okay, because that exclusivity issue is actually three pages forward. So we can hold off till we get to that one. It's under Policy 3.13. MR. McDANIEL: That's correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, if there's no other questions on that page, we'll move to the next page, which is Page 53, Policy 3.5 through Policy 3.9. Anybody have any questions on those policics? There's only one small -- or a couple small changes on that. Go ahead, Ms. Caron? COMMISSIONER CARON: Just down at the bottom under 3.9, it says the Ag-I group includes row crops, citrus, specialty fimns, horticulture, plant nurseries, and it goes on to say aquaculture. And I think that got eliminated altogether, right, on the chart in the back? So you want to delete it from here as well? Didn't you take that out as a possibility? MR. McDANIEL: Yeah, there were lengthy discussions revolving around aquaculture and its relationship to agricultural uses. And I know that we in fact -- I don't know that -- I don't know why we didn't actually strike it from here, Ms. Caron, but the -- I know that we made suggestions outside of this specific report to direct staff to review aquaculture as it resides within the Land Development Code. There are-- COMMISSIONER CARON: Wcll, it needs to be consistent is all I'm saying. You've taken it out. MR. McDANIEL: Correct. COMMISSIONER CARON: You've crossed it out completely. So you should probably take it out here as well, I would think. I mean, I don't -- if you don't know why you left it in-- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I'm just curious as to what the reasoning was -- COMMISSIONER CARON: I know, to take it out. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- to take it out. Can you tell us? If that doesn't go under agriculture, what does it go under? MR. McDANIEL: It -- do what? I'm sorry? It necessarily has a purpose, it has a definition. But we found that there were some deficiencies in the Land Devclopment Code relating to the utilization of aquaculture a~ a methodology for extraction of aggregate materials. And quite a misuse, actually, with respect to that. So that was the premise there. I mean, there -- and again, I'm not ccrtain what -- you got an answer, Russell? MR. PRIDDY: Well, I think that that was a big issue with Nancy over just what he's saying, being able to go into an SSA and extract fill material. If it's in an SS -- you know, once it's in an SSA, then it's out. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. COMMISSIONER CARON: But that's not what this is saying. Go ahead, that's all right. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: If ag -- how did you dccide that Ag-I is really limited to only certain uses in ag.? And I know the example Nancy is maybe basing her assumption on. There was a case that came before the Planning Commission, and it ended up being I think denied by us, and it involved what you're talking about, they were taking aggregate. Now, they claimed they weren't going to do that, and they were providing all kinds of arguments as to why they weren't going to do it. But because of some other lacking details, wc did not agree that that wasn't going to be happening more than the agriculture might be. So it didn't succeed, but it set an example as to some of the problems and the way this can be Page 25 1611 ~6W'1 January 30, 2009 interpreted. But at the same time, bona fide aquaculture would be a hugely beneficial element to have in Collier County. And you can't have it without some modification to the land, just as you can't have row crops without modification to the land. So if you can go in there and bulldoze down trees, dig ditches to take runoff and convert land to row crops which basically changes the landscape, isn't there a way to limit or value aquaculture so that it could be utilized under an Ag-I ') MR. McDANIEL: And again, thc premise of the discussions at the committee level-- and Anita Jenkins is here to further this. But our thought processes were the impacts of aquaculture within the creation for the SSA's and those impacts that you necessarily were just discussing. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Anita. are you speaking for the puhlic or helping the committee? MS. JENKINS: I am Anita Jenkins, with Wilson-Millcr. And I'm going to help answer your question about where did these land uses come from. That's the question that I heard. How were they defined. In the original program, when the program was created, and as it's adopted, the land uses that are on your layers on Page 71 are the land uses that arc permitted or as conditional uses under the existing zoning of agriculture that is on the property now. What was proposed by removing aquaculture from the agriculture Group I only removes that use if you are putting it in an SSA. So the use is still there underlined. If you'd like to do aquaculture, you need to do it under your baseline rights and not as part of an SSA. So you still have the ability to do it out there, but it's just not part of your SSA land use. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That sure does clarity that lot. Does that work for you, Ms. Caron, as far as an explanation') COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: In other words. it goes in ag., not SSA. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. So thank you. COMMISSIONER CARON: Yep. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Wcll, Mark. can I a~k a question? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Sure. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Could it ever be confused that by stripping that layer you're not stripping the aquaculture~ No? MR. McDANIEL: No. My perception with respect to the creation of an SSA, you take it down to certain layers of agricultural uses. So those SSA's are in fact there. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But if you decide to makc an SSA and you have Ag-I and you turn that Ag- I into an SSA, then once you turn it into an SSA, you cannot do aquaculture. But prior to that you can. Is that what we're saying? MR. McDANIEL: Ba~ically, yes, sir. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Before we move on to the next page, since we've gone through two pages of policies, are there any public comment on Pages 52 or 53, Policies 3.1 through 3.9? MR. McDANIEL: Only to the extent, Mr. Chair, that Mr. Jones is back. And if you want to reenter that discussion on WRA's over there on 3.3. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No, I'm going to wait until we get to 3.13. MR. McDANIEL: Okey-dokey. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, seeing nobody else, on Page 54 there's a series of policies starting at 3.10 and 3.1 I. Anybody from the committee? Paul? COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Yeah, going down to policy 3.11 near the bottom, you're talking about -- I guess you're calling this the ticred restoration credits. And I'm having trouble with the definition Page 26 1 &trtf:ms9A 6 of what that is. The first one that they talk about is caracara restoration, which I guess they define as properly managed pasture. I'd like to see that better defined. The next one is exotic control burning. What does that mean? How often do you do it? For what duration? When do you get the credit? Once you get the credit, what incentive is there for the land manager to continue managing that and burning to keep the exotics down? Flow way restoration at four credits per acre and native habitat restoration at six credits per acre, I don't see those terms defined anywhere. And I think if this is going to be part ofthc land use regulation, it needs to be defined a lot better. MR. McDANIEL: And I might add that in the creation of an SSA, there are very specific regulations, if you will, as to maintaining perpetual oversight of these created restoration areas. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Where are thosc rcgulations? MR. McDANIEL: I believe they're -- MR. GREENWOOD: There's about 68 pages in the Land Development Code. I have a copy with me, but I'd certainly be willing to share that with you. MR. McDANIEL: And it is rather specific with respect to amounts of times of these management practices that are there. And at the committee level, because there was rather extensive definitions that are relied upon in the Land Development Code, we chose to not put all that in here, other than just to specifically describe the credit systems associated with those. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Are their credits, Tom, for caracara restoration in the Land Development Code? MR. GREENWOOD: No, it's not addressed. It's proposed by the committee. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: And are there in the Land Development Code regulations for exotic control burning? MR. GREENWOOD: I'm not sure offhand. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I think for whatcver -- a lot of the language that's being introduced, Paul, is new language. I think the next step is going to have to be modification of the LDC to implement the changes to whatever extent they're approved. So there may not be these items in the Land Development Code now because we couldn't have anticipated it. But that code itself is going to takc prohably a year or less or more after this is approved to get it initiated and approvcd and through our committec as well as others. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: But if we approve this and we don't have the details of what it means, we don't know what we're approving. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I would assume, and maybe Tom you can answer this. If the GMP's approved, can it go into effect any sooner than the implementation LDC's are adopted, or can it happen without any implementation language? MR. GREENWOOD: I refer that question to our attorney here. But the GMP basically serves as the basis for Land Development Code regulations and changes. And the Planning Commission will see if some or all of these or some of these are adopted into the Growth Management Plan. You will see some Land Development Code regulations and standards that are very specific that carry out the intent of the policies. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah, but I think the problem is Paul's concern, rightfully so, of the gap. This may take six more months to get done. Then the language starts getting written because you can't write till you know what's adopted. And by the time that's written and approvcd and through the process, it could be another year. So in that ycar's time could someone come in and say I'm going to do caracara restoration, here's Page 27 . A (, ~.'" 16Jiu130, 2009. my field, there's my tree, I want the two credits. So I think that is what the concern is. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: I mean, you know, a lot of these things, burning in order to maintain certain types of habitat, it has to be done at least every three years. Is that in the LDC? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Not yet. Heidi, you want to try helping us out? MS. ASHTON-cICKO: Yeah. You know, the GMP amendments have an eftective date and process that it goes through. Once they're eftectivc, you know, we do follow them. However, we do provisions in the Land Development Code in some instances to clarity how to implement it. So I have seen staff apply it once it's effective, but there probably is some sort of lag time generally for staff to -- for the implementation portion, especially with this type of a program, so -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Should we build in language that indicates that the changes in this RLSA bcing proposed to whatevcr point they'rc adopted won't become effective until thc Land Development Code implementation language is adopted as well to -- that institutes them? MS. ASHTON-CICKO: I don't think that that's necessarily required. However, you may want to define these terms in the Land Development Code as it goes forward. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, then let's go back to Paul's question. If this is adopted, say by June and the LDC's couldn't get adopted till June of 20 I 0, in that year could someone come in and say I want two credits per acre for caracara restoration, when we don't have a Land Development Code telling us what qualities for caracara restoration, we just havc a GMP amcndment that says he's entitled to it? MS. ASHTON-CICKO: Well, I think thc answer to that would be is you see if this language is going forward for staff to start working on thc LDC amendmcnt so that they're implemented as close to the time of adoption as possible. So that would bc my recommendation. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. But what if they're not adopted in close proximity to one another? What if there's a week in between or a month in betwecn? COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Mark') CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I think that's a concern. Go ahead, Paul. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: I have a suggestion. I mean, there's a lot of credits that are going to be coming on line as we go through the process. Maybe we could defer the actual restoration credits. Bccause this is going to be going forward until the year 2050. You could just defer the granting of those credits until the terms are defined exactly. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, and that's what I think we'll prohably end up considering when we come into -- Tom? MR. JONES: Mr. Midney, to some of your question, under the current systcm there are restoration credits that can be generated. And they're generated through the SSA application, and a plan of restoration that accompanies that application. And in there it specifies what's going to be done to meet these goals of the restoration. And that's approved by staff. That's the existing program. What's also included in Policy 3.11 is about halfway down through the -- three-quarters of the way down through the first paragraph with the line starting, with owner. Owner also complete blah, blah, blah, blah. Credits for each -- credits for each acre of restored land upon demonstration that the restoration meets applicablc success criteria as determined hy penn it agency authorizing said restoration. So there is a plan that accompanies it, even today. And, you know, it doesn't get into all your definitions and stun: but according to the program that's in place, a plan has to be devcloped, it has to approved, it has to have success criteria before the crcdits are awarded. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: But that implies that there arc some sort of criteria that staff has. What are thosc criteria? Page 28 16 fan!, Jf, t() ~ MR. JONES: Probably professional judgment, I would guess. I don't know what their criteria (sic) are. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Is it on a case-by-case basis, or is-- MR. JONES: Yes. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: -- there some absolute standard? I think you need -- MR. JONES: It is on a case-by-case basis. Because the way the restoration credits work today is rather broad as far as what can be done. Flow way restoration can cncompass a number of things. It could involve culverts, it could involve berm removal, it could involve exotic removal. What we've tried to do with this system is break it out a little bit more refined than it exists today. And no, and everything's not defined. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: But would you like to see it defined better? MR. JONES: I would prefer to leave it to -- no. Because I think there's enough variability in it that once you say this is what happens h a piece ofland is very dynamic, and what may be appropriate in some portion of Camp Keais Strand, if you had to do that -- well, if you had to install culverts and that was part of your flow way restoration, there could be restoration areas that don't require culverts. I think it would get more complicated. I think if a plan's put before staff, then staff can determine what's in front of them, if that's meeting the goals and objections of the restoration. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: I for one would disagree. I think that you-- MR. JONES: I figured you would. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: I mean, especially if you're going to give somebody a credit and say okay, my land is restored, give me the credit, I'm going to put up these units over here. MR. JONES: Well, again, there's -- COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: After that what incentive is there for the landowner to make sure that it's -- five or 10 years from now it's still, you know -- MR. JONES: Part of the requirement with the restoration plan is managcment in perpetuity. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I think, Paul-- COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Yeah. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: When we get into our discussions, we can always suggest that something be added that these are subject to the LDC amendment adoption that puts them into implementation. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: I think that would he good. And I don't think it would be that much of a burden because we are talking about a long time frame here, and there should be enough time to get the regulations in place so that these terms are defined and the landowner has a certain amount of certainty about what he has to do and what he doesn't have to do. And the public also. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, the Land Development Code currently has some very species specific language for the RLSA, because it mirrors what's being struck in other pages of this document. And it may have some general language that functions for management plans for any other species. But that can be worked out as we move forward, so -- and we can sec what that has. Anybody else on Policy 3.1 I on Page 54? Paul and then -- I'm sorry, did you finish? If not, go right ahead. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: I finished with 3.1 I. I was going to go 3.1 I. I.2. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, why don't you finish your questioning and Brad will go next. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Okay, on 3.1 I. section two where it's talking about the panther corridors, I would like to see something in there that the corridor has to be kind of an all or nothing thing. It's like the links of a chain. If you have a corridor but one piece in the middle is going to be developed for something else, then the whole corridor will be kind of functionless. And I would hate to see credits given Page 29 .,"--".__~...____-....-.._,""___.,,.,_._..__.~~~.~._ ._~~. ."'''.m''_'..______~_.~ 16 I luary ~.f~~ for something that has no hope of working. Could we write it in there in some way so that -- MR. McDANIEL: I have an ovcrsimplified answer for that. I mean, because you're going to get a myriad of people up hcre in a minute talking about panther corridors and the viability and what's right and what's wrong, what's good and what's bad. At the committee level we saw a deficit, if you will, or a need for the creation of those corridors. And in so doing, you've seen maps that have been floated around that designate currently -- we created an actual area of some 2,300 odd acres for thcse corridors. And that was done from a land ownership perspective to provide for that continuity. Paul, that you're talking about for the initial creation of those corridors at the committee level, recognizing that the original progran1 virtually had nothing there with respect to the creation of those corridors and the neccssity tor some kind of creation coincided with wildlife crossings that ultimately need to be part of the planning process, which is what we're all doing, to allow for the locale of those potential wildlife crossings to be part of the budgetary process for the road improvements that are ultimately coming to this area. So that continuity that you'rc looking for is in fact therc through the process of the ownership interest whcre they currently are suggested to be located now. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Well. I don't think there arc, because all you need isjust one landowner in the middle to say I don't want to cooperate with this and you have no corridor. MR. JONES: I think it's a reasonable suggcstion. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Why don't you articulate that suggestion a little bit more so we can make a note of it to discuss it during our deliberations. You're looking at suggcsting that a panther corridor won't bc -- how do you -- COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Thc stewardship credits can't be assigned for the panther corridors until there's a commitment of enough landowners to set aside enough land so that there is an entire viable corridor that's not missing any important pieces. Sorry, that's not very clear. MR. McDANIEL: That's close enough. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Close enough. COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Well, we could use the word contiguous to simplity some of that. Contiguous panther -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, it wouldn't matter if it's a -- it has to be a viable corridor, it would have to be contiguous. MR. McDANIEL: And there was discussion, just tor your information. I mean, you could look at the record, there was discussion with rcspect to the continuity of those corridors. And that was the path that at the timc that thc committee -- with the information that we had in fact available, that we chose to ensure that. Now, it's a viable point. And we did that by the consent, if you will, of the land ownership interests that are involved in that currently. COMMISSIONER MfDNEY: Yeah. I mean, I hope it works. But, you know, I'd hate to see a lot of credits givcn lor something that's not viable. I think about driving down the McDaniels (sic) extension in Lee County hetween the airport and Lehigh Acres, and you have these -- you have a four-lane highway, divided highway with panther crossing signs going over it, and it's just ridiculous. You know that there's no panthers crossing that, it would bc suicide. And I would hate to see something that is set up sort of like in name as oh, yeah, this is a panther crossing but it's not functioning, it's like possible. And we have such a great ability to dclude ourselves into thinking that if we name something, that it will actually be what we say it is. MR. McDANIEl.: And it wasn't without a tremcndous amount of discussion, Mr. Paul, about the Page 30 161 r:'~6i~9 designation of these corridors, if you will-- and again, these are conceptual maps locating these conceptually -- but it was with a tremendous amount of information. And you're going to hear that there's more information coming. You've already heard that. And as Mr. Strain already suggested, you know, there's going to be continuing studies as to the viability of these things. But these corridors weren't necessarily willy-nilly put therc. There were in-depth discussions with Darrell Land as to the type of habitat that the panthers prefer to travel, their existing habitats where they're living now, where they're going, the telemetry marks or hits, if you will, that are picked up, the paths that they travel, the known corridors. And you can see, if you look at those two maps, we did that yesterday, of the two maps side by side, that therc was a reason behind what in fact it was to get to a point where -- and again minimally the establishment of thc corridors places in the planning process the wildlife crossings that are ultimately going to be necessary, whether it's here or over there, whether the panthers or wildlife read the signs or not, these are known travel routes that the critters like to use. And that was why we at the committee level chose to establish the corridors conceptually as they are. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Did you have any more, Paul, on 3.1 I'! COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: No, that was it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, Brad? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Yeah, and to follow up on that too, in 2 does that mean that the landowner who puts in the missing link of a corridor, does he get 10 credits or eight credits? He gets two for being in the corridor and then there's an additional eight prize for completing the chain, which Paul might discourage, complete change (phonetic), because everybody wants to be the last guy in. MR. McDANIEL: I don't -- that wasn't necessarily the intent there, Brad. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: What is the intent there? MR. JONES: The way it works is similar to the other credits. If you're in the proposed corridor, realizing the discussion we just had with Mr. Midney, the way it's written, if you're in the proposed corridor and you designate your land for corridor, you get two credits upon designation. The eight credits don't come until the corridor is established. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. So anyhody in the corridor is ultimately going to get 10 credits. MR. JONES: Yes, at completion of the corridor. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. All right. And then-- MR. JONES: If they build it. If an agency steps in and builds it, then they don't get the credits. If Conservation Collier were to build the corridor, the landowner wouldn't get the credits, but he does get the two credits for designating the corridor. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I think that last sentence could be reworded, but -- because it appears to me the last guy in gets the prize. And then the other thing, Mark, up in the top, there appeared to be an exotic control. This is a scrivener thing. I think the word acre should be singular, not plural. That's all. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Tom, do you sec where he's talking about? Hello? Tom, did you catch where Brad was talking about? You might want to re-describe it, because Tom will have to make the notes on that. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: In 3. I I in the additional word there's a small scrivener word, in exotic berming, the word acres should be singular, I think. MR. GREENWOOD: Okay. I'll make that change. Page 3 I ___~"..,.,~~", ","~,_",~_,."",,-,,"__,~__"_.__..c____,._.__,,_.._.,,____'~'__'__."'''_'W__~'~''_<__._,.___~____.__. 16 1.ral,ry3<A6" COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody else on 3. I I? COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Sorry, 3.11.3 on the bottom. Again, what is -- how do you define seasonal shallow wetland wading bird foraging habitat? How do you define what a restoration. successful restoration is~ I think that needs to be defined. you know, before we can start giving these credits. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That would he an LDC issue. Okay, anybody else on this page? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Again -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Brad'? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: -- it should be noted that what's going to happen there is they're going to get two for joining in and then once it's complete they get an additional six, for a total of eight. MR. McDANIEL: Correct. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: But everybody gets it. I think you do have to reword that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. If we go hack to the top on. I I, it says that, first of all, should -- the fourth line down, should a property owncr bc willing to dedicate land for restoration activities within an FSA or HSA. So first of all, they're in an FSA and an HSA, which has a high ranking value of stewardship credits, NRI value. So most likely it's not going to be developed for anything but FSA and HSA. Then all they got to do at that time is say, and by the way, 1 don't care if you restore it or not, and he gets two more credits, is that right, on top of any credits he would generate by being an FSA or an HSA? MR. JONES: Ycs. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Well, who wouldn't say that? I mean, we're just -- why don't we just -- I mean, why would -- who would you not want someone to say that, give me two credits? Why not? MR. McDANIEL: You know. from a committee level. and again, it's not a matter of who would say it or wouldn't say it, the prioritization for rcstoration activities in and around FSA's and HSA's was our goal there. Remembering that, that there are benelits associated with restoration that occurs in and around FSA's and HSA's. Our mentality there was for again incentivization. It was brought up in the original plan. There were priorities put on specifics, Camp Keais Strand, if you will, and the Ok. Slough and such, that needed to havc, wanted to have that sort of thing, and that there were designation of upland lands and things that wcre close there that weren't necessarily part of that process. So that was the main reason from the committee's standpoint of implementing that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But if the FSA's and HSA's have a high NRI value, they're going to have to be preserved anyway, because that's the most profitable point of them, unless they stay non-SSA's, which is not too likely. So we're just giving everybody two more freebie credits, it seems like, in those conditions. MR. JONES: Remember. that's the verbiage from the existing program, the designation credits. What the committee is proposing is a change to that. But back to your question of who would do it and why not do it, I think trom a practical standpoint with the SSA's that have been submitted and approved thus far, it certainly isn't being done willy-nilly by any strctch of the imagination. What the landowner -- and the designation credit, I think, you know, it came trom the early discussions. And whose comer it came from, I don't recall. But by the landowner designating and the discussion that took place -- and Camp Keais will probably bc a good example lor it. Simply by dcsignating, you do get some credits. Because the Page 32 161 1~,.' AL t~ Janu 02009 landowner's at some risk at some point in time. If you were to have an HSA, a designated HSA that's farm land, for instance, and you go in and say I'm going to put a restoration plan together, here's my plan, I want my two credits per designation, and your intention is to continue to farm that infinitely or indefinitely, a possibility could exist that a government agency may think that's a suitable piece of property that should be restored for some reason or another. You could take our farming operation in Catherine Island on the southern end of Camp Keais Strand, which is 2,000 acres of tomatoes surrounded by HSA's. It's some of the acreage that was included by request from the conservation organizations. But if we were to go in there and say okay, we want our two credits, give them to us, it wouldn't be inconceivable that an agency such as the Water Management District might think there's a real opportunity to convert that land, take those farm dikes down and reestablish sheet flow through that area. So it was not -- it was to provide an opportunity because the conversation at the time of creation was well, the government might want to convert some of these lands back, or some of the conservation organizations may have some money, mayhe they want to do it, and that's why it was put in. And it remains m. What we've done in thc program, recommendation from the committee, as opposed to four for designation, we've dropped it to two for designation. But there's still an outside incentive, if somebody else thinks it needs to be restored, to have an opportunity to do it. And by the landowner designating it, he really doesn't have an option but to go along with it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So you dedicate it for restoration, you get the two credits. But you do so basically by taking a gamble that it's not going to happen hecause the government doesn't have enough money or some other agency may not. And you get two credits knowing darn well that's not why you really put the two credits on the table, you're just taking a gamble. MR. JONES: Well, again, I mean, peoplc do that. But if you look at what's been done so far in the SSA's, that hasn't happened. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Interesting. It says too, the restoration improvement is not rcquired for the owner to receive such credits and the cost of restoration shall be home by the government agency or private entity undertaking the restoration. Hi, George. MR. VARNADOE: Good morning. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Are you up here for the committee or for public comment -- MR. VARNADOE: I wasn't on the committee. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- because we're not to public comment. Okay. We're not to puhlic comment yet, but if you want to-- MR. VARNADOE: If! could just -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Sure. MR. VARNADOE: Thirty seconds. I've handlcd either nine or 10 SSA's, I just don't remember which. And I thought maybe some practicality needs to be hrought to this, or be of some help. Out ofthose nine or 10, I think five of them have taken some restoration credits. And every instance the restoration credits were only taken on land the landowner went ahead and has done the restoration or is responsible for the restoration under a restoration plan. So I understand your comment, Mr. Strain, but history hasn't borne that out to date. Nobody has, on the 10 I have done, has asked for restoration credits and just walked away. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. thank you. Page 33 1611 '~6~ January 30, 2009 As we move on with some of the other underlines, Mr. Midney, I concur with your concerns over some of the restoration. Before credits are awarded, it certainly would be nice for this committee to know what it takes. I mean, I understand that caracara restoration isn't too complicated. And I had someone at staff mention that there was one occasion where you basically put a cabbage palm for so many acres or miles and that's caracara. MR. McDANIEL: Acres. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, acres. And a cabbage palm is 75 hucks, maybe 25 to plant it. So you drop -- for 100 bucks you put this tree in the middle of something, and all of a sudden you've got caracara credits for restoration. Is that all it takes? I mean, I haven't seen -- I don't know what this is, and it seems odd that we would provide two credits for it or think that's legitimate without knowing what it is. MR. McDANIEL: From the committee's standpoint therc arc definitions with respect to restoration plans that have to be adopted and approved by stan~ along with long-term management plans. And so actually going through those specific definitions in the Rural Land Stewardship Overlay as it particularly lies, we didn't move into that process. I mean. therc were definitions, there arc definitions that are available, and those restoration plans have to be accepted and approved by staff and then pcrpetually managed by the property owncr. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I undcrstand that. But if you guys are changing the credit -- the way credits are disseminated and you're asking -- you're going to be going through various processes to get that approved, I can tell you, it would bc interesting to know what it takes for caracara restoration that's worth two credits. And ifyou'rc looking at cvcry acre -- and how many acres does one cabhage palm quality for caracara restoration? Is it 100 acres. is it 10 acres? But now we've got 20 credits given for one cabbage palm over -- MR. McDANIEL: Ten acres. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- a 10-acre area. MR. McDANIEL: One pcr 10. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, so one cabbage palm for every 10 acres, you get 20 credits for that. I'm just -- those are the kind of things that help us understand this credit process and how fast we're accumulating credits. MR. JONES: Well. there's a couple of points. One, undcr the existing program, restoration plans are required to be submitted to stall and approved. Under the existing program, restoration is I guess to an extent in the eye of the beholder. And there is no distinguishing characteristics between caracara restoration or native habitat restoration. Therefore, today under the existing systcm I not only get two credits, Mr. Strain, I can get eight crcdits. And by the same token, were I to go into Camp Keais Strand, remove farm dikes, install culverts, reestablish flow, I get eight credits. So the proposal that was brought forth was recognizing there's some incquity in here with the awarding of credits. But -- and the tiered system was an attempt to put some type of an economic analysis on the required input for these restoration components. The caracara, although it is not an intensive economic input, it requires not only the planting of nesting trees, it requires the maintenance of short stature grasses in perpetuity. That's part ofthe management plan. That's also the prescribed management plan from the authorities in caracaras. The basic point, though, is caracaras are a listed species, they're threatened under the Endangered Species Act. You have to mitigate for them if you impact them. And mitigation is along the prescribed course that I just described, the planting oftrees and the maintenance of the staturc. I don't think it's the landowncr's fault that it's not required to do a lot, but from an endangered Page 34 6 r'; At..~ 1 , 1 Janua~30, 2009 species perspective I think they would view caracara restoration as important as they would panther habitat restoration. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And I'm not disagreeing with you that it's important at all. I think it is. I'm glad to see that there are people willing to do it. I'm trying to justity the way the credits are disbursed in regards to that, especially when your committee is recommending an increase in crcdits of almost, what, 25 percent? You're going from 3 I 5,000 to 421,000 credits. And so -- MR. JONES: When you look at thc cntire suite of proposed changes, yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. MR. JONES: And we're also -- and we're also proposing a recalibration so all those credits don't flood the area with development. I think we've taken a rcasonable approach. Today you can get eight credits. Under our proposal you get four credits. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. You mentioned that part of the caracara management technique besides the nesting tree is the burning. MR. JONES: Is the maintenance of short stature grasses. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Burning one of those solutions? MR. JONES: Burning could be one, mowing could be one. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So if you have caracara and you want that credit, wouldn't you be better off going to the exotic control burning for four credits, since that's part of the maintenance -- or could be part ofthe maintenance process anyway? I mean, there's no incentive then to do the two credits, because if you're going to havc to maintain it for cxotic control and burning, you might as well take the four credits. MR. JONES: Well, the exotic control and hurning is a componcnt different than the caracara management plan. The caracara is the maintenance of short stature. You don't have to burn to do it. You're not nec -- if you have an overgrown pasture of Brazilian pepper and you were to establish that, then you probably could get the exotics. If you clear the exotics hum it, then yes, you should be entitled to it. Again, you could go to the highest level of whatever the restoration's accomplishing. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Exotic control, Tom, is I believe part of our requirements for development now anyway. In order to get a CO, you have to have all your exotics removed. MR. JONES: These are in SSA's. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. So we're just giving more -- okay. COMMISSIONER CARON: Whyare-- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Before I go to two, do you have anything? COMMISSIONER CARON: Well, yeah. I'm trying to understand why we're giving credits for something you have to do anyway. You're required to do something to protect the caracara. Youjust told me it's on the endangered species list. MR. JONES: If it's used as a mitigation component, what's wrong with that? I don't have to do it this way. I can mitigate for it -- [ don't know, I can probably mitigate for it somehow in Hendry County if! wanted to. COMMISSIONER CARON: So what you're saying is that the reason to give credits is to keep the mitigation here in Collicr County? MR. JONES: No, the reasoning for doing the restoration is to improvc hahitat for caracaras. COMMISSIONER CARON: Here in Collier County. MR. JONES: Yeah, because that's where the RLSA program is. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay? COMMISSIONER CARON: Uh-huh. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Mark? Page 35 16 I lanuary A k~ CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes, Paul. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Sorry. So I think what you've brought out here is that not only do we have to define what restoration is for each category, we have to define which category ofland would be appropriate, the caracara restoration, which would be appropriate, the exotic control burning, and which would be -- you know, would be for native habitat restoration. You sort of have to categorize where you're starting from in order to decide what you'rc eligible for. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Is that a statement or just a -- COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Yeah, I'm saying that we need to map that out in the future. Because if you wanted to get more credits you could say wcll, I want to move my improved pasture into native habitat restoration and get all those morc credits. So instcad of getting two, you could plant pines and palmettos and oak trees and, you know, you'd get more crcdits than what you would before. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I would agree with you. But I don't know if that's what the committee agrees to. And I think -- MR. McDANIEL: And I might say, you folks have a diflerent skew on things than we do, those of us who don't get to have thc opportunity to see with definity (sic) what you get to look at on a regular basis. At the committee level when wc wcre discussing these things it was shared with us that when you come in with an application fi)r an SSA and you're looking for restoration credits, there's a plan. You come to the staff with your plan, it's reviewed by plan and accepted by plan, and with that comes a perpetual maintenance and upkccp and so on and so forth before you're entitled to these things. So at our level -- I can see where you're going, becausc thcre's a lot more, if you will, definitions that are in other placcs. But at the committec level, we were looking for avcnues for jncentivization for creation of restoration in these areas that it isn't necessarily happening in other places. And I don't want to take away tfom Miss Elizabeth, but I think yesterday, you know, the caracara really isn't managed for in other areas of our state. in governmcnt owned lands and such because the management practices that are requisite for other endangered species aren't necessarily all that for the caracara. So -- and I understand where you're going. I'm just trying to share with you, Paul, from our perspective. If staff says to us during this process, they come to us with an SSA program -- or application and there's a restoration component within that. and within that restoration component there is a process of events that are to transpire that ultimately have to be agrccd upon, accepted and then ultimately regulated by staff, that was okay for us at this level. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Somebody maybe at county staff could answer this question for me. What's the sanction, if somebody has agreed to permanent restoration and they don't keep their end of the bargain? What's the punishment" CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ten to life. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: You've already gottcn your credits awarded, so you'vc already gotten the award. What can you do to them? You can't takc the credits away. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: We hang them. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well. I mean. I don't know what staff's-- MR. GREENWOOD: There are no credits awarded until the actual restoration is done. I don't know if that answcrs your question, but -- COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: But it has to be perpetually maintained. MR. GREENWOOD: Correct. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: What if they don't? MR. GREENWOOD: Well, first ofl thcre's no crcdits. And I think somebody from environmental, Page 36 16 11 f" J*6~009 Laura Roys, may be able to answer this better than I, obviously. MS. ROYS: Laura Roys, Environmental Services. The perpetual maintenance of the restored habitat is a requirement of the -- somebody can correct me if I'm wrong -- stewardship credit agreement or the -- one of the credit agreements that is a legal document that's approvcd with the SSA. COMMISSIONER MTDNEY: And what if they don't-- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The SSA's, when they get approved, go to the BcC. One of the recommendations that we had suggested, or maybe I have, I don't know how many did, was that the SSA's be reviewed by this panel as well so that we could understand that and we could actually make sure that those things were included. That didn't seem to sit well with the committee. But anyway, the SSA's don't -- they do go through public review and they have a separate ah'Teement to which they have to abide by. I think that's what Laura's saymg. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: I understand that. But once you have the credit, you've gotten what you wanted and you don't abide by it, what's the sanction? What's the punishment for not keeping up your end of the bargain? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Whatever the agreemcnt says, I would assume. During lunch could you locate one agreemcnt as an example and bring it back to us so we could kind of understand how those things are addressed in the agreement? MS. ROYS: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Were you planning on being here after lunch? MS. ROYS: Yeah, I'll be here. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Sometime between now and then. Would that work? Would that help you, Paul? COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Yeah, ifit answers the question. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Mr. Wolfley? COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Ijust wanted to add something to what Paul was saying. It's not just that -- what I found in the committee was that it's not just that you have the credits, it's that you've already sold them and then walk away. I mean, you've already taken the cash and you're in Ohio now. And I think we discussed that. And I've heen looking through here and I just cannot seem to find a resolution. I remember there was a resolution, I just can't remember what it was or where it was. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Let's see what staff comes back with. I mean, I've read some of those SSA's, I just don't remember the language. And I'm sure that -- if staff says it's here, we'll just take a look at it when they come back. I had not finished my questions on 3.1 I, so ]']] just continue until I do and then when we can get public comment. In number two, the last line said, should an owner also effectively complete the corridor restoration. The word effectively is troublesome, because that's very ambiguous. Do we nccd that word in there? It's either you complete it or you don't. So I was just suggesting that you don't need the word effectively. I think it would provide some arbitrary arguments that may not work as well if you have it there. Also on number two it talks about thc panther corridors. And I heard language about the incentive to complete thc corridor and how everybody in the corridor then gets more credits if it finally gets completed. What happens -- and Mike DeRuntz, I need to probably ask you to comment on this. There is a conditional use request for a large mining pit in the north panther corridor right now. Is that a true statement, Mike? Page 37 1.6 JL130:A6" MR. DeRUNTZ: Mike DeRuntz. Comprehensive Planning. Yes, it is correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. And my concern is if you have to have a minimum width for a panther corridor and you have to have a viable panther corridor, because that's what I think we wanted -- was part of the discussion, is the viability for that corridor problematic, knowing that there's a conditional use sitting out there that could be approved under the old system and thus that would defeat the purpose of anybody wanting to buy into that north corridor because in the end they can't get what they thought they could get because the conditional use has already ruined that. And I don't know how that fits into Policy 3.11.2, but in your committee's deliberations did you not know about that pit that's heen applied for up in the north panther corridor? And if you did, what were your thoughts on how to work around it to get thc conditions in number two met so the people that do want to see a viable corridor there could have met those~ MR. McDANIEL: Mr. Chair, I personally knew that there was at least aspirations at best for a mining operation to be permitted up in that particular area. But at the committee level there really wasn't any discussion about that with specificity that I can in fact recall. I do recall, though, again as I shared with you earlier that, you know, we did talk about the continuity of the corridors and the necessity tor some kind of designation ofthose corridors and the success necessary for the corridor at whatever designation, size, shape or color that it needed to flow at that particular stage. CIIAIRMAN STRAIN: Well. maybe when we get to public speakers -- I know there's been a lot of people banking on the various panther corridors, and I would like to see what their thoughts are on how this could be worked around if they had -- if it had crossed anybody's mind prior to today or whenever. Tom') MR. JONES: I could make a comment on that, but I think it --I couldn't make it on behalfofthe committee. I don't know if you want me to comment-- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No, go ahead. MR. JONES: -- on it now or later. Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Your insight's always welcome, Tom. MR. JONES: Thank you. The landowner of that property in question acknowledges that there probably will be potentially -- there is the potential for thc development of the corridor. And in their application to the county they have put the northern boundary ofthe pit at what they believe to be a reasonable distance that would be able to accommodate the corridor. In addition to that, since there aren't any specifics for the corridor and it's a conceptual corridor, should a design actually be implemented and move forward, that particular propcrty owner would have the ability then to adjust anything under any approvals that they may have acquired by the time that the corridor is actually laid out. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Do you know what the minimum width is for a panther corridor? MR. JONES: No, I don't. I know there's a lot of discussion. A lot of people have different opinions, a lot of people have different science to back up what they want. But no, I don't. But the corridor is conceptual at this point. And I -- and the landowner in question would make allowances if they agreed with the corridor that was designed and actually approved by the landowners. And I think it goes to Mr. Midney's earlicr comment: There's going to have to be a cooperative effort among the landowners to make those corridors work. The landowners aren't necessarily going to put things on hold, but they're certainly recognizing that therc's an opportunity that a corridor may be Page 38 161 reuA620d9 implemented in that area. The landowners involved recognize that and they're willing to work with it to put in a feasible -- they're taking steps to work together to implement a feasible corridor in thesc areas that have been tentatively located -- identified. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Is the landowner a member of the six major landowners out there that are part of that orgi -- I think it's EPOC or something like that? MR. JONES: ECPO. Eastern Collier Property Owners. Yeah, the landowner is Barron Collier Companies, and we are a member of the Eastern Collier Property Owners. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, see, you kind of know a lot about them. MR. JONES: I know a lot about it. Not only are we members ofECPO, we're also the largest private landowner in the county, and we are the largest landowner in Eastern Collier County. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So you have a memorandum of understanding that talks about a northern panther corridor, and we have all this work done on this RLSA program to work towards the corridors that are I think in question. Yet you went in and applied for a conditional use for a mining pit right in the middle ofthe corridor. What was your -- why did you do that? MR. JONES: I need to correct something. It's not in the middle of the corridor. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. MR. JONES: The boundaries that we've applied for are south of the corridor that are conceptually proposed by the landowners. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. I was just wondering why you would do that, knowing you had all these other things based on that -- banking on that corridor. MR. JONES: Well, wc do it because we don't stand still until cverything ultimately comes together. We have a keen recognition that we would like to see a corridor implemented in the northern portion of the county. For whatever reasons it may not come to fruition. Ifit does come to fruition, we'll incorporate it into our plans. We can always modify. You're very well aware that we can always modity what's ever approved. I think to limit what we would apply for would be foolish on our part, because what if for scientific reason there's no validity to implement a corridor? We've submitted to the county for approvals and now wc would have to go back up and ask for more. It's always easier to ask for more in the beginning and reduce it than to come in with a smaller application and ask an entity to increase the size of it later. We recognize what's going on. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The timingjust surprised me. MR. JONES: Timing's always bad for everything. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: It sure is. MR. JONES: It's not exactly what I was going to say, but -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Let's move on to paragraph three. MR. CORNELL: Mr. Strain, can I -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Oh, yeah, Brad. MR. CORNELL: I just wanted to add a comment in answer to a question you had earlier. And also about the corridors, I want to reemphasize what Tom Jones said about the conceptual nature of that map that showed the southern and the northern corridors. Because, you know, the test of what actually would be restored as a corridor or maintained as a corridor is what's functional and successfully completed that meets, you know, a management plan that the agencies would approve. Page 39 16\1' lAb January 30, 2009 And to that same end, you question the word etlectively complete the corridor restoration in that sub-paragraph two. If you look at sub-paragraph three, which you're just going to, you see a different word used, which is successfully complete. I think that's the intension of eflectively. I know that was my interpretation of sceing that language was that we want to see not just completion but successful completion. And that implies that you'rc complying and mceting the criteria of success that would be in a management plan. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I've got successfully circled too, so-- MR. CORNELL: You don't like that either? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, it's arbitrary. Whose success are you depending on, yours or the landowner's') MR. CORNELL: The criteria in the management plan that the agency would approve for that corridor restoration. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, that goes back to Paul's question, which will be answered when we see an SSA as to how effective that language is. MR. CORNELL: Well, I agree that there's -- there is some gray area in the GMP, and it asks the question I guess of you all as planners, how much detail about the specificity of the restoration plans do you want to have in the GMP spelled out. And it is an issue. And I guess that's a debate about how much detail you want in there. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I don't think the question was how much detail wc want in this document. We just want to make sure that thc detail is addressed somewhere. And if the addressing of that detail is in the SSA awarding, then that's maybe something that works and we just needcd to see that, so -- MR. CORNELL: And particularly with regard to restoration, my understanding is that there would he oversight and approval ofmanagement criteria and management success by an agency that oversees that species, if it's for a specific species. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well. I hope -- I imagine that's what we'll see when Laura comes back with an example ofSSA's, so thank you. Let mc try to finish up with my questions. Number three -- MS. FLEMING: Could Ijust add to that point? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Were you a mcmbcr of the committce? MS. FLEMING: No, I wasn't. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Arc you speaking for the committee or as a public citizen? MS. FLEMING: I don't know who's speaking. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Let'sjust wait. We haven't got to public comment yet. Let's just keep everybody on the same levcl playing field. Right now it's the Planning Commission's interaction with the committee. I'd like it to stay that way. Public comment from non-committee members can come when we ask for public comment. As far as number three goes, the second to last line says, should the landowner succcssfully complete the restoration, the additional six crcdits per acre shall be awarded. Up on top, it's the government that completes the restoration, so what this is saying is if the landowner comes in and chooses to allow restoration and he wants to do the caracara restoration, he gets the credits at six credits per acre; is that right? MR. McDANIEL: Say that again, please? MR. JONES: Yes. MR. McDANIEL: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Well. Tom understands where I'm going then. Basically that's what -- okay, that's what I understand. So the govemment doesn't have to do the Page 40 16 I]!'" A>e 30~ 2009 restoration, the landowner can do it. And if it's beneficial financially for the credits he's to receive, undoubtedly he would do it. MR. McDANIEL: Correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The last line, only one type of restoration shall be rewarded with these credits for each acre designated for restoration. And this is something I'm sure Brad had wanted done too, because he's usually the guy that likes format in these languages. But doesn't that apply to all on.1 I? And if so, wouldn't you want to drop it outside paragraph three so it fits? MR. GREENWOOD: That's probably a very good suggestion. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, somebody had suggested to it to me so it wasn't mine alone. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And Mark, on that point? Is there a way somebody could run through this paragraph and come out with 36 credits, which would be all the prizes? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, that's a good question. What is the maximum amount of credits anybody could gain for any acre under restoration? MR. McDANIEL: Ten? MR. JONES: Yeah. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ten. MR. JONES: If they implement the panther corridor. MR. McDANIEL: And that's through the implementation of the panther corridor. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Any other questions from the Planning Commission? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Point out where you see that. I mean, where does that lock that in? MR. McDANIEL: In number 2 of3. I I. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Eight and two. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I mean, I read that number two is you get two and you wait around until you finally complete it, then you get eight more. I think -- definitely think that last sentence has to be rewritten to say that. So you're saying 10 is the most you can get because you can't use any combination of these, and that's the one that gives you the most. MR. McDANIEL: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So for any restoration opportunity accumulatively, you can't do more than 10 credits per acre. And that includes the two base credits for agreeing to restoration? MR. McDANIEL: I believe so. MR. JONES: Yes. And you actually can -- it's not accumulative of the paragraph. The maximum allowable, if you do the panther corridor, is 10. The maximum allowable if you do the native habitat restoration is eight. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So then you can have 18 if you do the restoration and the panther corridor? MR. JONES: It's not cumulative. It's not cumulative. Panther corridor is specific. Just like under the existing program, the existing program today, the maximum number of restoration credits you can get is eight. COMMISSIONER CARON: No matter what you do. MR. JONES: Right. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And now you can get 10. MR. JONES: If you do the panther corridor. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. So the eight additional credits per acre within the panther corridor become part of that 10. Page 41 16atlo, A6 ~ MR. JONES: Yes, correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Does that answer your question~ Although I -- it's not clear on here that it meets that. Is there some way that you would discuss possibly in that last sentence adding the maximum through any method at all could he 10 acres pcr -- I mean 10 credits per acre? MR. McDANIEL: There was no real specificity from the committee's standpoint with regard to that. We weren't as -- I mean, to myself it's fairly cvident that -- and again, the separation of that last sentcncc out specitying that there can't be layers of crcdits cstablished for restoration might be a different way of saying the same thing. But my interpretation looking at this is if you can't have layers and if you only get lOon the panther corridors. up to 10, that was it. COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Mark? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. David') COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Would it solve Brad's issue if we just put at the end of2, 3.1 I .2, comma, to a maximum of 10 allowable credits per acre? Would that help? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well. I think-- COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: J mean, I know we all know that that's the maximum allowable, but -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I think if you're going to add a reference to the -- you want to add it at the end of the last line separate from a parabrraph, because it would have applied to all three paragraphs, not just to paragraph two. COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: That's true. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And I think that's something we can debate when we want to go in to deliberations on recommendations a~ this goes forward. MR. McDANIEL: And if I -- just as a point, and I'm not belaboring it too awful much. I mean, these aren't the specitic GMP hearings that we're dealing with at this stage. Ultimately this language is going to be taken and developed into thosc things. So with speciticity there's going to be -- can be more discussion with respect to how we get happy language, if you will. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I think part of the excrcise, though, is kind ofa forewarning. So Brad, did you have anymore') COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Yeah. I wa~ just going to say, this is really dangerous, because we'rc constantly saying add a credit, add a credit, add a credit, add a credit. I mean, I'm not clear where you stop. I mean, obviously what we've done is getting closer to that, but how does that work with other things ill-- MR. McDANIEL: And again, it's not a -- therc is, when you look at the policies in their entirety, there is an aggregate amount of credits that are out there. There is a cap on the acreage of developable land that's associated with that. So it isn't just an add a credit, add a credit thing. I kind of take exception to that. I mean, I can see how you're feeling there, but there was methodology, there was reasoning behind what in fact it was that we detennined here. And it's not just -- there wasn't just willy-nilly thrown in here, we took into account a tremcndous amount of inf()nnation to come up with these suggested amendments. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Ycah.l think I'd be happy if the word "or" was used more often, that's all. Just to differentiate. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, welllct's move on to public speakers on this item, there are no other questions from the committee then. Are there any public speakers on -- I don't know ifanybody's got anything to say. Elizabeth? Page 42 16 I 1 n~' A t. "'anuary 3~~ MS. FLEMING: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Now we're into public speakers. MS. FLEMING: Thank you. Elizabeth Fleming with Defenders of Wildlife. I wanted to make the comment, with all this discussion of the restoration and different credits awarded and the management plans and the easements themselves. This is related to a point I made the day before yesterday in Policy 1.7 where the signatories to the easements, we were a proponent of having the Florida Fish & Wildlife Conservation Commission also be on the easements. Because within those SSA agreements, the credit agreement specifies the land management measures that will be undertaken and the party responsible for such measures. So if one of these easements is going to include species such as caracara, Florida panther, other threatened/endangered species of special concern, the Wildlife Commission should have a role in evaluating the terms that go into that and the management measures and see that they're carried out. And that was a point I made the other day. And I think you questioned the reasoning for that. But this is an example. ljust wanted to make that point. Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: One question. On another level of expertise that you expressed on Wednesday, and that is the panther. I know you're heavily involvcd in panther protection. What is a viable corridor's minimum width or length? And the one I'm talking about is that northern corridor. I don't know how wide it is, I can't tell by the scale we're using here and by these little maps. But what does your organization see as a viahle width? MS. FLEMING: Therc are different sources in the literature, and there is a panel of six experts looking at it right now. I do not consider myself an expert on Florida panther corridor widths. I could quote what others have said. And my understanding is that the viability of a corridor weighs heavily on what it is next to. If it is adjacent to a development or a road, it would have to have a different configuration than if it were, you know, in the middlc of an undeveloped area. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: What ifit's next to a centroid? MS. FLEMING: I'm not an expert to answer that. We work a lot on panther habitat-- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: We have some centroids located near the northern -- or at least one, at least, near the northern -- MS. FLEMING: Therc are six people looking at this very plan right now, and we expect their results -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Can they come and speak to us about what they're looking at? Because we have to make a decision before they may be done. MS. FLEMING: You'd have to ask them that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Thank you. MS. FLEMING: I did ask Darrell. We did try and get in touch with Darrell to see ifhe could answer some of these panther specific questions, and he said that ifhe'd been contacted earlier, he could have put it in his schedule. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, thank you. Next speaker, please. Tim? MR. DURHAM: Got all the way till now before I had to come up here. That's great. Tim Durham, Wilson-Miller. I just wanted to clarity something. The north corridor, please don't conceive of that as a fenced tunnel that the panther's moving through. Probably the more propcr term for that would be the restoration zone for the corridor. Page 43 16 I 1 ~A 6 .. January 30. 2009 And what we're really looking at is within that line work you see there, having the property owners create a series of natural areas that the panther would connect across the landscape, the panther would still be free to move through the ago areas in the adjacent portion. So it's not being restricted to that area, rather it's the backbone ofthc system, if you will, areas where the property owners would restore habitat and the panther could use it as stepping stoncs, as Darrell puts it, to be able to movc through the landscape. Panthers don't use that area in any consistent pattern because thcre aren't enough natural cover areas for them to feel comfortable with on a repetitive basis. So the corridor's really a restoration zonc. I think the ultimate corridor, or whatever that width is or whatever, it will be determined by others. But at lcast we've identified a scries of connection points that could be rcstored that do respect the property ownership issues, rathcr than just drawing a gash through the area, which isn't specific to ownership or intercsts that are out therc. So by no means is that the definitive final corridor location or width, it's a backbone system, if you will, starting point. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The other day when you spoke, there was some question about the width of a panther corridor. And you said well, what is the length, because the width would depend on the length. It led me to believe you may have some knowlcdge regarding widths of panther corridors. And if that is a right assumption, and knowing that you know about this northern corridor, what widths are you thinking is appropriate up there? MR. DURHAM: The debate about widths gets fairly tcchnical. [I' you're talking -- it depends on what it's running through. Ifyou'vc got heavy dcvclopment on both sides, you'd have to have, you know, a fairly wide corridor. Also. how long is that corridor. By the same token, in agricultural land settings, you know. in speaking with Darrell Land and others, there's been occasions where they'll use an old tram road as their main connection point that's, you know, 30 feet wide and usc that as a corridor. because that's where they feel comfortable with the most cover moving through an area. I think if -- we're talking about agricultural settings on both sides of the corridor? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: On this one, on your north-south link you have a --I don't know how you all want to define a centroid, but you've got a ccntroid on one sidc and potential development on the other. I don't know what that other potential clement could be. MR. DURHAM: Right. And again. that's wherc butTering requiremcnts come -- will playa factor. Human activity that's up against the panther corridor will have to buHer, all right, and that plays into that equation as well. CHAIRMAN STRA1N: Thank you. MR. DURHAM: Again, I'm not trying to he cvasive. It's just a complicated question. I think there's other answers that are going to come out. We've at least identified a corridor. We've coordinated that with Darrell Land. At least, you know, it shows the intent in that area. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I think your statement that you have at least identified a corridor is what drives my questionings. Because you may have identified it as a corridor, but is that truly a corridor? And that's what my concern is. MR. DURHAM: It is not until it's establishcd and Junctions as one, so-- CHA[RMAN STRAIN: A lot ofthc program that we have in front of us and a lot ofthe agreements that are made to the side have depended upon that being something. And all I'm trying to find out is if all that was worthwhile. So thanks. I appreciate it, Tim. Ms. Caron? Page 44 16 I ~~, J6 January 30, 2~ COMMISSIONER CARON: Well, and if you look at the rest of their conceptual plans, they have towns running up against there. I mean, this is a town. MR. McDANIEL: Can I make a suggestion there -- COMMISSIONER CARON: And a village. MR. McDANIEL: -- for and on behalf of the committee. And again, I'm speaking on the public side of it as well. Do not get all hung up on those concept maps. The locations of towns and villages throughout the rural land stewardship area are going to be where they are ultimately decided to be. And the creation from a committee level of the corridor was an establishment of that as an opportunity for that to be. As development comes forward, Ms. Caron, with respect to applications for SRA's, we will have far better information and data sets available to make decisions as to the viability of the locations of those centroids, as you've mentioned. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You called them that, now, I didn't. I mean, somebody did. It wasn't my idea. MR. McDANIEL: With that, it's just a -- you look at the map, it's really, really important that in the existing program there was -- there is no established corridors. We have learned -- we at the committee level learned that the experts out there, Darrell Land specifically, likes the idea of the connectivity between the CREW lands and the eastern portions of the primary habitat out there for the panthers. And so that was our endeavor to get there. And knowing that wildlife crossings ultimately had to be implemented in that process. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. Next? Nicole. MS. RYAN: Nicole Ryan, Conservancy of Southwest Florida. Beginning with subsection one of Policy 3.1 I , The Conservancy has also been concerned about this awarding of credits simply for dedicating land for restoration that the landowner mayor may not ever do. We had requested that that be revisited and actually removed. It's been taken down by 50 percent. But we would like to see that if restoration credits are awarded that at least you have some sort of specific plan in place before any credits are up-front rewarded. And then the balance of the credits would he rewarded after specific success criteria have been met. But the idea of awarding the credits and then saying that the government, the taxpayers can restore your lands, we believe that that is inappropriate. And as wa~ mentioned earlier by Mr. Varnadoe, if no one has taken the credits and walked away, then what would be the problem with making this correction. Also, in looking at the aspects ofrestoration under subsection one, restoration is something that is key. The concern that The Conservancy has is that when the program went from transmittal and then to adoption, restoration credits were added and the program just blossomed into how many additional credits were available for SRA's. So we're very concerned about the adding of more restoration credits, of the manipulation of restoration credits. We believe that this is something that really, really needs to be looked into. For example, in the Wilson-Miller technical support documents, when they're discussing how they're going to get to the 400 some odd thousand credits that will then be backed into the 45,000-acre cap, they make some assumptions as to how many credits this tiered restoration under subsection one will generate. Their estimate is that 11,600 acres will be suitable for such restoration activity and that it will generate 72,000 credits for that generation. But there's nothing in here that caps it at that credit amount. So it could be much, much more. If it's more, then that means that there would be more potential land available for SRA's, which would then exceed the 45,000 acres. Then you have credits that have no value once you hit that cap. The same thing in subsection two. And Mike or Tom, if you wouldn't mind putting up the Page 45 1611 ~6~ January 30, 2009 Wilson-Miller transportation map. The same issue. You have 10 credits for panther corridors. That's based on panther corridors of 2,300 acres, which equatcs to 23,000 crcdits. If those corridors need to be widcr than that, again, you're generating many more credits than you've based your assumption on, and you've really t100ded the market with credits. In looking at these specilic corridors, in the first sentcnce of subsection two, it references in certain locations as generally illustrated in the RLSA overlay map there may be opportunities to create and restore corridors. There isn't anything currently on the overlay map that actually specifies corridors. These are the only maps that really have the corridors on them. So I'm not sure if those would then be added to the RLSA overlay map where those corridors would he located on that map and what happens if the corridors need to be wider or in different locations. So I'm not sure how that is going to tie in there. But I did want to point out, and it's interesting with the sand mine application, The Conservancy was wondering why the corridor went straight up and then took a 90-degree turn at the county line. And perhaps it is because of current conditional usc applications. Commissioner Strain, you had asked a question about the appropriate widths of corridors, and The Conservancy had distributed a map on Wcdnesday of somc corridor locations and widths that we felt would be appropriate. There was also some discussion amongst the committee about where we got some of our data 1T0m on this map. So I -- I'm going to turn our presentation ovcr, if it's acceptable, to Jennifer Hecker, who is in charge of our natural resources policy program. She and her stalf put this map together, so they can answer your questions on the corridor widths and where we got our docunlentation and data. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. thank you. MS. HECKER: We also have some supplemental information about the map. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I'll hold one for you, Cherie'. We'll be breaking a little before 12:00. MS. HECKER: Thank you for the opportunity to explain this and clarify. This map is really a representation of the best available science on panthers and answers a lot of the questions that the committee has been raising with regard to appropriate location of panther corridors, appropriate widths. If! can walk you through this document that I've just passed out very briefly. The Conservancy's proposed build-out map avoids development or intensification of land use within the primary panther zone, also synonymously referred to as thc primary panther habitat, a~ identified by Kautz. This is an expert panther scientist who has a published peer reviewed article that has identified these areas. And we also have based the corridors on this map on current pathways of panther movement as identified by Swanson. And again, this is a published article that was created by the Florida Fish & Wildlife Conservation Commission, and we'll go into some 6'Tcater detail in a minute about that. But the source of our data for this, I want to make it clear. The shaped files is what it's referred to in G[S, were derived from agencies. The agencies provided thosc to us directly and we in no way manipulated those shaped files. The data is as the agency has provided to us. So in the case of the primary habitat zone, which is rcpresented on this map, that shaped file was provided to us by the Florida Fish & Wildlife Conservation Commission back in 2006. And that's the basis of that on that map. Okay, that's actually a reprcsentation out of the Kautz paper of that. But if you wouldn't mind putting it back to the other map for discussion purposes. A lot of talk has been about primary zone and primary habitat. I think there's been somewhat an Page 46 1611 I L"'!j J'*'G30, 2009 assertion of confusion and an effort to reinterpret the science. The science is pretty clear on this and the scientists do not have any disagreement as to what is primary. The primary habitat was based on not only telemetry, because telemetry is not a complete representation, only approximately. And this is according to Darrell Land, who others have mentioned. Less than a third ofthe current population is currently collared and being tracked, so you cannot use telemetry alone to determine where areas are being occupied by panthers. They used a whole host of other types of scientific data, including preferred habitat types and other data. And the primary zone is specifically -- and I want to quote this directly out of the article. Not only includes these preferred habitat types but also other natural and non-urban disturbed land cover types between forest patches that serve as landscape connections that accommodate panther home range and dispersal movements. So it was understood that this is a landscape level look. It is not meant to Swiss cheese out every farm field, it was meant to look at what were the needs of a wide-ranging mammal that typically has 100 to 200-mile square mile home range. The primary zone has been reinforced, if you will. Not only did the Kautz paper, which was peer reviewed and published in a scientific joumal support this as the best available science, but the Service has endorsed it and has reiterated it in its recently released Florida Panther Recovery Plan. And I would just like to read again a direct quote from that Recovery Plan with regard to the primary zone. It states, quote, the primary zone supports the only breeding panther population. To prevent further loss of population viability, habitat conservation efforts should focus on maintaining the total available area, quality and spatial extent of the habitat within the primary zonc. So this is essentially the science of where we should be focusing our conservation efforts. And The Conservancy is trying to communicate that to you in this map of what the science is dictating here as far as where we should be focusing, putting those agricultural preservation areas, which we believe should be limited to the primary zone, and where we should be focusing development, which we believe should be limited to only areas outside the primary zone. And as it was mentioned carlier, the area of critical state concern is of course concern to us, but it is primary zone. So this primary zone protection would capture that. I want to read -- a lot has been discussed about the scicntific review team. And because there are two members of the scientific review team that are public agency officials, one from the Commission and one from the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service, they are subject to public records laws. And we've obtained a lot of the communications, and I'd like to read a couple quotes directly from the panther exerts themselves, in lieu of them not being able to be here. The first quote is from Randy Kautz, who is the author of this published peer reviewed article that is the basis of the primary zone. And it reads, the primary zone boundary was drawn in a manner that was data driven, achieved with the consensus of II experts willing to have their name on a manuscript and survived scientific peer review that led to the publication and biological conservation. The reason that the tomato fields are in there is that they are part of the mosaic oflandscapes that support panthers based on telemetry, and that provides huffers against indirect effects of intensive human activities. So I want you to know that it's no mistake -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I don't mean to interrupt your train of thought, but you and Nicole have one thing in common, you talk very fast. And it's okay for us to hear that, but she types everything down. I want to make sure everything's accurate for the record. MS. HECKER: I know I'm standing between you and your lunch, so I was trying to be as quick as I could. Page 47 16111 A6'" January 30. 2009 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Don't worry about it, this is far too important to worry about lunch. So take your time, we'll still take a lunch break and we always can come back for more. MS. HECKER: Okay. Well, it was no mistake that these fields were included. These fields are important to providing the prey base that the panthers -- I mean, obviously panthers need to eat and, you know, so they venture out. They prefer forested cover. Obviously a lot of our telemetry has been collected during daytime. and in which case the panthers are resting in trees. So that gives a representation of what they're doing then. But at night they're hunting, and they are known to go out into these fields. And we do have some limited data. Very little data at this point has been collected, but we do have some data that has shown that they are venturing out into thesc open areas. But again, I want it understood that the biologists saw the fields as fields when they designated them primary panther habitat. A little bit about the corridors. Again, these corridors are based on what the scientists have derived as functional corridor locations, of active corridors, patterns of movement that they have mapped in the least cause pathways. And I want to read something about the northern corridor that's been proposed by the landowners at this point. This is from one of the scientific review team members, and he is writing it to the other scientific review team members. And he states: Based on all the ecological design concepts that I've studied, I could not support the landowner's proposed north corridor as is as a viable fimctioning wildlife corridor. I would think that most of our colleagues would laugh us out of the building for supporting that concept. The thoughts are that the probability of ever promoting any movement between Camp Keais Strand at the Ok. State Forest are virtually nil. My role, as I interpret it, is to evaluate it bascd on my knowledge oflandscape ecology and conservation biology. I understand that the landowners are more mindful of land ownership and economic value associated with any particular design. and while it may work well for those objectives. for facilitating wildlife movement different designs should be considered and proposed. So I think that it's important that -- and we would be happy to provide any of these, because these are public records, to the committee after lunch, copies of these communications. But [ think it's important to understand that as you have already brought up that it's easy to give but it's almost impossible to take away. And what you're doing here is going to shape not only the future growth in Collier County but the future of a critically endangered species of which there's only estimated to be 100 left. Twenty-three died last year, and three have already died this month. So I think that it's very important that you weigh these credits and the location of where these are being awarded very carefully. We want this program to work. We believe in incentive-based approaches, but they must be compatible with state and federal regulatory guidelines and laws. And the Endangered Species Act, right now we do not helieve that the current RLSA program is compliant by allowing development into these areas. And we certainly don't want to be awarding agricultural preservation credits in such a manner that it would actually lessen our incentive -- and that's how we view it -- lessen our incentive to protect primary panther habitat that is currently vulnerable to development because it's designated open lands under the current RLSA program. We have an opportunity here to rcctify this program and to incorporate the sciencc and make science-based policy. And we really are encouraging you to look at the science carefully. This is not our opinion. This is the scientist's opinion we are representing here, these are straight from federal agencies and state agency scientists. And we would he happy to support and justity and defend any of the data that is here. In closing, I just had a couple last minute thoughts. I know that there's a lot of concern, I know on our part. that just protccting the panthcr isn't really cnough. Because we need to bc looking more holistically Page 48 1611, JaAb::009 at other natural resources. Obviously we have great concerns with our water resources, water quality, other listed species that are in the area. And I wanted to mention a couple things about why it's so important to protect primary. Because the panther is an umbrella species, that in protecting primary panther habitat you would also be protecting all documented eagle nests as of 2006, all Florida black bear recorded through telemetry as of 2006, most documented wading bird rookeries as of I 999, most natural land cover, including existing wetlands as of2003, and most panthers recorded through telemetry as of2008. That really demonstrates, when we did this GIS analysis, how much of an umbrella species the panther is, and how important the primary panther habitat is in not only protecting the panther but protecting other wildlife and our own sustainability. And so we encourage you to revisit the program, to back up and look at the program more holistically and think about taking this as an opportunity to fix the program, to further it. And specifically in limiting the ago preservation additional credits to those areas that are primary panther habitat open designated areas. If you give credit to everywhere, you're really not incentivizing anything specifically. You could be inadvertently awarding credit for someone to develop the primary and save non-primary lands in return. And that does not achieve the natural resources goal. That is not a balance hetween agriculture development and natural resources protection. So we're encouraging you to look with us at solutions. This is a map, in our opinion, of a solution of how we could retool the program. Those yellow areas represent open lands outside the primary zone that are lesser of value from a natural resource perspective that could be dcveloped. 33,000 acres. That's plenty ofland for additional growth. We need to compress our growth to stay within that area. Ifwe don't, if we entitle more, we are going to necessitate the impact of primary panther habitat and other critical natural resource areas. You can't have it that way unless you maintain that balance of development, natural resource protection and agricultural stewardship. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I'm going to have to ask you to start wrapping up. You've had a little over 10 minutes. MS. HECKER: Sorry. That's it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: We've got to have a lot of other people-- COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Mr. Chair? MS. HECKER: That was my only thing I'm going to say this whole time. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Let's see if we have any questions first. COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Mr. Strain? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Wolfley? COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Could you please just turn your whole folder thing over so you show the type, the text that she was reading from? Just turn that whole thing over. Just turn it over. There you go. And if you can get that to show. And I was reading some other stuff. having a difficult time reading this in the dark over here, but there are two -- I think the question was how wide are panther corridors. There are two paragraphs in the middle that seem to answer that. MS. HECKER: Yes, they do. I'm-- COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: And I can't remember if you -- MS. HECKER: I didn't mention that, and that's -- thank you, that was a point I meant to make. There is science. In fact, the 2008 Florida Panther Recovcry Plan speaks specifically to widths, and it recommends ranges in widths from half of an average home range, about 5.5 miles width for a corridor to Page 49 1611 A6 January JO, 2009 .~ at least, and that is in quotcs, one mile in width. That is considered minimal. And that is why we use that as the basis for the widths that we represented on our map. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Your map is approximately one mile wide in the northern corridor? MS. HECKER: The northern corridor is one mile wide. This -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Do you know how that scale corresponds to the scale we've been seeing on that other map, the centroid map, as I -- MS. HECKER: Yes, the centroid map, we have calculated in GIS ranges from 300 to 600 feet wide. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. Anybody else? Brad. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: You know what would be-- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Jennifer, don't walk away yet. We're getting questions for you before you leave. Thank you. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: What would be helpful if you took -- is his name Kautz? MS. HECKER: Kautz. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: If you took on the Kautz map, could you outline the RLSA area? MS. JENKINS: Well, that is what our RLSA map does, in essence. We took the Kautz layers, if you will. The primary is that area that is in light green and dark green. It's already captured with some of the current t10w way stewardship areas and habitat stewardship areas. But the areas that are light green that are adjacent to the yellow are areas that are primary that currently are designated open. So those are the arcas that we're really trying to target. Those are the areas that arc currently vulnerable to development that arc within the primary zone. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: But could you -- I mean, would it be dimcult for somebody to actually do it on his map, overlay his map'! I mean, I know you say that, but it's not exactly what I would see I think if I did it. So could you do that? MS. JENKINS: Well, we did that to the best that you can do that in GIS. We geo-relCrenced. We took the shape files that were used for his map and we laid othcr features that were also of the samc scale on top of it. But we don't have -- I mean, [ don't know what you're really getting at. His map is a paper map. And the shape files that were used for his map are what we used for our map. We don't have a way to manipulate his map directly. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: My thought would be -- you know, technically lets you and I talk when the meeting's over. MS. HECKER: Okay. I apprcciate it. Thank you. Any suggestions are welcome. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Any other qucstions of Jennifer? Paul, did you have some'! COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Just a comment. I think it almost sounds as though it's kind of an adversarial thing. But I would just like to make the observation that it could be something that is complimentary. Bccause as you protect the primary panther habitat and the agriculture, you're making the communities' developments that are left that much more valuable and that much more well designed. And I think that it could he economically viablc, cvcn with what we're asking -- what she's rccommending f()r panther protection and agriculture prcservation, it could be, even though you might have to reduce the footprint by some amount, economically it might still work. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. Now, before we go to the next public speaker, I'd like to just mention about lunch. Last time we took a little longer than an hour for lunch, only because I'm not sure where you go for lunch around here. Page 50 1611""~A6 January 30, 2009 But everybody got back here at I :00. Did you need that additional time? COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Wolfley says yes. Do the rest of the members? Okay. Then we'll plug on for just a little bit yet and we'll try to break close to 12:00. Next public speaker? MR. PRIDDY: Daddy asked to go first. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: George? MR. VARNADOE: And I listencd with interest to the interpretations of The Conservancy as to science, but somehow I thought we were talking about corridors with this policy and not overall panther protection. But maybe I missed it. But I like the map. Look at the northcm corridor. Do you see any primary habitat in that northern corridor? No. Now, tell me how you're going to establish that northern corridor without writing a big check and without the landowner's cooperation. Because that land is an active ago now, and that's why the panthers aren't using it. There's not a bunch of native vegetation up there, it's not primary habitat. So none ofthe scientists have said that's something we ought to be protecting. So we come in with an innovative program to try to improve the situation and what do we do, we have people saying, well, that's not enough, you really need more. Well, at some point in time the landowner's going to say no. And then what are you going to have? You're not going to have anything. So remember, this is an incentive based voluntary program. This is not regulatory. The Conservancy says they like incentive based, but I'm not sure that's not a little bit disingenuous. So I just want everybody to remember, the only thing I see endangered by this map is private property rights. Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you, sir. Any questions? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: If not, next speaker. MR. PRIDDY: Russell Priddy. I'll respond to one ofJennifer's comments or observations about the northern corridor and why it suddenly took a right-hand turn. I think that's real obvious to everyone in the room. You get into Hendry County and we don't have jurisdiction to do anything up there. We can only work within the envelope we're given. Ifwe turn -- our other option would be to turn left, but that doesn't ultimately hook us up to where the panthers need to go. So, you know, while that conceptual line for a corridor may not be perfect and may get moved, may get widened, may get narrowed, it has to turn right and go to where the panthers are. To the issue of issuing these restoration credits or early cntry, let me first back up and remind everyone, because there seems to be an overtone that it's the landowner's greed that's driving this. The landowners did pay for the study, the three-year study that ended up with RLSA. Not one time did we mention restoration credits. In fact, we first, when it was introduced to us, thought that that just wouldn't work. That wasn't our idea. So please don't -- when you're talking about restoration credits, please don't blame that on us. And I keep finding myself having to use me as the example. I have to stand here and tell you I'm a prime example for why you would give a landowner two credits now, it was four, but two credits to offer up their land for restoration. Page 51 '. 6 I 1 '1 A 6 ,~ January 30, 2009 Folks, I don't have the money to do the restoration. So do I not offer it up and restoration never take place or do I try to do thc right thing and make it availablc? Not necessarily for the public to come pay for it. The Conservancy can use some of their $25 million they just raised. They got there so fast they had to go to 33. Maybe they can use some of that extra to pay for the restoration. It doesn't have to be the taxpayers, there's other folks out there that can chip in. Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Russell, the qucstioning that I have initiated and I think others as well, I don't believe it was from a position of grecd. As a Planning Commission, we're trying to understand how the credits equatc in the bigger picture, why two credits for a caracara is worth two credits for a caracara, what it means as far as application of land codes. Because you're asking for a large increase in credits. And whether that's right or wrong, we're trying to figure out how it's legitimate to get there. It has nothing to do with forcing people to spend money or not, it's just simply what does it take to get there and does everything balance properly. MR. PRJDDY: Well, and I think the landowners tried to offset that in recalibrating the credits. Because yes, if you add the total of what's heing proposed, we got way beyond what we could -- you know, the 45 would allow. And, you know, we realized amongst ourselves that that had to be recalibrated back to get to the 45. Number one. it has to be in balance. And I don't want to be the one stuck with credits at the end of the day with nowhere for them to go. So, you know, I've on occasion had to remind my colleagues and my fellow landowners that this had to be lair. And we're the ones that's most concerned with that being fair. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I understand. Thank you. Anyhody else? David? COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Yeah, and I'm not meaning to pick on you, Mr. Priddy. MR. PRIDDY: That's okay. COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: But let's say that you get your credits and you sell them. And what -- ! guess what was a concern over here was what is to assure that your grandchildren and great grandchildren will maintain that picce of property? [ find it difficult -- I find it hard to believe that the generation down, how that will work. MR. PRIDDY: Wcll, I think the legal document, and maybe Heidi can answer that. I don't have the specifics in my SSA that's in process. Mr. Varnadoe has been the author of those, maybe he can answer that. But, you know, we're creating a legal document, a legal easement. You know, what specifically that is, I'm not sure. But there's certainly a financial commitment. And I think I've been told somewhere along the line that when my SSA goes through, I have -- particularly with restoration, there has to be some cither cash deposit or bond put in place. And again, I've been several years. and I'm almost there, but I'm not quite through that. But there are others in the room that's been there, done that and have that document in hand. COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Ijust found it very dit1icult on why it would even be worth it. MR. PRIDDY: Well, you know, again, I think you have to give some credit or credibility to people and not assume that everyone out therc is a gangster and is going to get their money and run to Ohio. You know, some of us have -- my kids are fourth generation on this property. We as a family take a lot of pride in the ownership of the land, number one, and the stewardship of the land and the diversity ofthe use of the land. Not only for generating cash f10w so we can pay our ad valorem taxes, but for the protection of wildlife. And I'll offer our property up against anyone as far as quality on any of those things. I think it's second to none. Perhaps equal to several, but second to none. You know, so I don't know, I think there's a cynical element there that everybody that comes along is going to rape and pillagc and leave town. And I Page 52 16 I ta:a~l?200~ just simply don't believe that. COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Well, that's not really what I meant, but thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Next speaker? DR. HUSHON: Do you want me now or do you want to break for lunch? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, you know, it would probably be better if we took -- came back at I :00. Is that in agreement with everyone on the Planning Commission? Thank you for offering. If you don't mind, we'll break now and come back here at I :00 and resume with Judith's discussion. (Luncheon recess.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Good afternoon. Okay. It's one o'clock everyone. If you could take your seats and we'll quiet down. And before we go into the discussions that we left off on, we've got some housekeeping issues to attend to, and that is the termination of to day's meeting to a continuation of another date. First of all, the Planning Commission has a one-item agenda ncxt Thursday. We're scheduled for the entire day to be over at the Board of County Commissioners' chambers, which is our normal meeting area. The meeting there starts at 8:30. I would think it's going to be over rather fast. And I think a good idea would he to continue to that meeting, as long as there's no problems here. But there is a logistical problem between us and the EAC and the committee. I don't know -- the EAC is, for some reason, meeting that day on the same issue. And Judith, is there -- is that locked in stone? MS. HUSHON: Well, I cannot meet the following week. That was the date -- we were going to meet today, and then you all took our day today. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: We didn't take it. Thcy gave it us to. MS. HUSH ON: Well, I was told that you all said you had to have this day, so you got it. But the next day that my committee could meet was the 5th, and they gave us one o'clock on the 5th. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, we're not taking this room. MS. HUSHON: No, I understand that, but that's what they've given us. And, Tom, you may able to speak to this. MR. GREENWOOD: Well, it will be at one o'clock on the 5th in this room, and you'll be in the other room. And, you know, if necessary, staff will covcred both if it's -- ifthere's an overlap. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I'm not worried about staff I'm worried about the-- MS. HUSHON: The public and committees. MR. GREENWOOD: Well, yeah. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The committee and the public and everybody else that wants to respond. MR. GREENWOOD: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I think the way we'll end up working it out is next Thursday we'll continue. We'll continue to then, spend the morning at our meeting, if everybody continues that -- votes to continue it, on the 5th at the chambers down there, and then the EAC can continue up here at one o'clock, and we'll have to stop at lunchtime down at our place. MS. HUSHON: Okay, that's fine. The other thing you could do, Mark, just -- would be to do this in the morning, have lunch, and you could do your one item after lunch, if that worked. I know it's been noticed, and I know that's an issue. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah, we can't do it. We've already noticed it. MS. HUSHON: Can't do that. Okay. But I would -- I think that would be appropriate if you need more time. CHA[RMAN STRAIN: Oh. we'll need more time. Page 53 lOll , A6~ January 30. 2009 MS. HUSH ON: Then it would prohably be appropriate to find another date to go -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah, we'll-- MS. HUSHON: And we may have to do the same thing. I don't know whether we will fInish on the 5th, but that's -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Next Thursday, the Planning Commission will have another date picked by then, so we'll continue to anothcr day after next Thursday. MS. HUSHON: Mr. Wolfley has a comment. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah, David'? COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: I'll he lcaving the country (sic) for a bio-diesel conference and may not be back by Thursday. It's in San Francisco. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Wcll, as long as we havc a quorum, we can go on with the meeting. COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Another country, yes. I'm sorry? Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, we need a quorum. I know we have one for the meeting so-- COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Yeah. I may be able to get back late Wednesday night, so-- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. MS. HUSHON: Okay. I think that's fair to the people who want to be present. They certainly can't be going up and down Airport Road. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I think thcy could, hut we won't put them through that. Thank you, Judith. Appreciate it. Okay. So we'll -- and Tom, as far as anothcr meeting date after that Thursday goes for the Planning Commission, if staff could look into what's available in the Board of County Commissioners' first and this room as a backup to that if we can't find a reasonable datc over there, and then we'll continue it from there. MR. GREENWOOD: Is your preference any particular day ofthe week? COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Thursday. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, Thursday's our regular meeting day, and we have in between Thursdays that are generally availablc. ^nd Paul. I think your worst days are Mondays and Tuesdays; is that right? I mean, we may not be able to find a Thursday, so we'll do the best we can, but -- so, yeah. Tfwe can avoid Mondays and Tuesday, towards the end ofthe week. that works out the hest. It's important for Paul to be able to attend if it's at all possible. He's more representative of the area than any of us, so -- MR. McDANIEL: And for and on behalf of the committee. we'll all do what we have to do in order to meet your request. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I thought this is all you did. I saw you ycsterday and the day before. Okay. When we went to brcak, we were still talking about the panther corridor issue on policy 3.1. I. There was a series of public speakers. the ncxt of which was Judith Hutchinson (sic). MS. HUSH ON: Hushon. CHAIRM^N STRAIN: And so --l-Iushon, I'm sorry. [always call you by your first name, so-- MS. HUSHON: Right. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So Judith, procccd. MS. HUSHON: Okay. I'm going to speak to you right now as the --I was chairing the EAC for these -- you may have seen the wonderful mectings yesterday. Anyway, we did have something on this item, so I thought, relating to the setting aside restoration credits and designation of panther corridor there was some discussion. It was pretty much in agreement with what we saw on a southern corridor and that we could live with somc southern corridors, not necessarily this one. It would be nice to have it a little wider. The northern corridor was very much a discussion item, and the committee was very dissatisfied with the shape and tenuousness of it. It sccms to be much longer than it would ever have to he. Page 54 161'''' Au6!ih,2009 In addition -- I mean, it's partiaify 'ca~se'1eY've tried to keep it all within Collier County, and that may not be optimal. And we heard -- you heard a presentation from Hendry, which alluded to the fact that those people up there are interested in retaining a rural character right in the same area. So it's something to be discussed, I think, before any panther corridor would get laid to rest. The EAC wants to revisit this, and they want to revisit it -- it will probably have -- we're hoping that the panther team report will come back before the -- this has to go for GMP approvals. The thought was there, because of the language in some of the emails and things like that, it was highly unlikely that a number of the scientists are going to go along with this projection. I also wanted to say that there was -- thrown around at our meeting was this comment that Darrell Land said he was 95 percent happy with what he was hearing. This came out in July, but I'd like to show the map that was available at that time. Mike, you want to see how different that map is from this map? Flip over to my -- can you zero in just a little bit') This -- whoop. This is the map that was put up at that meeting, and this came out of the Naples Daily News. It's in the books. MR. DeRUNTZ: Can you turn the light off? MS. HUSHON: You can see -- I don't have a pointer, but you can see the northern corridor indicated with two arrows there, and you can see the southern corridor. It was very general. Oh, I do have a pointer. Oh, thank you. There's the northern corridor as demonstrated at that time, and here is the southern corridor demonstrated at that time. [ think Darrell could be quite comfortable with that as opposed to -- could we now put the transportation map back on? Oh, I gave you a copy. If you could just slip it-- MR. GREENWOOD: Well, there's a better high-defmap here. MS. HUSHON: Okay. You're right. It's high-def MR. GREENWOOD: It will take a few seconds. MS. HUSHON: I think he would be -- have some problems with this one as well if what he was agrecing to was the other map. So we're concerned, but we want to wait for the experts to come back in. Our feeling is that that northern corridor isn't going to meet thc needs of the panther and do what it has to do. So we're concerned about giving credits for it, if it isn't -- if it -- the experts don't think it's going to work. I mean, that's always an issue. And we're being asked to put credits out for it without a design and without an approved pathway, and so I'm -- we're -- that was an issue. We had -- we also talked a lot about how the acres of ground -- and I think you're going to talk some more about that -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. MS. HUSHON: -- in terms of the general growth of this. But on this particular item and on the panthers, we got into a large discussion on panther science. You prob- -- hopefully you can avoid that today. You were prcsented with what is the primary panther area as defined by Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, and that is an area to be encouraged in some way for development. Devclopment should be encouraged to be in that area and not outside of it. Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Thank you very much. Any questions ofJudith at this time? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Well, let me ask. Judith? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Judith, we have a couple. Go ahead, Brad. Page 55 16 I 1 January A, 6'" MS. HUSHON: Yes, Brad. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Judith, there's one thing I'm having trouble with is they want to create this northern boundary, yet it's bringing it across major roads and things, and obviously from the statistics early (sic), the panthers' worst enemy is the car. MS. HUSHON: That's correct, and that's one of the reasons we prefer something that would do more -- what you don't realize. See this area right -- can you kind of see that line? Tbat's the San Green (sic) area continuing north, so that's habitat, too. You can't -- just can't tell that because of the way the map's highlighted. And panthers are up in that area. That's just fine. There have been no panthers crossing here yet. This is a dream right now. It actually isn't a reality. We don't have panther telemetry across this area. We have panther telemetry up in here that comes right down in here, but it never made it across. It never made it across that road. So maybe that road was a little bit of a deterrent. That's a state road, county line road. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And, you know, it is not a primary area, so we're going to create a brand new connection to primary areas right through the ki II zones, which -- MS. HUSfION: Right. And this was the map that was put up -- here you can see. Here's where it came down and in. There is thc county line road. That's the dot right there. That's the road. This was that green area. This was another grecn area. There's multiple -- this is a panther, and these panther tracks wherc one panther gocs from point A to point B to point C to point D. So you can see how this panther camc down and came right along the road, and this one came down to the road and went back again. Maybe the same panther. I don't know. But the road is a deterrent. The panthers don't likc it. These were the least cost pathways. There were three of them. It also has to do with length of the pathway, and the longer the pathway gets -- and the one that was proposed was like that, very long, three sides of a rectanglc, whereas thcsc are more likc the diagonals of the rectangle -- thc panther is less likely to follow it. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Thank you. MS. HUSHON: Yep. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. Any other questions? Next speaker? Russcll? MR. PRIDDY: Yeah. I was at the meeting almost all day yesterday. I may have stepped out for a minute, but I don't remember the EAC authorizing their vice-chair to come here on behalf of them today, so her earlier statement -- MS. HUSHON: I told them I was going to comc. MR. PRIDDY: She-- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Russell, lor the record, she made it clear she wasn't here on behalf of the EAC, but she's explaining what happened is all. MR. RUSSELL: Okay. That road up there that she kept referring to, that's not a road. That's the county line. There is no road there. MS. HUSHON: There's scheduled to be. MR. PRIDDY: On whose schedule? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, wait a minute. MR. PRIDDY: I'm not done. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Russell, the discourse betwcen the audience and you doesn't occur at our meetings. If so you have a question, you address it to us. If Ms. Hutchinson (sic) wants to get back up and address them again afterwards, she can. So that's how it works. MR. PRIDDY: Okay. So it's okay to gct up and throw out any bogus information and sit down'! Page 56 16 I f ":a!Ao, 2009 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No. It's -- you're trying to clarity your position. She had hers. Everyone's going to have a different position. We have a right to hear all of them, so -- MR. PRIDDY: Okay. Let's move on because my next question is something that's going to be near and dear to your heart, Mr. Strain, and that is the protection of the taxpayers. The Conservancy has offered up this map with this northern corridor. I think it's fair to ask what cost is associated with that and maybe have them bring back a cost estimate for what it costs to acquire the land, what it costs to restore or create a corridor that does not exist, and what it costs to maintain it. The landowners with the conceptual northern corridor have given you the answer to the cost of the land. It's free. So I think that's a concern. Number two, there are no panthers using that corridor, and it is right through, Mr. Midney, some of our most fertile rural crops and active ago one. Thank you. THE COURT REPORTER: What was your last name, sir? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Priddy. You want to spell your last name, Russell? MR. PRIDDY: Priddy, P-R-I-D-D-Y. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I would havc gotten it wrong, so I'm glad he did that. Okay. Tom? MR. JONES: I have a public comment. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You can have all the comments you want, Tom. You have plenty of time, so -- MR. JONES: I don't know. I'm about running out of time. You know, I do ascribe to the theory that no good deed goes unpunished and, you know, the landowners, conservation organizations, thcy thought it was a good idea to try and put a northern corridor in. But if the overwhelming consensus is that it's just not going to work, then we just won't do it. You know, I mean, we don't have to continue to talk about it ad nauseam. It either works or it doesn't work. Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah. We have a new court reporter, so you're going to have to re-state your names a couple of times till she gets used to us. Are there any other public speakers on policy 3.I.l? MR. McDANIEL: Public/committee, if I might. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, Bill. Go right ahead. MR. McDANIEL: Bill McDanicl. Public comment -- well, it's based on the fact that I served on the committee. The map that Judy had up there in advance was one, I think, produced by Darrell Land or given to us at the committee level. And when Darrell -- and we could check the record for sure because I do have selective memory issues, but during that conversation or during the discussion with Darrell and his representation that he was 95 percent happy. It didn't necessarily revolve around the -- with specificity, the locale of the corridors. It was with the Rural Land Stewardship Program in its entirety. He suggested that a northern corridor be produced. I recall that during the process. That was one of my acknowledgments, if you will, again, of the creation ofthis corridor, wherever it ultimately ends up. But during that discussion, it's pretty-well evidcnccd by the telemetry hits and what's going on, the southern corridor and where its proximity ought, in fact. to be. But he suggested connectivity hetween the CREW's land and OK Slough area. And so that was our stab, if you will -- it should probably not fine term in this stage -- but that was my beliefs as we were at the committee level endeavoring to effectuate some process for that northern connectivity between those two habitats of -- for the Florida panther. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Thank you, Bill. Bruce? Oh, Mr. Wolfley, before -- Page 57 1611 A6 'l January 30, 2009 COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Some of this seems contrary to the Conservancy's maps, as Mr. Priddy brought up. I was just wondering if before we get away from this -- where are, we 3.1.1 -- if we could hear from the Conservancy to kind of-- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, they've already been up once. They can come back up if they want to. But right now we're still trying to get through the public speakers on 3. I. I. Do you want to -- let's finish COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: I'm almost --I was on the committee and I'm almost more confused now than I was the first month. That's my point is, I just -- I'm trying to figure out where are these panther credits. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Bruce? MR. JOHNSON: For the record, Bruce Johnson with WilsonMiller. I would just like to cover one point that Bill just made. The meeting in question where Mr. Land spoke to the oversight committee was June 3rd, 2008. And I disagree with Ms. Hushon's characterization. What he was saying he was 95 percent happy with was thc current program and the current overlay map. So what his statement was, was he was 95 percent happy with it. Now, what he was not satisfied with were some of these linkagcs. So what he was implicitly saying was. I'm 95 percent happy with the existing program. If we can figure out a way to make these linkages work, I'm good. And I'm sure at some point he'll be bcfore the committee to verity that statement, but that was in my mind, and in most people's minds, clearly his intent on that day. It's fortunate that the Conservancy and Ms. Hecker this morning referenced the Kautz 2006 paper so much this morning because I'm going to give you a series of factual statements from that paper and some supporting information from other documents produced by U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and other researchers. But I would like to point out one thing about the nature of the panther telemetry. Yes, the telemetry you look at are typically recorded between six a.m. and ten a.m. every morning. And just to be clear how -- what the volumc of data is for right now at tbis moment, the collaring and the tracking was begun in 1981. It continues to this day. Even though a third of the cats are collared today out of the known population, that has varied from year to year depending on the intensity of the capture effort and the size of the population. But what we have right now is 28 years of data, over 150 cats collared, and over 90,000 data points. That is not insignificant. Anyhody who does statistics -- you know, they sample presidential election polls with 1,200 -- a sample of I ,200. Within the RLSA there's nearly 10,000 data points alone, just within the RLSA. So we have a very robust data set. Now, one of the things they started to talk about was the issue that -- the nighttime telemetry is confirming that the cats are somehow utilizing things differently. I have the paper right here from Darrell, David Shindle, and others, that clearly says they can show no significant difference between daytime and nighttime usage. Now, what does that mean? It means that the best available evidence to date tracking cats round the clock with GPS collars and tracking them during the day with daytime telemetry, what that information tells you is the daytime data is a sufficient proxy tor where the cats are and what they're using. Cats do not stick in the forest at night and run three miles into the middle of a vast citrus grove and run back to that forest before daytime so the plane can catch them as it flies over, okay. So this data is very robust, it is very solid, and it does tell us wbcrc the cats are. I'd likc to read verhatim from the Kautz paper, the same one that Ms. Hecker referred to this morning, the definition of primary zonc as it occurs in the introduction to this paper. Page 58 16 I 1" "L'~ J~u~ 30, 2009 We identified areas of suitable habitat that have been consistently occupied by panthers in the past 20 years, okay. What does that mean? There's three parts to that definition. It's got to be suitable habitat. If they went and sat on the Sunniland mine, that may not be suitable habitat if it was -- had to be not only occupied, but consistently occupied. So if a cat ran out a few hundred yards into a tomato field, sat on a cypress dome when the plane flew over that morning and took a point, they did not consider that as part of the primary zone by this definition, by this definition. So you had to have suitable habitat consistently occupied over the last 20 years. That is a powerful statement. And as I mentioned to this committee -- commission before, and I believe the EAC yesterday, there is a discrepancy between the verbal definition of this primary zone and what you are shown on the maps as being primary zone. That map does not fit this definition. It does not. So one has to be reconciled. Now, I'd like to go into a couple of reasons why that might be. For all of their analyses of what cats are actually using, they use a home range estimation technique that looks at all the points and draws a line around them using computer algorithms, and they use that technique specifically to determine what habitats cats are actually using, not just what's available to them. What they're actually using. Now, when they -- in a moment when I go through this papcr and tell you about those habitats and the rankings that they came up with, they use that technique, which is called fixcd kernel. When they did the modeling for the mapping in GIS, they used a far more extensive technique called minimum convex polygon which can take an area where a cat has gone out once to that cypress dome and once to this flat/wood and oncc over here and drawn a line around the whole thing. Now, it should tell you something that they chose not to use that method to analyze what cats are using, okay. But that is the method that they used when they created the map of primary zone, which is extremely broad-brush. And I'd just like to tell you flat out here, there's a couple of facts. The scientific review team that reviewed this work for the Fish and Wildlife Service have a paper from that report and it says, the minimum convex polygon approach may include large areas of unused habitat within the home range. They're acknowledging that minimum convex polygons are broad-brush. From this paper -- one of the things that they did in this Kautz paper was they looked at all those data points, and they estimated their home ranges, and they came up with tables that tell you the rankings of various habitats, and I'd likc to quickly put it up here. But I'd just like you to take a look at these tables. Now, when I mentioncd that they said it may contain unused habitat, let's get right to thc hcart of the matter. The primary zone, which some people say we cannot afford to lose a single acre of; only has 64.3 percent of potentially suitable habitat patches. That is right in the Kautz paper; 64.3 percent. That means over a third of the primary zone is not even potentially suitable habitat. So they're acknowledging as clearly as you can that the primary zone has been over- mapped, okay. The purpose of it is to guide consultations, guide decision-making to get people into the arena where they can begin discussing impacts to panthcr, but they are acknowledging over a third of the habitat is not suitable. On this table that you're looking at, you're looking at two different statistical methods for deciding what the cats really prefer and what they don't prefer. And if you go down that list, you'll notice the upper half of both lists consist almost entirely of forested habitat and native habitats. The interesting thing is you'll notice about a little more than halfway down we have urban in both of those categories and below urban in terms of prefcrence is pasture and grassland, cropland, orchard and citrus groves. Now, I'm not implying that they prefcr downtown Immokalee to a citrus grove nor would the people who created this table say that. What they would say though is these big open agricultural lands are not the Page 59 16 11.~'IA 6 January 30. 2009 things that panthers like. And we basically already knew that anyway because there's no telemetry out there. Again, a cat is not going to run a mile out into a citrus grove and then run back to the forest at daylight. It will hunker down wherever it is. With 10,000 data points in the RIoSA, we would have picked up on that by now. So ba,ically I would just like to say one other thing, and that is. evcn if you accept the premise, even if you accept that premise of how the primary zone is met, they make allowance right in the paper, the Kautz paper, and they say that the recovery plan would allow impacts so long as it resulted it no net functional loss in panther habitat support. So in other words, if you made impacts somewhere within that primary zone and took out a citrus grove that the cat's not using anyway, or even small cypress domes that a cat may have been in once in the past 30 years, and you compensate by mitigating somewhere and improving the habitat so the prey-base capacity is higher or you actually extend some habitat into the secondary zone, then you can continue with your activity. So I disagree strongly with the implication that the primary zone is sacred. We have an acknowledgment that more than a third of it is not suitable habitat, and they provide for allowances to impacts to the primary zone. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Vigliotti? COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: It seems to me that everyone believes in this expert. I don't remember his namc. But everyone scems to believe in him. Why isn't he here and when can we -- because it seems like everybody's trying to interpret what he said. MR. JOHNSON: Well, there are a couple of reasons. Number one, the expert, I think you're referring to Darrell Land. And just so people understand, he's the FWc panther research team leader. He has over 20 years capturing, tracking, analyzing data for and publishing scientific studies on the cat. He was not informed in a timely manner of these meetings. And some of the things, as people have alluded to, the technical review team is in the middle of evaluating all this information. And even if he could be here, I'm not sure he could tell us much because that is information that's developing right now. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Okay. But it seems as though everybody's trying to interpret what he said. You had one interpretation. She had another interpretation. When can he come here so we could ask him some questions and maybe get some solid answers~ MR. JOHNSON: The commission will -- I'd leave it to you as commissioners to make the arrangements to do that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Rob. he doesn't work lor the county. He works for another level of government. He goes and comes where he has to go and when he's needed and when asked and when it can fit into his schedule. It may not be coinciding with ours. At this point we've got a document to movc through thc bcst we can. I don't know if it's -- we've got the time afforded to wait for his schedule to meet ours. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Okay. that's fine. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anyhody clse have any qucstions of Brucc? Bruce, I have one. MR. JOHNSON: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I probably need to re-ask the same question of Nicole or Jennifer. MR. JOHNSON: Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: [undcrstand your argument and I undcrstand theirs. Therc are occasions-- in fact, most of the land that is in dispute as to whether it's primary or not and it's farnlland, is contiguous to uplands that are primary, habitat, forested, that rank high in your list there. How far from that hahitat and forested primary whcre there is telemctry, where there is evidence of Page 60 1611 "~A6 January 30, 2009 good panther activity, do we feel comfortable allowing development to a point where it doesn't disrupt any of that primary activity? MR. JOHNSON: I think that's contingent on several things. The nature -- number one, you do realize the site design standards for the RLSA, as they exist today, talk about intensity being centered in an SRA or away from environmental assets and decreasing intensities as you get to the margin ofthe SRA. So first of all, you're decreasing intensity . You're going from dense neighborhoods and the town center to less dense neighborhoods and to recreational activities, golf courses, things like that, and then you are required to put a buffer between the SRA and the environmental assets, okay. So that's -- there's quite a bit of site design work that you can do to mitigate the effects of the development. But on top of that, almost all of this, between the procedures we have to go through to get an SRA approved at the county level and to get that same proposed development approved through the DRl process and through the permitting process, there -- trust me, there will be numerous regulations by numerous parties insisting that the appropriate buffers be in place so that a cat that is using a cypress strand today would not be impacted by the development. They could continue to use that cypress strand. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. Anybody else have any questions? Brad? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: What is the prey for panthers? What's the primary prey? MR. JOHNSON: Primary prey are deer and hogs, wild hogs. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay, thanks. MR. JOHNSON: They'll eat other things. They'll eat raccoons and stuff as they get them, but the primary is deer and hog. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, thank you. MR. JOHNSON: Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Next public speaker? Is there anybody? No. MR. McDANIEL: Tim said he didn't want to. I just would like to make a sugg- -- is there -- while he's on his way, if! might just reiterate. We at the committee did hear from Darrell Land. We at the committee did hear that Darrell Land was 95 percent okay or happy with the entire Rural Lands Stewardship Overlay as it was, as it currently exists today. And in an attempt to assists with one of the things that he would like to see fortification to that plan was an east/west corridor to the north, and remembering that incentivization is the basis for this voluntary program. That was a methodology that we utilized to -- in order to effectuate that thought process that he's looking to have as far as, if you -- I don't know if you're ever going to get to completely satisty him, but start the process, if you will. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Did he express a width in that corridor as a minimum? Did he talk about any kind of detail like that? MR. McDANIEL: No, not at all. If you hop over to that map that was popped into the Naples Daily News, those were happy arrows that were there. And, again, from a planning standpoint, as Brad brought up, these are -- that area -- that corridor transects two major highway systems that we all know are in the process of being expanded significantly to facilitate traffic for -- on a regional basis to and through that particular area. So our shots there was, getting that corridor established, with that, designate potential wildlife crossings that can be put in the budget process from a funding standpoint to help facilitate ultimately what Darrell was looking for, was that connectivity between the CREW's land and the OK Slough area. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, thank you. Next public -- Dane? Page 61 1611"'~ A6"" January 30, 2009 MR. SCOFIELD: Hi. Dane Scofield. HalfCirele L Ranch, private property owner in eastern Collier County. I'd just like to weigh in myself, my opinions, and for your consideration. I've heard some statements made here today that I felt the need to address. As a landowner, I've been involved through extensive negotiations, dialogues, meetings, with private landowners and a group of environmental interests who have represented themselves at those meetings. They -- through those meetings we have -- and through cxtensive dialogue, we've come to compromises, and that is -- those compromises have been largely reflected within the documents that have been presented to you by the review committee. You have one instance of representatives that were here today through the Conservancy who were initially part of that process. They removed themselves from that process of dialogue to hold to their extreme position of un compromise. And the question that is before you is, are you as a committee going to give more credence to the overarching group of landowners and environmentalists who have come together to try to work out an agreement to a program that needs to be balanced, or are you going to give more credence to a separate individual group that's holding to an extreme position? They have identified an inequity based on their proposal. They have -- they want to limit the areas of development while maximizing areas of preservation that will set up a scenario of excessive credits coming from SSA areas. Their solution is to have the county deal with that problem, to take those credits outside the rural land stewardship arca. Well, we've discussed that ourselves, and it's been met with extreme resistance, and it is a near-impossible task when you consider the numbers of people involved in the areas that you're trying to take these credits to. An agreeable compromise that I would certainly entertain is a financial compensation, purchase those credits, retire them, and they don't enter into the system. I haven't heard those proposals coming from anyone. There's a precedent that the county has already established of purchasing lands that they wish to preserve, and an easy solution would be instead of purchasing the lands with the long-term maintenance of those properties, purchase the credits. The land stays in the ownership of the landowner, he has the responsibilities for the maintenance and the taxes. And those are my comments. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, Dane, you've pointed out a good problem that's going to come out as we weave our way through these many pages of documcnts is that the program is creating a lot of credits, and somehow those credits have to be addressed. MR. SCOFIELD: I believe -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And that either happens at the expense of taxpayers or it happens at the profitability of who can utilize those credits. And I'm for one and not for the other. So I guess we'll see how it weaves out. I don't have answers to your questions now, but we certainly will try to after we gct through all the policies, so -- MR. SCOFIELD: Well, that very issue was wrestled with by the review committee, and I believe that thcir suggestion that has been put forth to you in the documents tried to address that, and the landowners initiated the compromises to deal with those inequities. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Anybody else havc any other questions? Thank you, Dane. Page 62 16 I 1~~" A 6 · 1 January 30, 2009 EI izabeth? MS. FLEMMING: Elizabeth Flemming with Defenders of Wildlife. We want nothing more than to work towards improving the conservation and recovery status of the Florida panther, and we have been working in good faith with the largest landowners trying to really reach some benchmarks and understanding of where -- where they will be and where the land and conservation will be in 50 or 100 years, what we're trying to imagine is the build-out or the maturity of this program, but still withholding our judgment until we hear from this expert panel of six scientists about whether this particular configuration will work or whether that road needs to have a slightly different alignment or we need a crossing at this juncture. So we've viewed all of this as conceptual. You need to get something on a map. We view it as conceptual but a plan that can have it -- there will be input. I know that as I stated when the first meeting was the other day about the scheduling and the different processes that are all in flux. Again, the federal one is going to have, perhaps, a much larger impact into what happens with the panther than what is decided with these committees. But the point I'm getting at is we are still withholding our final -- our final judgment of all of this till we hear from that scientific panel. And I don't want to see their findings or their process or their working methodology in any way compromised by them feeling pressure to turn something out quickly to satisty us and the press and whoever's asking questions. We, the parties who've worked, the landowners and conservation organizations, have stepped back, and we have -- we have asked them to maintain a certain schedule. But we are not interfering, we are not asking for their findings, we are not pressuring them to have certain findings. And it is of great concern to my organization, and I'm sure others, that other organizations and entities and members of the public and anybody here now has fragmentary findings, snippets of data, things that have been leaked. I mean, it's like I -- if[ were a scientist, I'd feel like I have a dog on my pant leg trying to shake the information. We wanted them to have the time in an objective setting to reach their findings, and I just want to state for the record that I'm -- I don't want to see that process undone by our inadvertent actions here. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. MS. FLEMMING: Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Are there any other public speakers? Okay. Nicole, did you want to say something? I couldn't tell. You started to get up, then you sat back. I wasn't sure where you were going. MS. RYAN: I wasn't sure if] could have two shots under these policies, so -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I think we're looking for elarification. I'd asked a question of Bruce, in which he answered. I suggested at the time that I'd probably need you to answer the same question, and if you remember the question it's about the setback from primary panther habitat that's known in an uplands wooded area, how far back, if you had a development, would you need to be for it to still retain its primary qualities. And that may move into the question that you've been raising about why these open spaces are considered primary. I don't know, but I wanted to understand that better. MS. RYAN: For the record, Nicole Ryan, Conservancy of Southwest Florida. I believe that Jennifer I Iecker is coming back, and she is more familiar with the panther science and those sorts of things, so I would like to hold off our answer on that. We can maybe insert that in later policy so that we don't hold things up. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's fine. MS. RYAN: But our concern is that because of the mosaic of habitat, that these tomato fields, these Page 63 16111 A6'~ January 30, 2009 farm fields, they are important. So if we're -- again, whcn it gets down to carving up and what portions of primary could we go ahead and carve out because it is a famlland, we believe that the science is elear, that those areas do provide for function, they provide lor that buffer. And once you start nipping away, then it just keeps with the encroachment. So we would like to see all that primary really focused for keeping development away from that area. As far as the buffers and some of the other things that we've proposed, our map, we believe, is a compromise. We felt that this program was going to produce much less development than we now see that it will produce. Our map has 32,700 acres on top of A vc Maria that we're saying we believe could be appropriate for development. So we don't see that as a hard-line extreme position. We kept bringing our suggestions to the table n CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You're going beyond the question. MS. RYAN: Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So let's try to rake it back in, and when Jennifer gets here, if she wants to address it more succinctly then, that's fine, too. MS. RYAN: Okay, line, sure. Thanks. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. Tim? MR. DURHAM: Tim Durham with WilsonMiller. I had a problcm with some of the things I heard this monling from Ms. Hecker. Since she's going to come back, I'll reserve those commcnts till she's present in case -- so they're not, you know -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That would be better, sir. MR. DURHAM: Keep that clear. So Ijust want to reserve a chance to respond to anything she brings up. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Absolutely. MR. DURHAM: Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: This is an open forum. Bruce? You haven't got much to rebut because there wasn't much said, so I'm not sure what you -- MR. JOl-INSON: I totally disagree with you. For the record, Bruce Johnson. Just speaking to what Nicole said. Land cover's only part of the story. Context is everything. And you'll recall -- and it's right in one of the policies -- that when we designed this program, we understood that the landscape had already been tragmented to some degree, and that was the purposes of the overlays. The SSAs or the flowway stewardship areas integrated all of the regional hydrology into these systems that we could protect, and the habitat stewardship areas were designed specifically to create large interconnected blocks of habitat. As evidence of that, therc are 15,000 acres of active agriculture within the 45,000 acres ofHSA. And within the first 56,000 of approved and pcnding SSA acres, we have 15,000 acres of ago one within that. So we are talking about -- if we'rc talking about a tomato field down near the panther refuge in SSA6 that has telemetry points all around it and we're wondering if a cattle will run a hundred feet out of the woods to catch a deer or a hog that's gone into that field, that's one thing. But if we're talking about a 20,OOO-aere area of citrus like we have south oflmmokalee and wondering if that's utilizcd, that's entirely another thing. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. MR. JONES: Thank you. CI lAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Bill, I think we're back onto the policies. And out of the discussion, one thing that seems that may need to be answered, and I'm hoping you could address it, the credits that are Page 64 16 I 1- A L ,,~ JanuarOOY009 in the restoration area were calculated into the maxinlum number of credits used by this suggested new policy or policies, up to 421,000, ifI'm not mistaken, but it's based, I think, more on the plan that -- the Centroid plan than, obviously, on the Conservancy's plan. If the science comes back and agrees more with the widths of the corridors as minimums in the Conservancy plan versus the Centroid plan, we're going to end up with a lot better corridors and thus the potential for a huge amount more of panther area. How do we stop the flooding and oversaturation of credits as a result of that scenario if it occurs under the program that you have here? MR. McDANIEL: And I -- that really wasn't a discussion that the committee had as we were going through process. I mean, the committee had lengthy discussions with respect to the credit generation process and the value of those credits and ensuring that there was a place for those credits to ultimately go. In so doing, from experts that came and spoke with us, we determined that the creation of the corridors was a viable incentivization process, knowing ultimately, you know, there are larger -- I don't want to say larger -- but there are other powers that are ultimately going to regulate what, in fact, can transpire with the Florida panther. It's at a federal level. So as we go on, we recognized the necessity for the establishment of the corridor based upon Darrell Land's representation that that's something -- a fellow that's been chasing those kitties around for 20 years, made a proclamation. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But I think -- and I heard someone on your side of the issue recently say that those arrows were conceptual. Did Darrell Land ever realize the width of the corridors in his discussions with you guys? MR. McDANIEL: No, sir. It was me that said that those arrows were conceptual. It was I that said that. I think he did it with a pointer. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: What worries me is -- and again, whether we have a north corridor for the panthers or not is not my issue. My issue is the protection of the taxpayers from the establishment oftoo many credits that have to be handled. MR. McDANIEL: Right. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right now you're telling us by your Section 3 documentation that we can expect restoration credits of around 154,000, and that's based, I would assume then, on the plan that you all produced for the corridors, not the Conservancy's. MR. McDANIEL: Correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: If the science comes back and says, well, your plan was nice but the corridors have to be a mile wide instead of 300 feet or 600 feet, then you're going to see, what, five times the amount of land needed for -- that could be necessarily created that could produce restoration credits that we would have to then abide by somehow, and that's the point that I'm concerned about, the oversaturation of an issue that's unexpected, and this may be unexpected. Mr. Midney? COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Yeah. I've been listening to this discussion about the northern sector quite a bit, and it seems to me that it's not going to be worth it in the end because of the cost of making it wide enough so that it's really usable; plus, in taking the northern corridor, you're using secondary panther habitat, which would actually be a better place to put the towns up in. So I would he more inclined to drop that in exchange of concentrating the preservation more in the primary habitat towards the east, because it's a lot easier to conserve land that's already primary than to try to create primary habitat out of nothing, too. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Good point, Mr. Midney. It's one I'm sure we will have more ofadebate on when we come into our deliberations. We could debate it now, but I think we'll be opening up a can of Page 65 1 6 I Jlaryl30' 20a 6 , worms to hear the same thing we've heard for the past hour, not that I don't (sic) mind that, but we've already heard it. And, Tim, you look like you want to try something. Is Jennifer back~ COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Mark? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No? Then you're going to say something against Jennifer when she's not here? MR. DURHAM: No, sir. I don't loil people's information and read it without them here. I want to respond to what you were asking about thc credit scenario. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Sure. MR. DURHAM: I think it still may be hard tor some folks to visualize what we're talking about for the northern corridor. Out there today is pretty much monolithic agriculture with a few small pockets of natural areas. The reason the panther aren't moving through it is they don't have enough steppingstones to go through. What we'rc saying is, il"you create a series of stepping stones, they will start to use that area. That line that we're showing is where -- one possiblc route the steppingstones could be. The panther would still use a much larger area then, but at least within that zone would be where the landowner would restore from agriculture to some native community a certain si/,e area, which would be the steppingstone for the panther. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. MR. DURHAM: So what we've identified on there's more ofa restoration zone of the panther corridor, a potential route for the landowner to say, ycah, we could livc with that il"we restored a series of steppingstones there. That's not to restrict where the panther goes, but more to give him at least something to go through the area. and that's where this gets a little bit confusing. As long as it's agriculture on all sides and he has the steppingstones, the corridor is as wide -- you know, as wide as you want them to be. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You just said we did this. Do you mcan we as the committee or we as WilsonMiller or we as the landowners with WilsonMiller representing them? What we did you lollow that b ') y. MR. DURHAM: Darrell Land and I spent time together going over this and sending emails back and forth trying to come up with a corridor concept. I would try something, email it to Darrell, Darrell would come back, okay. I then used that information to come up with a drawing working with some of the landowners and some of the agriculture folks to come up with the exhibit that was then put in front ofthe oversight committee and discussed. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. That was the clariticationl needed. MR. DURHAM: Yes. sir. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ms. Caron? COMMISSIONER CARON: Yeah. I understand what you're saying about setting up this area for the cats to begin to use again, but what happens to all of this once you stick towns up there? MR. DeRUNTZ: And that's where that buffering issue comes into effect. It's really important to recognize any intensification ofland use near the panther corridor will have to be buffered appropriately. COMMISSIONER CARON: So what is an appropriate buffer? MR. DURHAM: It depends on what it is. Darrell has worked with certain landowners describing that, and there's different paramctcrs for that that gets fairly detailed. It could be open water, for example, of a certain distance. It could be a heavily vegetated buffer and some kind of physical structure and some light blockages. There's a serics of things that could be implemented in there. But that's cvolving. And I'm sure it Page 66 1611"'''' AL Januarli'J,~09 will be part of the science team's recommendations. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Thank you. Brad? MR. CORNELL: Brad Cornell with Collier Audubon and Audubon of Florida, and the committee. And I wanted to respond a little bit to this from the perspective of a committee member, and my recollection is that we didn't have a real conversation about what would happen if the recommended width and dimensions of either of these corridors was large enough that it would flood the market with credits. And my answer to that personally as a committee member is that I believe we would have to look at how we would be able to accommodate that. And one scenario of accommodation would be that the landowners themselves do not build the corridor, that the money comes from an agency through mitigation from other projects, through other funding sources, through something like that, in which case that would not generate credits in the stewardship credit system, and you would be able to accomplish the dimensions that would be recommended and not have put the system out of balance. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I'm just going by what's written in the documents we're reviewing, so that's all I have to go by. MR. CORNELL: Right. And I think that the documents, the policies that you've got, would be able to accommodate a different -- the conceptual corridors that you saw on that map, I don't think anybody should be holding those up as that's what we're planning to build or anybody's planning to build. I think that's just a concept. And the general idea of having a connection between the Corkscrew Marsh and Okaloacoochee Slough is what we all desired. And we understood from panther experts that there was a need for a connection between those two systems and that we wanted to facilitate that through a policy in the rural land stewardship. I don't see yet that we have a conflict with that, even ifthe science review team or anybody else, let's say Fish and Wildlife Service, who I know is also looking at these policies, if they come back and say, oh, you need a mile-wide corridor, you need a three-mile-wide corridor. Whatever they said, I think we would not be necessarily in conflict with the policies we have in front of us that we're recommending. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. MR. CORNELL: Sure. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. I think that we've exhausted our discussion on policy 3.1.1. I've made plenty of notes. I know some of the others may have. And when we get to the point we're making deliberations for a motion, we'll decide after we've heard the balance of the document how it all fits together, come back with a -- any kind of suggestions that we may have. With that, let's move on to Page 55. Fifty-five, the last three policy -- three policies of Section 3 n of group 3, that is, policy 3.12, -13 and -14, let's take those first and see if there's any questions from the committee on any of those. Does anybody on the Planning Commission have any questions concerning the group 3 policies remaining on Page 55? Ms. Caron? COMMISSIONER CARON: Yeah. Under 13 where it says, however, if the WRA provides water treatment and retention exclusively for an SRA, the acreage of the WRA shall be included in the SRA, that language was not in there before. Tell me what required it to be in there now. What's come up that required this change? MR. JONES: Well, we're kind of getting back to the no-good-deed-goes-unpunished thing. In the original language it's not in there, and if you develop an SRA, use an adjacent WRA for your -- for your project's storm water retention and water quality, you don't have to include it within the SRA. Page 67 1611 A6 1 January 30, 2009 So what we are trying to close the hole on is that situation. If you're using it for your project, then you would have to include it in the SRA acreage. COMMISSIONER CARON: But isn't there some caveat in here that if you just used a little bit of it then you don't have to include it? MR. JONES: You know, it's open to interpretation. If somebody wants to try it, somebody can try it. I mean, this was the recommendation from the committee, and I think it's a formidable recommendation to correct a deiiciency in the existing program. If you -- COMMISSIONER CARON: I'm not saying it's not. MR. JONES: -- want to suggest some other things -- if you want to suggest some other, you know, language or something, I think that's why you all are here. COMMISSIONER CARON: Great, thanks. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody else? Brad? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: But you could then include it in your base density in the area that -- MR. JONES: Yes, it would be included within the acreage of the SRA. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And it costs no credits, but you can include it in the base density-- MR. JONES: If it was n ifit was within-- ifit was the -- above the 35 percent, right, it wouldn't require credits. If it's being used as part of your project, potentially it has these live credits. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. The word cxclusivcly, I think, causes the problem, because if even 1 percent or even a half of a percent of the WRA was used for anything else besides that SRA, by this language, there are plenty of attorneys that would argue -- land use attorneys, and we know there's plenty of them in Collier County -- would argue that it doesn't mean that, that we can use that. We don't have to count it because we have I pcrcent uscd lor ago larms over here. That's the extreme, but we've seen the extreme on the Planning Commission many times. I'd rather we play it safe, drop the word exclusively, and where it says, however, if the WRA provides water treatment and retention lor an SRA, the acreage of the WRA used tor thc SRA shall be included in the SRA. And then that covers it more like what 1 think you said a little while ago, and it takes out the ambiguity of that word. So that's a suggestion that I would make, and see where it goes. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Mark? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: With that n yes, sir. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: The difficulty, since water seeks its own level, how would you really determine what part of that is used for the SRA? I mean, essentially once you put a drop in, it goes throughout the whole thing. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well. you've got to utilize a water management cubic runofJthat you'd have to have in thcrc, unless these are used for outfalls, then we have a whole different problem. But if they used it for an outfall and it changes the staging or control elevation, that would change the hydrology, and that, again, ought to be a consideration for something. But if it's used for water management, you've got to calculate water management through South Florida, and so much cubic runoff has to take place and be held somewhere. And if that's what the WRAs are being used for, it seems to me it's a development issue, not a COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And you're comtortable, you could isolate what amount of that WRA is for the SRA') CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I mean, I'm sure that during stafTs data and analysis they would look at that, but] would n I mean, the calculations I've used or seen for Southwest Florida, it's right down to the very finite amount. So if you know how much water runoff you're going to have, you've got to provide Page 68 16 I 1 JanuJ4~91 storage for that at a rate of 1.5 in Collier County. So if you're doing that, I think you would know how much you're using of that WRA. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I mean, that's first blush, but that's how I would suggest at this point. We could delineate how we determine use in the SRA in the LDC, and that's where we'd probably flush that out. Anything else on policies n those first three policies to finish out group 3 by the Planning Commission? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Public speakers? George? MR. VARNADOE: I thought maybe before you went to policy four, if you wanted, I'd go back and try to respond to Mr. Midney's question on SSAs and long-term management and what the rights were. Would this be a good time to do that? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Sure, that would be great. That would be fine. I'd rather finish up. And, Paul, we did have a document sent out. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: I'm looking at it right now. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I think you want to look at, starting on N. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Yep. MR. VARNADOE: If I could -- let me just kind of walk through this, if I could -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Sure. MR. VARNADOE: -- because I think that you guys haven't been exposed that much to it, and I'll use -- there are three restoration areas, and so I'm going to go with C just because it's short and ea~y. And you're starting on policy J, restoration area C is so many acres, and the restoration improvements will restore the greater wetlands and manage the lands within rcstoration area C for listed species, wading birds -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: What page are you on? MR. VARNADOE: I'm on Page 2828 of the restoration plan, which was Exhibit G to the easement. I'm sorry. I apologize. If you go down, it's on page 2828, the recorded document. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Item J. MR. VARNADOE: Paragraph J. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Paragraph.r ofthc second document. MR. VARNADOE: And you're missing one page, which I think Mr. Greenwood just gave you. So you'll see that the -- and I'm just picking this one out at random because it's easy to run through. The restoration improvements here are to restore, degrade wetlands, and manage the area for wading birds. The improvements are spelled out, including removing the wetlands -- exotics, excuse me, from the wetlands, contouring the land and planting with native species. Freudian slip. COMMISSIONER CARON: George is always a help. MR. VARNADOE: And planting with native species in order to create marshes and wet prairies. And then you have an attachment to what kind of plants that you would use. And then getting to Mr. Midney's, then you've got two years -- going to the top ofthe next. You've got two years to complete these improvements. And then it goes on, after these improvements are done what the land management measures are, and that's basically to control the exotics of that area aftcr the restoration is complete. And then if you look at Paragraph N, Mr. Midney, for ten years you post a bond or other surety to make sure the stuff is taken care of, doesn't die out. Page 69 16,"r' A 6' January 30, 2009 Now -- and during that time period, the grantees can call on that money if it's not being taken care of by the n by the landowner. But getting to your point which was, what happens long-term way in the future. Let's go to the bottom of that page, Item R. And after the ten -- this is after the ten years has transpired and now the bond or surety's gone. In the event the grantor fails to maintain the restoration areas pursuant to the land management measures set forth herein, the grantecs or either of them, in this case it was Collier County and the Department of Ag., may, after written notice to the grantor, perform such land measurement measures and then lien the restoration areas for the cost of their maintaining the restoration area pursuant to land management measures, and if necessary, then foreclose on such liens and attaches to the restoration area. So in the event the landowner doesn't do it, it's just like a condo or anything else, if you don't pay your assessment, they put a lien on you. You don't pay the lien, they come in and foreclose on the land, and the land, or condo -- and the land is there. So that's how this is set j()rth. These are all recorded documents, part of the easement agreement, and I thought maybe just walking through this would be helpful to understanding what the long-term management techniques were and what the assurance that they would happen would be. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: It's extremely helpful, and foreclosing on the lien, that's an extreme sanction. I wasn't even thinking it was going to be that extreme. MR. VARNADOE: Well, I think that -- you know, yes, okay. I'll settle for that. I just thought maybe, Mark, it would be good to n before you get into policy four, group four, to go through that directly. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No, that's helpful. Thank YOl!o MR. VARNADOE: You bet. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. We are n any other questions for members of the public on policy three, group three? Jel1llifer? Tim Durham wanted to say a bunch of bad things about you, but he wanted to wait till you were here. MS. HECKER: He's my former boss. I don't think that's nice. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Now that you're here, we'd like to finish the discussion that got started while you were gone but stopped on some of the issues in the panther corridor. Tim, if you wanted to come back up here and go into the discussion you were going to have but waited till Jennifer was back, now that shc's hcre, we can get that done with and over with and movc on to the next policies. So Tim was your former boss? MS. HUSHON: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's intcresting. Okay. MR. DURHAM: It's a small world down here. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Isn't it bad when you train someone too well, hull? MR. DURHAM: Yeah. No, I think Bruce Johnson did a find job responding. You had asked a question, and thcn the topic camc up that maybe Jcnniler had an answer to that. My point previously was just, if Jennifer had an answer, I wanted to stop, have an opportunity to come back and respond to that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Well, then Jennifer, I guess, it's your question. And there's -- I think Nicole tried to -- oh, you don't know what it is? MS. HECKER: No, I'm sorry. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Oh. When Bruce was here, he described some of his position in regards to how the farm fields would not be primary. And the question was, if you had some primary habitat, uplands, wooded forested primary habitat acknowledged to be primary alongside farm fields, how far back into those farm fields would you normally expect to go before you could n your dcvelopment or activities would Page 70 16 I l~:A, 609 cause harm to the primary habitat that would be in the uplands portion, the higWy wooded portions? MS. HECKER: Again, I think -- I think the question really needs to be flipped on its head on what is the science to support that those areas are not primary that are farm fields within the primary zone, because the science is very clear as far as what we're using to support our vision map. And I would like to see, what is the science that supports the Centroid map corridors as being functional corridors, as being the appropriate widths. I think the same level of rigor that we're providing and supporting our position needs to be provided for the other position as well. But in saying that, the primary zone does not distinguish the -- all the land that is within the primary zone is recognized to be essential to maintaining the current population of panthers. It's a mosaic. Some of it is forested, which is areas that are known to be preferred, some of it is open. The scientists understood that. And, in fact, we are going to have one of thc scientists who was involved in that come here in the next few minutes -- he's on his way right now -- to speak to that. They were aware of this. They understood it. We're talking about a wide-ranging manunal. And you don't put cities just in the middle of a farm field surrounded by forested areas that are being heavily utilized, because it doesn't make any sense. Intuitively, I think you would understand why because of the adverse panther/human interaction that would occur naturally as a result, but also because those fields are areas that they do cross, that prey go regularly into. If you go out there, you'll see deer, you'll see hogs out there. And what do the panthers eat? Deer and hog. So they were looking at their entire spectrum of needs, and they were looking at landscape level. And when we're talking about landscape level, that's exactly what the scientists were trying to do was to try to Iind large contiguous areas understanding that these cats, an individual male, will roam 200 square miles, an individual female, about lOO. So they need a lot of space. And you can't fragment and have little pockets within that because that would not be safe fix the residents and it would not be safe for the animals. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Could you, Mike, put that -- the plan that the Conservancy has come up with back on the screen so I can show an example of what I'm trying to get to? I heard both of your arguments, I know we all have, and I'm trying to find a way that maybe it can be described in another manner that it's better understood. MS. HECKER: Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So maybe you can help me when that map comes back up. Okay. See where it says n there's a line across that wall. See where it says Oil Well Road and you have that blue area that's south of Ave Maria, and there's a light blue area between Ave Maria's -- where the yellow ends and the b'Teen starts. In that blue area where the word Well Road is. MS. HECKER: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I believe that blue area is what the argument's over. Is that the right location? MS. HECKER: Yes, yes. That light bluellight green area was the primary zone habitat that was mapped by the scientists that currently is overlapping areas that are currently in -- used as agriculture that is also designated as open, meaning that they can be developed in the future, so that there was a conflict there in that area that's light blue/light green. That was the focus of our energy and what we had hoped in trying to build additional incentives to protect, because that's the primary zone that is currently vulnerable to development under the program. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Well, then so far I've understood it correctly. The light blue area is what you are believing is primary zone, and others believe and others don't. That's where the argument is. Page 71 16 ~; A6 I luary 30, 2009 The yellow area immediately to the north of the initials RD for road, for example, why is that area yellow and why is there blue -- why the blue stop? I mean -- MS. HECKER: Because that yellow area is outside the primary zone. It is open area that is outside the primary zone. So we are saying that we would prefer development to occur in those areas that are currently designated open that are outside and to preserve agriculture in those open areas that are currently -- that are currently designated opcn that are inside the primary. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. And if I was walking along in that farm field stealing vegetables and having a meal and I walked from the blue to the yellow, how would I know when I'm in either blue or yellow? MS. HECKER: The -- you wouldn't necessarily. The -- it's not something that you can just see like habitat cover is going to change. It may be in a farm field. But the scientists understood that and wanted to capture certain farm fields that they bel ieved were occupied based on telemetry and other scientific data that they had. They used a combination of information to designatc what was primary. But that primary is to represent what is currently being occupied and utilized by the remaining population of Florida panthers. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The Planning Commission is notorious for definitions. We have definitions for multiple kinds of measuring height and for doing everything else, and delinitions help make decisions. It would be very helpful to know why the blue was picked and the yellow wasn't. I understand what you're saying, that maybe there's telemetry that might have caused that or somcthing else. But if we could nail that down -- and we're going to have more meetings. We're not going to finish today by any chance. So that means wc'rc going to be continuing that to next Thursday, and then another day possibly aftcr that. But in those -- in that period of time, we would very -- I think it would help all of us to understand how that occurs, how you -- how the blue got picked and the yellow didn't. MS. HECKER: Well, we did put some of that in the explanation that we provided earlier this morning, the detailed explanation as to the map. It explains -- it actually provides the definition of primary straight out of the scientific paper. That was where that was established. We also do have an authority on this issue, a preeminent panther biologist and expert on his way over, so if we could -- oh, he's here, fantastic. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well. when he gets here, we certainly can-- MS. HECKER: So I think he could answer that question for you more. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Oh. Well, whoever you are, come on up. Tim, do you mind him first, or do you want to go lirst? You had dibs, so-- MR. DURHAM: Yes, that's right. I had dibs. I'll cash it in. I think in some of Jennifer's words, you hear some of the conflict we have. She's very happy to be talking about landscape planning. That's where we should be at, the landscape level. And I think what we're looking at with the RLS program is getting e10ser than landscape level, all right? I think that's been part of our disagreement. We had thesc big swooping lines called primary zones. Our debate is that within that primary zone, you can have a much more refined line and still accomplish what you're trying to do. Landscape level planning is one thing. This is much more refined than the landscape level that we're dealing with here. I think that's part of where this rub kind of comes in. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But what do you mean by that? What do you mean that it's much more refined? Because the Planning Commission, as in all our projects, have gotten down to the gnat's eye and detail on everything that we do. MR. DURHAM: Right. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: We look at more detail probably than most boards in the county. Page 72 1611''''A6 January 30, 2009 MR. DURHAM: Right. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So we want detail. MR. DURHAM: Right. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: We want to know exactly how that piece at that dividing line between one foot and two foot occurs. MR. DURHAM: And I agree with you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. MR. DURlIAM: That's where it gets tough. What you're -- I think the answer to your question in that regard, it's a mathematical construct. It's an offset from forested habitat that was done when it was screen digitized for the primary zoning. Your question as to the ago fields, when they originally drew the primary zone, there was still a lot of debate on, what do panthers do at night, okay? Maybe they do spend more time in the field. We didn't know -- they didn't know. I say we because I was watching. And so there was an offset done there. You know, anybody who hunts in Southwest Florida kind of has a sense of this, because you have to think of the cat at -- you know, get on your hands and knees in the woods and you're going to see the world from a cat's point of view. What I have seen more often than not is deer and hog are very happy to wander into some of those ago areas or pasture areas. There's a certain distance they'll go before they start getting nervous about being out in the open. I think it's that similar distance the panther, likewise, is under cover, and then he stalks and preys and pounces on something, so there's a distance. There is some distance. That's what you're kind of after that sets it out there. What we have for the primary zone is a mathematical offset, and I believe it's 300 feet. Could be wrong, I have to go back and check the records. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I don't remember right now. MR. DURHAM: But that's how that was generated out. So you're out in the middle of a field at some arbitrary computer line, right? There is no difference between the two sides of the line. It's just a mathematical construct out there. And I think what we're saying is, with the detailed site information that we have on some of these sites, with the fact that we still have to go through all the Fish and Wildlife Service consultation process, the input that comes in there and everything else, is that projects that may be within the primary zone on the primary zone map should have the right to at least go in and explore thc opportunity to refine that in their project area and have the opportunity to do a project if they can demonstrate that they are either not removing any primary zone function, or if they are, they're adequately replacing it somehow. So we're not -- we're not as far apart as the debate sounds. I think it's just a matter of what scale we're looking at this at. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, why don't you try, between now and next Thursday, to come into agreement, and that will make the next meeting a lot easier. MR. DURl-:lAM: Can we use your parking lot for a while? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Go right ahead. Okay, thank you, Tim. And now if the gentleman who is the renowned expert -- I don't know what your name is, sir, but if you don't mind telling us, we are curious. MR. SHINDLE: Name's Dave Shindle, biologist, Conservancy of Southwest Florida. I'm here at their request understanding that there is some questions regarding some panther science issues. So hopefully I could help in that respect. Page 73 16 fnt'30,2ft96 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: There's-- MR. SHINDLE: If -- but I'd like to preface it by stating that I am also serving as part of the scientific review of the Florida Panther Protection Program, and I'm acting as an independent scientist, independent of my affiliation, as is the other members of the team. So I would prefer, and hopefully with due respect, that I would not answer any questions that relate specifically to the RLSA revision review, especially the components of the Panther Protection Program, because we're still reviewing those components. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, there's two general areas that I think -- and I'll try to sum it up, and if the Planuing Commission wants to join in before I finish and when he starts, that would be fine. The two areas is one -- one of them is what you just heard the interaction on when you came in, and that's about how the blue and yellow lines on the Conservancy's map were separated out, came to, because blue is primary and yellow is not, yellow is development, and there n they could be the same in the same field. And the second item is the width and accessibility or usefulness of the panther corridor as it's shown on the n what we call a Centroid plan, what was the WilsonMiller plan showing the road system with some narrow corridors on it. So we had those two big issues that I believe focused most of our time on it. I don't know how comfortable you are with either one, but that's where we're at. Does anybody else have any more refinement to that. Brad~ COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Well, Ijust havc a panthcr question, I do, but answer yours first. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. MS. HUSHON: Definition of primarily. MR. SHINDLE: Well, I'll speak to your questions. The -- the corridor design I guess you're referring to -- I'm assuming. Again, the Internet teed is very poor, so I've caught bits and pieces of the n CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mike, could you put the Centroid map up? He'll show you in a minute. MR. SHINDLE: But, you know, those are -- those are two components of the Panther Protection Program that we're being asked to review. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So that's something you can't comment on or you-- MR. SHINDLE: I would rather not comment on my opinion on the specifics of corridor designs on thosc two particular corridors, given that -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Then let's move into the-- MR. SHINDLE: But I can answer any questions that I possibly could or render an opinion on panther and use corridors in general. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: We apprcciate you'rc here -- your presence, so I don't want to put you in a box that's problematic for you. Then I think the next locus ought to be on what is and what do you define primary panther habitat. And Brad, was that where you were going with your -- COMMISSIONER SCI llFFER: No. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Where were you going, just so we get it all-- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: My question was just curiosity, how do panthers roam? Are they territorial, are they nomadic? Creating this corridoL is that so they can walk around in a big circle, or would one panther set up fort in the middle of it and not let any other panthers through or n MR. SHINDLE: You're referring to the north corridor, or just panther-- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Panther. MR. SHINDLE: Just panther ecology -- welL I mean, panthers are, in a general sense, territorial. You know, they only -- they only pair up during mating or a female with kittens; otherwise, they're solitary Page 74 16 I 'J:aJ36009 animals. They do, in a general sense, particularly the adult males, defend their territory, per se, but that doesn't mean that there's not overlapping territories amongst adult males. The behavior of dispersing males are a little bit different, especially if they were to move through a landscape like that. So in order to -- I think what you're asking, what would a panther do in a certain situation, I wouldn't want to put any money on it. But given certain landscape components, I think you could make some predictions of how a cat would use a landscape over the long-term. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: So my concern could happen, that in the middle of that corridor could be a great food source, and this panther, an alpha cat, is really happy here, and nobody else is using it but him. MR. SHINDLE: Are you giving thc north corridor area as an example? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Any corridor. MR. SHINDLE: Or I guess any corridor. Well, corridors mean different things, it depends on scale. I mean, so that's the first -- and it's an important detail because, I mean, a corridor can be a landscape connection underneath a -- using a panther crossing underneath a highway, or you can talk about larger landscape linkages that -- potential corridors that move across the Caloosahatchee. So there's different scales of corridor. So I don't want to give any insinuation that I'm speaking of one or the other. But kind of the general description you laid out about a panther moving through a corridor, per se, and finding a habitat node that has sutIicient prey, I would hope that a corridor design would accomplish that, and -- but the ecology or the biology of the cat, the cat's not going to, just because he finds a deer or a hog and satisfies himself for a night or a week, he's not going to stay there. There's things bigger than that that drive them, particularly thc opposite sex. And so they have a natural preponderancy to wander, particularly disbursing cats. And so whether there's food there or not, they're going to continue to move to go onto the next bar, I guess you'd say. But, you know, we have examples where cats have used different areas that have different prey densities that may be artificially enhanced, like a game preserve where they have easy pickins, and they know that they can come back and hit that same spot and be successful within it, but that doesn't stop them -- stop a panther from being a panther. And so the males still cover a wide-ranging territory because they want to meet up with as many females as possible. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Do you know what the range of that territory is, a typical? MR. SHINDLE: Average male home range is 200 square miles. It's a fair number to throw around, but it depends on the density of the other cats in the area, it depends on the prey base, prey levels, landscape configuration. But, you know, a rough estimate is, you know, 200 square miles for an adult male, and it can be small for adult female. And it depends on the time frame that you're looking at that, because when a male leaves his mother and disburses, his home ranges will be deceptionally large because he will be covering a large amount of area that wouldn't be considered his home range or established home range. But once they settle down in an area, you know, on average, it's approximately 200 square miles. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. The -- there's been a map produced that shows a different primary location -- or I shouldn't say -- a controversial primary location, and we're trying to understand why something is primary versus not. Do you have a definition for primary panther habitat? MR. SHINDLE: I do, but I'd be reading it verbatim from the Kautz, et ai, paper, so I'll save you that time. Page 75 16 rIA 6 January 30, 2009 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. And that's, I think, the one Jennifer read earlier to us. Mike, could you put the Conservancy map back up? You may have heard me ask the question earlier when I think you were sitting in the audience about the differences between the blue and the yellow down by where it says -- and just as an example, where it says, Oil Well Road, the letters RD. Y ou'vc got blue going up and then yellow coming down to the same location. What would have been the reasoning why the blue is considered prinlary and the yellow isn't? Would you be able to talk about that? MR. SHINDLE: Again, I'll quality it by stating that if you want the specifics, a factual version-- and I'm disqualified so I don't make any mistakes in the interpretation of the paper. You need, you need to ask the authors ofthat paper, particularly the lead author, Randy Kautz. Mr. Kautz, I'm sure, could answer it very specifically. But my overall interprctation is n and I can't look into that area. They had different-- a different criteria that they went through. You know, they started out, I think, with cats through 2001 maybe, and they used, you know, ba~ically all the -- all the panther locations together, collected through that time and used what's called a minimum convex polygon home range lor the pooled data. And they used that as the -- kind of the area available to the South Florida panther population based on where panthers have been and used before. And then I believe they then looked at individual panther home ranges using a different home range methodology called a fixed kernel home range. And what they basically did is kind of compared the composition of habitats within an individual panther's home range and compared that to the proportion of habitats available throughout that larger area and compared those percentages to come up with a general definition of what cover types are panthers -- do panthers prefer. And that's a general practice and wildlife biology. There's different home range estimators to use depending on the question being asked, depending on the type of data set you have. There's ditlerent assumptions for every one. So] won't go into any of those details. But as -- my general interpretation of what they did, they took that first approach, and then they looked at those important cover types that they found that individuals used. Then they also looked at the issue of a forest pack size, using the same type of compositional analysis, comparing the size of individuallorest patches compared to the larger available area in South Florida in general. And when they came up with all these habitat criteria, they created a habitat model that basically kind of helped explain the cover types that panthers use within this general area. And then I believc, you know, they went through a process where they overlaid those results ofthe spatial model on top of the telemetry points, combination with the larger minimum complex polygon, and they went -- and I think they took into account a 200-meter distance from these patches. They obviously took into account areas that -- or types -- cover types that had lower preference or lower importance to panthers, whether it be an agricultural field or other type of more open habitat. And, you know, because the South Florida -- as you know, the landscape, it's not a homogenous forest cover. It's a -- thcre's islands of forest covcr, ditlerent forest pack sizes. And that's the case whether you're in northern Hendry or some of the private lands in Collier where you have native forest patches interspersed within a mosaic of ag., whether it be pasturc or row crop. And the same kind of components apply whether you look down into kind of the long pine key area of Everglades National Park. You have a -- kind of a system of tree islands interspersed within a larger mosaic of more open habitat types. So back to that question. You know, they took into account that these torcst patches are linked Page 76 161 ~r I L ' tanuarftOD:l09 together and form a contiguous landscape with these other cover types. And knowing that panthers have to traverse the landscape, acknowledging that these other cover types likely support resources for the panther that may not be as directly quantifiable but are kind of intuitive that, you know, that provide important components of the panther's life history, primarily being prey based, for an example. So I imagine that if you went back through that process, that would be -- yeah, there would be a combination of that distance from forest patches that met that critcria that allowed them to draw that line around, and I think if you look -- probably if you look at the area north of Oil Well Road between what looks like a corridor representation at Ave Maria, you could see that those water retention areas, which are forest cover, likely met those criteria. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So if you have islands of upland forested habitat, you know, separated by open fields of agriculture, then there's a probability that the open fields of agriculture in those points would be considered primary? MR. SHINDLE: Well, they'd be considered primary if they're in the primary zone as Kautz, et aI, mapped it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I think that's what I'm asking. MR. SHINDLE: Ycah, sure. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. I don't have any other questions. Does anybody here on the committee have any other questions? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I mean, if there's any panther questions, this is probably the best time to ask them, so if you have any-- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I mean, I have questions -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: All right. Brad? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: -- on corridor design, but he's mentioned he doesn't want to comment on that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Y cah. I think the corridor design is offlimits, so. Okay. David, thank you very much. MR. SHINDLE: Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: It was certainly helpful. MR. SHINDLE: Well, I'll stick around for a while in case something else comes up. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. Okay. Yeah, we're going to go to five. Why don't we take a 15-minute break right now, and that will give the court reporter time to rest her busy fingers. So we'll come back at 2:45. (A briefrecess was had.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. If everybody will please come in and have their seats. We'll try to figure out where we left off and then restart. And we had finished up now, I believe, the group 3 policies, and Mr. McDaniels has left us. We wore him out. He took ofT. Tom still here? I can't imagine we wore him out. MR. PRlDDY: You wore him out, too. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Oh, no. Okay. So Brad's going to -- MR. CORN ELL: I'll be the MC on this for the committee. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- run defensive on this thing, so. Okay. Let's start with group 4 policies on Page 55, and let's -- there's only two policies on that page, 4.1 and 4.2. There were no corrections or changes recommended by the committee on that page. But when you get into Page 56, a continuation of policy 4.2, there's extensive changes involving, and this is wherc the cap of the acreage is. So let's move to Page 56, and we'll take that entire page and start Page 77 1611 'A6 ~ January 30, 2009 from the top. And where's Brad? He's usually -- not you, Brad. Brad Schiffer. I hate starting without him because I know he's got questions, especially about density issues. There he is. Thank you, George. Brad? Brad, you just n without you here, we went already from Page 55 to 56. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: For you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Fifty-six is a continuation of policy 4.2. And 4.2 is the policy that broke out the acreages and all that. So what we need to find out, is there anybody that has any questions on Page 56 of our document~ COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I mean, it goes n I do have a question on the 45,000. You know, essentially we're trying to create agricultural. That leaves the agricultural at 40. This is 45. So is this where we discuss that number? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Absolutely. This is actually what happens. We have about n and for --let's just use round numbers, because 89,375, let's round that up to 90- for sake of easement. Forty- ofthe 45,000 is ago So 40-, that leaves you 50,000 ago after, if this were to be built out in the manncr that's suggested here. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Right. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Is that what you were getting at? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Right. So I mean, is this number -- can we horse trade it or, you know-- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I mean, it's just a mattcr of what we feel is the right number if we don't feel the committee's is the right numbcr. There's been another number introduced, which is the Conservancy's number, and there's been an original number introduced, which was 16,800. I mean, it's a full gamut, but I think we need to havcjustification if we believe it needs to be different is all, so -- so I guess that's the first point of contention or discussion is, what do we think about the 45,000'1 And what I thinks' unique here n and maybe at some point I'll ask Heidi to jump in. When the program startcd out, it was -- the property owners had rights, and the rights included a creation of 315,000 credits. That's what was in the first -- in thc 2002. And if you look at the backup that they havc in their supporting documentation, they believe there was 315,000 contracts generated by the approvals provided in 2002 for the rural lands stewardship area. Today they're asking for 421,000 in increasing credits because some of that has to do with the ago preservation, and they want to cap the acreage at 45,000, and that's a new -- new term for us to have to deal with belore. We asked what we thought the acreage would bc. Wc wcrc told 16,8-. Some of us doubted it, but 16,8- was what we were believing at thc timc, and now we're looking at a cap 01'45-. And so what that may mean to some people is that that's an obligated amount. Meaning, if you're going to tell them they can do 45-, you've got to bc able to provide the infrastructure of 45-. And I'm not sure where the county has the opportunity to do that. We haven't had data analysis to see if that's even viable from that point. My concern is -- and I might as well express it now is, why arc we looking at acreage to be the cap? If we provided propcrty rights to these people out there in 2002 that provided restoration credits to 315,000, why arc we looking at the credits as the cap, and let them be what they may in regards to usage and then undermining acreage. That way we're safe with the property rights arguments, they've gotten the credits that they were n wc agrccd to give them in 2002, and we're not looking at a situation where we're crea- n we have any potential of creating more credits that we can't providc acrcage for. And that's a big concern I mentioncd carlicr. Ifwe provide 421,000 credits and the panther corridors Page 78 16 I 1~uaJo,Q09 are bigger and create more credits and we end up with a half a million credits but yet we say, we're only going to give you 45,000 acres to put that on, I would think someone might have an argument that you've -- you've asked me to create something that you won't give me land to develop, and there might be some sort of a legal claim against the taxpayers in the future; whereas, if we stuck to credits as the amount and if it was the original, because that's what was already provided, 315,000, and we said look it, work it out however you want to re-split those credits up. If you want to change restoration to move the credits around, fine, but the credit is the amount that sticks. In the future after seven years and the EAR goes through, if the credit system's working well and it looks like it's preserving a lot and we want to further enhance it, it's easier then to add credits than to find out we made a mistake in the future and try to take them back. So that's kind of where I -- last night, and when I was running numbers and trying to figure out all this stutT, that came as a thought to me, and I was going to ask it of the committee to see if they had considered that, and that's certainly where I'm -- what I'm going to be doing here eventually. Paul? COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: I think it's a good idea. And the other thing is, when you have a cap of 45,000 footprint acres, you're not including all the road and all the rights-of-way, which is going to eat up a lot more of the ago and conservation land. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And that's an interesting point, because I believe that, too, Paul. And when I first broached that subject in meetings with other -- with some people involved here, I was told it contains the acreage for the public facilities. Well, there's a lot more to the acreage that has to be counted than what's in public facilities. And I have a list of all the things that have to be counted in one of these papers, and I'm -- it was the sheet that I did in 2002. Besides public facilities, you have open spaces, municipal golf courses, schools, roadways, excess open space, WRAs, which don't count. Now, some of those are in part of their govemment facilities, but they're only allowing -- and Brad, do you know if it's 10 or 15 percent? MR. CORNELL: Ten percent. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ten percent? MR. CORNELL: Ten. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Well, thc problem with that is, take the first SRA that we have, Ave Maria. Twenty percent is not counted as an SR -- as SRA credits, because 20 percent is excluded for some reason. So we already know that the 45-, by the very first SRA that's in place, is going to be exceeded by another 10 percent on top of the 10 percent that was allowed. And if you consider the WRAs and other things that weren't counted because they're outside the SRA footprint but they benefit the SRA, it even gets bigger. So your development footprint potentially is going to be bigger than the 45-. But if the 45- contains 10 percent of government facilities and you back that out, that mcans you end up with about 40,000 that's being really utilized by credits. Well, now we're producing morc credits than 40,000 acres can sustain. So we're already putting ourselves into a box, and that's a big concern that I reviewed in my analysis over the last couple days since I got more involved in this on Wednesday. And I don't know how you n if you even can respond to it now, Brad. But when we come back at some point, I'm sure it's going to have n I would like the committee -- not the committee -- or however you guys meet now, or if you even meet. MR. CORNELL: We are still a committee. We -- and we do have a meeting scheduled later in February. Page 79 16' 1" A 6 January 30, 2009 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, we have to come to a resolution, and it's probably be/ore your meeting -- MR. CORNELL: Fine. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- unless we take time. But that suggestion of capping credits instead of acreage, did the committee ever kick it around? MR. CORNELL: No. That angle -- I mean, there were -- there were different ideas about how are we going to balance this -- this whole system with the recognition that we needed to do some more work on restoration -- on corridor creation and restoration, and we wanted to protect agriculture in some way. And the way we came about doing that was to establish the SSAs for ago preserves, and that obviously created more credits. So we had to -- we balanced the system from that side. We saw that there were more credits being generated to accomplish the better public good. How are we going to balance all that? So you saw the increase in the requirement for entitlement. It could have becn a reduction in the generation of credits. That would have been the other side. It's just -- you know, it's as broad as it is long a~ far as that goes. And essentially we came dO'WTI and said, look, we need to know -- we need to assure up front that we have agriculture preserve, we have functional ecosystems that are sustainable in the end, and we need to assure the property owners, landowners, arc kcpt whole in tenns of what they can expect to get out of this. So there's got to be a mutually agreeable balance to all that. So that's where this 45,000 acres came Irom, where the 132,000 acres ofSSAs and other preserves that result in the final -- what wc consider to be a concept maturity map. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And I think whatI'm -- what I would have thought might bc a better idea is if you took the 315- that we gave you -- in 2002, the county committed to 315,000 credits based on the analysis I saw in Phase II, Section 3. Assuming that analysis is correct and we use that as a basis, you've got that. It's real hard to take something away once you give it. But if you took that 315,000 credits and you felt that the way the credits were applied through the restoration and other avenues and even through the fact that ago wasn't incentivized enough, or at all, you could move thosc 315,000 credits around as -- anywhere you -- any way that would better benefit, whether it's thc cnvironment whethcr it's ag., or whether it's development, but at least the community is protectcd /rom the extent of the lootprint until such time that a further review proves that the credits can be expanded. And that is -- seems to be a sater, more cautious way to approach things tfom a taxpayer concern than it does to entitle basically by -- 45,000 acres by saying you can have it, and that basically says, if we -- not we, but the government says you can have it, that means the government better be prepared to make sure it can supply it. And that's -- that's the concern I have by approaching it in the different direction from what I'm suggesting, so -- MR. CORNELL: And I see Brad has a comment, so -- I guess maybe -- I hear you arguing the alternative to what we had considered, which was, you could lower the credit generation, which would be kind of what you'rc talking about. You would have the cap on credits, and then if you have additional public interested to address, nanlely increa~ed restoration or increased agricultural protection or what have you, then you accomplish that through reducing the credit generation rather than increasing the number of credits. Is that what you're saying? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No.1 think you reprioritize your credits. Maybe the credit system now, by giving a blanket four for restoration isn't the right way to go. In fact. I don't think you guys think it is, because you tiered the restoration process. So I think that's a good idea. But you keep the same amount of credits at this point until we scc how the system rolls out, because Page 80 16 I ~U!Q2009 my concern is overgiving at this stage to a point where we find out that seven years from now in the review we've made a lot of mistakes that we can't go back on. I'd rather see seven years from now -- and I don't think anybody in this room thinks you're going to use 315,000 credits in seven years. So in seven years -- and we looked back at this program and we see two or three other towns, they fit in like they were supposed to, their development Iootprint is good, the amount of density that they're utilizing is fine, their retail's working, the road system getting there, the utilities, the landfills that are needed, the jails that are described, the shopping centers that may be needed, all that's now come into play. Then I think you'd find a more receptive time to say, you know what, this is doing so well, why don't we find a way to preserve even more, create more credits, and that's easier to give then when we know a program's working as well as everyone thinks than to take it back if it isn't, and that's the cautionary issue that I'm working on, so -- MR. CORNELL: I understand. And I guess our committee looked at it upon -- as a -- basically a maturity problem. How do we solve the build-out question? What do we want our concept map to look like in the end? Because it seemed like that was what was pushing everybody to figure out what -- what possibly could happen. And if really what we're -- you know, from -- this is my perspective now -- from an environmental perspective, I don't want to sce part of an ccologicallandscape preserve. I want to see it all. I want to see a sustainable ecological landscape preserve. People who are interested in agriculture want to see a sustainable agricultural landscape. So how do you do that when you only go part way? And I guess that was the question that we answered by saying, well, let's look at the entire picture and see how we can balance that picture. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But I think your idea oflooking at the cntire picture is absolutely correct, but I don't know why the picture can't be approached in phases as we see that the picture that is envisioned is the actual -- the one that's turning out as the progress moves forward. Again, because if it turns out wrong, the taxpayers are going to be severely punished for it, and that's where my biggest concern is? Brad? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: You know, one thing this committee was supposed to do, which I'm kind of waiting to hear -- I haven't heard, and that's the use of these credits in urban areas. If that's something that we're going to think of~ then the amount of credits we nced might be different. But was that cver addressed, Brad? It was -- MR. CORNELL: Yes, it was. We discussed that very early on, and the problem with credits in an urban area is that you can get density in an urban area many easier ways. Why would anybody go by it from a landowner in the rural land stewardship area? You know, you can go to the county commission or the city councilor what have you, and they'll give you your density. The density in an urban area is already very high, and it's not utilized to its fullest extent now. So -- I mean, it's being underutilized. So they don't need any more density really, if you look at it that way. Unless there was some -- if govemment intervened and said, well, you have to do this or you have to -- the only way you can raise your density is this way, you have to buy it or you have to, you know, have some sort of perfonnance standards, then you can do it that way, but that's not what we have, except for maybe affordable housing. We've got some density standards that way. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And I think it would be nice if we were using this for that. I mean, there'd be nothing better than to tighten up the density. In terms of efficiency and sprawl, that's where you honestly really need the growth. And it's coming from preserving land in the eastern lands. I mean, when -- you know, there was a list of items. I think it's 1.22. Did you report on all those Page 81 1611 A6 January 30, 2009 items, or did you have a conversation and, if you were interested, you carried it, if you weren't, you-- MR. CORNELL: I'm sorry. What's your question? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: You know, in the report every five years, the report we're going through now -- MR. CORNELL: Right. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: -- you were supposed to review a list of items. MR. CORNELL: We did. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Did you report on all the items or just the ones that are of interest to you? MR. CORNELL: We considered them all. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. So is there someplacc I can read responses to --I think it was -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: He's looking at policy 1.22, item number 8, it's on Page 50. I think that's the one you're referring to, Brad. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Ycah. MR. CORNELL: And so you want to know where is it written what is our response -- formal response is to the urban designated n urban sending of credits? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: In terms of smart growth, that to me is an important question. I mean, it's nice to have a conversation, but I think it should have been seriously addressed. MR. DeRUNTZ: It's on Page 14, Pagc 14. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, it's on Page 50 of our book. MR. CORNELL: WelL it depends on which -- MR. DeRUNTZ: Page 14. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: So it is n okay. I'll read that then. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: But I think, Mark, the reason that's important to say now is that if there was a recommendation to take crcdits out of this arca, then limiting the crcdits versus the acreagc might be a different concept, might not be the best concept. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Limiting the-- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Well, in other words, if we're going to be able to take credits over the line -- but I guess we're not, so n CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, it would also fix the concerns over any expansion of the science on the panther corridors. Ifwe get the corridors, come back and say, they need to be a mile wide instead 01'300 feet wide as shown on this interim plan, then all of a suddcn this is passed by then, or it's close to being passed by then, it creates restoration credits tor all those panthcr corridors. And I'm concerned that we might have -- I don't want to leavc the door open to even generate cven more that we're obligated to address, and that's kind of what I was thinking, so -- MR. CORNELL: But I think that this n thc proposal that wc camc up with -- now mind you, we did this with a really close eye towards balance. I mean, balance was the name of the game. It was our -- it was our chief guiding principle, if you will. How do we balance all the desired outcomes that we're looking at as a committee, as a public committee? I mean, it's n as you know, you do the same thing with the things that come before you. I twas -- we just decided that you can accommodate changes that might come from various sources like the science review team by looking at n at ways of -- well, perhaps the public can buy land like we bought Pepper Ranch, all n some of the credits that wcre on Pepper Ranch are now not going to be used, as well as maybe somebody else can do thc rcstoration. Page 82 16 I Jt;0406 I mean, we had -- I made that comment an hour or two ago, and I think that's still a viable alternative to generating credits. And ifit's so untenable, ifit's going to be so unprofitable, if the value of credits is going to be -- seem to be so diluted that, why would anybody do that, the landowner's not going to do that, and then it becomes the only option you have is to have the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service or somebody else come in and make that restoration happen, and they don't get credits. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I think we've talked that enough. Paul, did you -- COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: (Shakes head.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Anybody else have any issues on that first paragraph on that policy? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I do. In the last sentence, you struck the words principle of the Rural Land Stewardship Act as for the described n why? MR. CORNELL: We had that conversation a long time ago, and let me see if[ can remember. This was originally in 2002. The proposal was set up to follow a pilot program that was passed by the state legislature that has now been supcrsedcd by subsequcnt legislation and it is now proposed to be superseded again by the rural land stewardship rule that's -- you know, DCA's trying to implement. So this stands on its own, I think, in rccognition that our program is a prototype. It's a uniquc program not aligned with the state's -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So is the Rural Land Stewardship Act a reference to the 9J-5 portion of the law or the Florida Statutes? Because I believe we're ahead of9J-5, but we come under the portion of the Florida Statutcs in rcgards n but I'm not sure on that, so -- MR. CORNELL: I believe that this program was patterned after a prototype that is -- ifI'm not mistaken, and somebody will have to correct me -- that has been repealed since then, has bcen replaced by actual legislation on rural land stewardship. That is somewhat different. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: It's an issue that, as wc move into transmittal, we can always further address it there, if need be. MR. CORNELL: And somebody else may know more. Tom or somcbody else in the audience may know more about that than I, but I believe that's the reason for that. It's no longer patterned aftcr the state laws. It's its own entity. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody else have any questions on Pagc 56? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: If you go down to 4.5, the first few words ofthe first line you added, to the extent practical. Love that language. What does that mean? Who decides if it's practical or not? Why don't you just drop that and say, the SRA master plan shall be consistent with the county's then-adopted long-range transportation plan? By saying it's to the extcnt practical, I mean, that doesn't -- we learned on the I O-year water supply it doesn't mean anything. So I would think we want some further definition. MR. CORNELL: This was language that was worked out with transportation staff and other folks. I think some of the landowners were in this discussion. My take on it is that it was recognition that these two processes kind of move separately, and there wasn't a whole lot of coordination necessarily. So there was a reluctance to tie it directly. But I see your point. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Wolfley? COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Brad, as I recall a lot of the things that we -- I think that would-- let me just put itthis way. We didn't have a lot of the information that we have now. Wc didn't have a road plan. We didn't have a map of that. We didn't have a map ofthe concept plan. We were going through this, so I think that, you know, it can -- we sort of see where the road's are going to go and sort of see where we can put human habitat. Maybe that can be struck now, but before we just didn't have that information from the agencies. Page 83 16 L1~ 30,i6 ,~ MR. CORNELL: I think that's true, and we still don't really in any specific terms because there's a vision plan -- I can't remember what it's called. Nick Casalanguida referenced it yesterday, and it's in the transportation element policy that we're adding, whatever that number is. MR. GREENWOOD: Mr. Chairman? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Called the county build-out vision plan. MR. CORNELL: Thank you. That vision plan -- MR. GREENWOOD: Mr. Chairman, Nick Casalanguida is on his way over, just so you know. He should be here shortly. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That will lighten up thc day, won't it? MR. GREENWOOD: Yeah, he's watching us. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Well, good. MR. CORNELL: I just said his name now. It's like two seconds later, he's -- well, anyway, that n I think that's -- you know, there's more definition to be brought in a year when that plan comes to pass. And this is just sort of acknowledging that we didn't have a whole lot of understanding of where the transportation planning would intersect this, except that we -- there is a requirement that this be not a burden on current taxpayers. That's in the plan now. CIIAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Well. I think that n and I did ask Nick prior to this meeting, give mc a copy of that build-out plan. It's referenced multiple times -- or actually the division plan -- in this document, and my understanding is it's not cven close to being done, so -- MR. CORNELL: It's a year away. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. Yet it's brought up many times in this document, so it's a little concerning as to what we're buying into. But anybody else n go ahead. MR. CORNELL: I was just going to say, the -- partly why it's a year away is that the 2050 concept plan is a long ways away as well. And there's a lot of assumptions being put into that map and some of these ideas of coordination, and I think that the periodic reviews that will come with the EAR process and the reviews of these policies are going to be really important for making sure that that stays connected. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, if anybody will delay the proccss in Collier County, it certainly will be Nick noh, Nick's here. Nick, comc on up. You're always good to see. MR. CASALANGUIDA: I won, Mark, I won. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You won') MR. CASALANGUIDA: How can I help you this afternoon? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Could you explain the status of the county build-out vision plan first, and then we want to ask you about some language in the beginning of the added sentence on 4.5. MR. CASALANGUIDA: Sure. For the record, Nick Casalanguida with transportation. Right now we are dratiing the scope for the vision build-out plan right now. We're doing the horizon study for the roadway network. The vision build-out plan is a little bit more different, and what -- there's a lot of public involvement in the works with other divisions and with folks from ECPO. So right now we're doing a transportation build-out network plan. But to figure out what we need to do to build less roads is where the vision build-out plan gocs. lfwe can find ways to provide goods and services and include mobility, you know, public transportation, land use items, maybe we don't have to build as many roads. So that's the scope of the vision build-out plan. It will probably take us about, I would say about a year to complete it. With or without the board's blessing to do that as a GMP amendment, we're going to work towards, as staff, gctting that done. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, when that plan's done, is it the intent of your dcpartment that this Page 84 161~1A6 January 30, 2009 county follow that plan if it's voted on and approved by the BCC? MR. CASALANGUIDA: It will be used as a guide both for the MPO and for the county. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That word guide. Bruce and you must have talked. I don't know if he's even here right now. He uses words like that, too. Used as a guide. Does that mean we shall conform to it? MR. CASALANGUIDA: When you say shall conform, the issue with even the plans that have been put up by ECPO and the Conservancy is their estimates are what we think they'll be. And when I say guide, if a town wants to come on another side of a road that we have proposed and we need to adjust that road, we can do an update to that plan. So it is a guide. It says, if we do these things and build a roadway network and consistent with this concept plan, when we're done, we'll be okay. Now, that doesn't mean if one of the rural landowners wants to modity that plan that they can't. They'll just have to show that it still meets the transportation and other needs that are in that plan. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Would that plan talk about items like integrating transit systems between towns, planning road networks iflandowners don't agree to where those road networks should go? How do we plan the uses for the need for travel betwecn each SRA if only -- if each SRA only considers its internal systems? It that plan going to get into all those issues? MR. CASALANGUIDA: That plan will get into all those issues. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, then why wouldn't that plan be shall instead of to the extent practical or shall -- or be considered? Why wouldn't we make sure that that plan then is incorporated into the design of the RLSA? MR. CASALANGU IDA: It would be, but we want to be able to have I1exibility. Because as talked about -- and I agree with the folks that have worked on the ECPO plan, you're going to have to have the ability to modity it at some point in time, because we don't -- we have that first-hand knowledge of what it's finally going to look like. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But see, we're not talking about the plan. We're talking about the GMP language. And what I'm suggesting is the GMP language become more definitive in the references of that plan, but the plan is the fluid document that's changed more readily between your department and the BCC. So I'm not sure why thc GMP has to be so flexible when you'vc got the t1exibility built into the plan. MR. CASALANGUIDA: The idea would be, it shall comply with the plan unless the plan is otherwise modified. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Well, that's not what any of this says. MR. CASALANGUIDA: Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And that's where I'm coming from. MR. CASALANGUIDA: Okay. I understand. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And if you look at the policy 4.5, the first words added to the underlined sentence, to the extent practicable. Well, that eliminates any need to abide by it then. MR. CASALANGUIDA: If you want to make tbat more stringent and that's your recommendation, I fully support that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. And if you -- and there's other instances where the county build-out vision plan is referenced, and each one of those is a consideration and not a shall. And if the document itself is flexible and this document requires you to tie it to that flexible document as it changes, then I think that's a better protection for the plan's implementation, and thcn obviously for the taxpayers hopefully, so. MR. CASALANGUIDA: Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Does anybody have any other comments on that? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Nick, I think that's the only issues on this page right now, but we're Page 85 , 16 tlry 30~0~ going to probably have more. MR. CASALANGUIDA: Okay. Fair enough. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So thank you for your time. MR. CASALANGUIDA: You're welcome. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: It's always a pleasure. Policy 4.5, the second paragraph, the last two lines -- and this is more of a Tom Greenwood issue. On the second to the last line you repeat the words, such as appropriate ways, disposal methods. You repeat that at the last of the last line, too. I don't think you need it twice, so you may want to look at that in the future. Policy 4.6, your reference to that section in 9J-5, I pulled that section. It doesn't seem to be a reference that has anything to do with what you're referring to it for, so you may want to double check that 9J - 5 rcference. You see what I'm saying in 4.6, Tom? MR. GREENWOOD: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Then that takes us through the end of Page 56. Does any of the Planning Commission members have any other questions on Page 56~ (N 0 response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Are there any comments from the audience on Page 56? Russell? MR. PRIDDY: Yes, Russell Priddy. I'll just repeat something that was said earlier. And I don't pcrsonally have a dog in this light, but I believe what my fellow landowners tell me. You all arc concerned about, if this panther corridor has to be a mile wide, about the credits it would generate. Forget it. It's not going to generate credits. It's not going to be built in that, using credits or in that fashion. It's just way more than what the landowner's going to be able to do. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. MR. PRIDDY: So, I mean, the answer is there. Ifit gets -- ifit gets too big, it gets done in another fashion, not with credits. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. Anybody else have any comments on Page 56 before we go to Page 577 Allen'? MR. REYNOLDS: There were a couple of discussions regarding, first of all, the language that was deleted. Chapter 1 63.3177, which is what was referred to as the stewardship act, our program is not under that statutory provision, so that's the reason that that was struck. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: AND just before you go, thcn that same reference is in policy 4.6. MR. REYNOLDS: Right. And the reference in 4.6 is that in that part of the statute it references a variety of innovative planning strategies and techniques, so this is a reference to that list of techniques that can be used, which includes satellites communities. new towns, and other types of innovative practices. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. It says it shall be based upon. So would the changes that you're making -- and namely your change in the -- you're removing hamlets and you're changing the uses in a CIU\ or you're trying at least. Is that going to be any cont1ict with the reference that you have in 4.6 to Chapter 163.31777 MR. REYNOLDS: I don't believe it will be --I also don't believe that if that language was taken out that it would make much differcnce. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. MR. REYNOLDS: Yeah. I think you could leave it either way. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. MR. REYNOLDS: The othcr thing is that when you were talking about the 45,000 acres, I wanted to make it clear that under the committee's proposed recommendations, any public benefit acres would be Page 86 ]l E) I j[anua~0~091 counted as part of that 45,000 acres. It's included, not excluded, as part ofthat. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I thought it was up to 10 percent. MR. REYNOLDS: No. The 10 percent is the best estimate of what we think that acreage would represent. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So that means all community acreage would be include in the 45-? MR. REYNOLDS: Correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. So that brings the 45- potentially down to 35-, which means then you're entitling 35,000 acres with credits, which would give you even a greater excess of credits that we would have to deal with, so -- MR. REYNOLDS: No, because what happens basically under the program right now is that, if you look at the calibration of the credits, you'll see that the credits generated actually produce less than 45,000 acres of development. It's only when you add in the noncredit acres for public benefit do you get to 45,000 acres. Did you follow that? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I follow what you're saying. I'll have to go back and do the calculations again, because if you take 421, divide it by ten, you add 42,000. So you're saying that the noncredits bring it from 42- to 45- when actually if it's 10 percent, it would be maybe a little more than that, but I understand how you rounded it offthen. MR. REYNOLDS: Yeah. There's a table that's contained in Section 3. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes. I spent some time on that one last night, so -- MR. REYNOLDS: And when you get to that, we can go through that in more detail, if you'd like, but -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I'm not sure we'll get to it, but there's no -- I understand what you're saying, Alan, so there would be no sense in -- very good. MR. REYNOLDS: Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you, sir. Any other qucstions for anyone on Page 56? Nicole? MS. RYAN: Nicole Ryan, Conservancy of Southwest Florida. On policy 4.2, the Conservancy was also concerned about that cap being put in. From the natural resources standpoint we believe that allowing 45,000 acres for SRAs would negatively impact natural resources. And also from the public perspective, essentially Collier County will be saying that infrastructure, roads, and everything that the county is obligated to do for new communities, that the county will provide that level of service for 45,000 acres of development out in the rural areas. To date, we don't have any specific number attached to how much development could occur out there. If we jump to the 45,000 acres, we better have a road network that is going to be somehow financially feasible. It seems like it's quite a leap. I do like the idea of looking at -- instead of capping acreage, capping credits. The credits contain the value. And if we have an acreage limit and more credits at the end, then there's going to be an impasse of how then do you attach value to those remaining credits. And it seems that there's still a debate about how many credits are out there today, how many credits would also be generated by the proposed amcndment? So if we agree that it's 315,000 credits to date, I would like to explore the idea of shifting those credits around to how we feel they can best protect the agricultural resources, natural resources, panther corridors, what we want to protect in that footprint that we have of credits to date. So we certainly would support exploring that idea further. As you said, we can't take those credits away, so let's work with them, but wait and not give more at this time. On the policy 4.5, we very much support the idea of taking out the, to the extent practicable and Page 87 16111A6 January 30, 2009 implying -- putting something in that says it shall comply as the plan is then updated and modified. On policy 4.6, it talks about dealing with mass transit and making sure that you have bus subsidies, but it doesn't get into if that is going to be paid for by the SRA, by the developer, and I don't know ifthat's something that would be better placed in thc LDC but I think the obligation for who is going to fund that really needs to be brought out at some point. So just make that as a side note. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. MS. RYAN: Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Any questions? Mr. Wolfley? COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: It's not ncccssarily lor Nicole, but it is about what she said. Yesterday I attended an economic development conference that was held here, and the State of Florida is trying to attract much more technology-based, well, companies to bring a different revenue source to the State of Florida, and specifically to Southwest Florida if we can. To do that, we've got to have and be rcady to have some places for them to go, not only for the industries themselves, but places to live. I personally couldn't think of a better place for that to happen than in the rural lands, and that's who's going to pay for it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: In other words, if we're going to attract these people, we better get this thing done and get going. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. Paul? COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Mark, you mentioned 315,000 credits. It was the first time I've heard that. Could 315,000 credits covcr more than the 45,000 acres that we're talking about already? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Depends. It comes out to eight credits per acre. If they go into ten for some reason that changes it, but cvcn at eight which is thc worst-case scenario, divided by 315, I think you're about 39,000, something like that. I got to -- 39,375 acres. COMMISSIONER MIDNFY: Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Brian? MR. GILLIGAN: Brian Gilligan with the Barron Collier Companies. I do think n and this was talked about, Mark, the other day, that 45,000 acres doesn't obligate the county. That's a max. We have certainty that it's going to be not more than 45,000 acres. I think if you haven't done so already, it's really important to take a look at these credits calculations, what the current program is comparcd to what's being proposed. I think, again, it's worthwhile looking at that. I want to say that I do believe with this cap you actually are going to have less development that's currently to be -- happen under the program. Under the current program you'd have 43,000-odd acres ofpotcntial SRA plus the rest could bc one to five. This 45,000 acres is if all the credits were used, so the rest would be ago preserve. I want to make one other point though, and that is, when you look at these, these are maximum calculations. And it's important to do that. We necd to understand the maximum impact. But this is if 100 percent of the people out there all participated in this program. I don't think that's a valid assumption. I think some people are just not going to participate at all. And if it becomes, well, what is that percentage? Maybe it's 10, maybe it's 20 pcrcentage -- 20 percent. Let's say 20 percent don't participate in the program at all. You don't have 45,000 acres of development. You have somewhere in the mid 30s. Most likely that's really what's going to happen. But, again, I understand the need to go through these maximum calculations. I do believe when you look at that table tor the 45,000 acres, I think you'll find that it is in balance, that there aren't excess credits being generated above the 45-, and the reason I know that is because we have Page 88 1611 A6 January 30, 2009 people like Russell, we have people like Dave, that don't want excess credits in the system. If they're in the credit side, that would devalue what they have to offer. So those numbers have been looked at very, very carefully to make sure that's in balance. And I do go along with the northern corridor. It's going to have to make sense ultimately. There's been some great discussion today on the size. But ultimately, in order for that happen, it's going to be -- have to be a win-win for everyone, and it's going to have to be of a size that makes sense to everybody. That's how I think that's going to play out. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Brian, since you mentioned the northern corridor -- and I know you're a signer on the MOU, and I know the MOU factors into this kind of in the background. It's not really a surface document for our discussion. But was the -- if the northern corridor doesn't materialistically evolve from the scientific committee, is the MOU still valid? MR. GILLIGAN: You know, Mark, as it relates to that -- and I think it was expressed before, maybe it was by Elizabeth -- I mean, that's a document. It's not as binding. It says clearly that it's not a binding agreement. We arc going to see how the scientilic technical review committee comes out, and then we're going to decide how we go forward from there. We think that it makes abundant sense to work together to try to create something that's wonderful for Collier County. We're going to have to assess how that comes out. We're going to have to assess whether all thc components of what's being proposed stay intact or if we're going to have to make some modifications to it. So it's not cast in stone. We're going to have to assess where we're at when they come back. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. Any questions? Mr. Wolfley? COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Brian? Brian? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: David's got a question. MR. GILLIGAN: Yes. COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: I hate to put you on the spot -- well, maybe I don't. But I'm wondering, you talked about devaluating of the credits. Can you give us a range? I know it's very ditlicult, nearly impossible to do, but can you give us a range of a value of the credits? MR. GILLIGAN: You looking for a price range? COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Yes. MR. GILLIGAN: You know, unfortunately, we don't have that because, you know, the only transaction to date is Ave Maria, and we were fortunate enough, we had the credits off the 17,000 acres of properties to, you know, place on Ave Maria. So there hasn't been yet an exchange on the open market to know exactly what that dollar value is. COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Internal thing. MR. GILLIGAN: Yes. COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: You know, it's unfortunate. It would help us put a little substance to it. But, I guess, you know, we may get to it later. MR. GILLIGAN: Yeah. And that's the thing. I mean, I know I ean understand, you know, the question and the concern, but, you know, that's going to play out and it's going to be market driven. There are certainly a number of people out there. If they want to move forward and do projects, they need credits. They're going to have to approach people with credits. And you know, what those credits are today might be different from what those credits are (sic) a year ago, so there's going to be a lot of variables, but I do think ultinlately a value will be established. I Page 89 16 IanL 30, 2!9 6 mean, it's not going to have to be one that's cast in stone. I think it's just going to be kind of on a transaction-by-transaction basis. COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Okay. I was going to ask some more, but-- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well. go ahead, David. COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: No. We'll go in a loop. Thanks. MR. GILLIGAN: Okay. COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. Hey, Tom. Before you start, David, the rural hinge is diflerent than the stewardship area. The rural fringe uses TDRs. COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Right. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: TORs wcre pegged at a starting rate of$25,OOO per TOR, and each TOR was worth one unit, and the stewardship arca, each steward -- two stewardship credits equal one unit. Now, I'm not saying the TOR program is successful. because it's not. The 25,000 is probably not right. But if you were to take that as a rule of thumb, you're looking around 12-and-a-halfthousand for each stewardship credit, which is probably way too high. So I would cxpcct they'd be less than that to give you a ballpark. So we're not probably above that. We're probably less than that for the n COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Okay. Well, that's kind of where I was figuring, thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Tom? MR. CONRECODE: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. For the record, Tom Conrecode with Collier Enterprises. A quick comment on the language change to policy 4.5. If you can scroll back up to that. It's important to understand when we say to the extent practicable versus shall, the first thing that you need to recognize is that the LRTP is updated once every five years. And so to the extent that you're proposing an SRA that coincides with LRTP offivc years ago or four years ago, that there is some timing associated with the cyclcs that the county goes through. The other thing that's important about that language n and we spent a considerable amount oftimc working with Nick on finding language that everyone would be comfortable with -- is that this county build-out vision plan does not exist and that this future corridor vision that is prescribed in another policy does not exist. And so to the extent practicable is the appropriate language, I think, in this particular case. Had those documents existed or we understood that they were updated on the annual cyclc, it may be shall may be the more appropriate language. But it's important to understand the cycles and the time frames that these things operate under and yet still give Nick comfort in that his concerns are being addressed in this RLSA update. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you, Tom. And Nick will be back to visit us at some point in the future before we'rc all over with this, and then we'll have to run that by him again at -- and did you have something? COMMISSIONER CARON: Well, I wasjust going to say, I thought the way we had talked about it as updated and modified kind of covered that situation. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's what I was thinking too, but we can run it by Nick when we see him next weck, so. Okay. Ifthere's no other comments from the public, let's move on to Page 57, and that's a continuation of policy 4.6 and ends towards the end with an almost completc 4.7.2. Arc there any questions from the Planning Commission on Page 57? Ms. Caron? Page 90 161 lanuary~0~009 ' COMMISSIONER CARON: Yeah, I have a dumb question here because I don't understand quite what this means. Under policy 4.7, the next to the last line, I guess it is, says, the base residential density does not restrict net residential density of parcels within the SRA. Isn't the base density the net density? AIl right. So explain to me. MR. CORNELL: I believe that that has to do with acreage and where you're concentrating your development within what you call your town, isn't it? COMMISSIONER CARON: No. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, wouldn't it be -- and Brad, in the urban area, for example, when we get a PUD, it's calculated on the density by a gross amount. If you have 50 acres, you have 200 units, but your parcels, because you have a restriction on open space and all that, your parcels have a higher density. It could go ten -- eight, ten, 12, whatever, per parcel. I thought -- when I was reading this, I made a similar note, but I thought in trying to figure it out, I thought that's what I was getting to was that kind of collation of the total gross down to a net on a parcel. COMMISSIONER CARON: Okay. Could we just have them confirm that, because I want to make sure that's what it means. MR. CORNELL: That's my read of it. I'll let somebody else talk about it if they have a different Op11110n. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Y ou'rc standing alone. MR. CORNELL: Going once, going twice. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Oh, Alan's going to come up here. MR. REYNOLDS: I thought staff was going to take that one. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No. Staff's hands off. MR. REYNOLDS: All right. COMMISSIONER CARON: AI, is that correct') MR. REYNOLDS: Total hands off COMMISSIONER CARON: Was that correct? MR. REYNOLDS: What Mark just described is correct. COMMISSIONER CARON: Fine, thank you. That's all I wanted to know. MR. REYNOLDS: You'll typically find that the net residential densities are probably at least twice the base density in a typical town or village. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. Are there any other questions from the Plarming Commission on Page 577 Paul? COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Well, just on 4.7.2, villages within and with -- outside the area of critical concern. Since the area of critical concern is all primary panther habitat, I think everyone's pretty much agreed with that, I would like to not see nodes of any kind within that area. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. So the villages of not less than 100 acres but not more than 1,000 acres inside the area of critical concern, and not more than 1,500 acres outside. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Yeah. I'm more concerned with the inside part. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Well, tllat hasn't -- has that changed? MR. CORNELL: The -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Inside. MR. CORNELL: No, but what has changed inside is the proposal to have the agricultural preservation stewardship sending areas. And if thosc come to pass, as we hope they do, there won't be any villages in the ACSC at all. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Yeah, that-- Page 91 161 Jl:~3A6 MR. CORNELL: It would be, perhaps, the potential for one CRD, and that's it. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: That would be a good outcome. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, Paul, I think what he's saying is, ifit comes to pass. And what is that dependent on? What do you mean, ifit comes to pass? MR. CORNELL: It's a voluntary program. If people participate and say, yes, I will put my agricultural acreage under an agricultural preservation stewardship sending area easement, keep it ago or less forever and will not build a village in the ACSC. That would -- I mean, that's the landowner choice. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right now there's the ability to build n is there -- the ability to build a village in the ACSC is up to a thousand acres; is that -- or it's up to 500 acres? A thousand? MR. CORNELL: I have to go back and look. I believe it's a thousand. I don't think that's changed. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. MR. CORNELL: What did change was outside the ACSC, they increased it to 1,500 acres. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And that's the purpose of this insertion? MR. CORNELL: Correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. That's what I was getting at. Okay. Anybody else~ Paul, does that get to your -- COMMISSIONER MlDNEY: That was my point. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Anybody elsc have any questions on that one'! (No responsc.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well.lct's go back to the top, the second line, underline on the very top of the page, it says thc development of the SRA shall also consider the needs identified in the county build-out vision plan. Depending on when we re-talk to Nick about it and how to change the language, where it says shall also consider needs to bc considered to be changed bccause that's just as ambiguous as the other item that was pointed out. Under policy 4.7, the rcfcrence in the middle where it says Chapter 163 then it says OJ-5, that should be 9J-5. And, again, that's thc refercnce I -- Tom, I mentioned earlier that you may want to double check and make surc it's the right relerence. MR. GREENWOOD: I will. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Numbcr -- policy 4.7.1, it's talking about the towns. The town sizes have changed, and it n there's some language in here that didn't gct changed by the committee, but I want to explore some ideas. Towns are the largest and most diverse form ofSRA with a full range of housing types and mix of uses. It seems to me that we could reduce the Jootprint used in the RLSA area by utilizing more density under what everybody likes to think is smart growth, and that means your town cores could afTord a higher density under a mixed-use capacity whether you're concentric bands of multifamily and then getting into single-family. I have been told -- and I've not been there myself -- that Ave Maria hasn't followed that pattern exactly, that they've got -- density isn't as concentrated there as maybe it could be betore you got to the single family. That's fine. That's their development. They got in bcforc these changes. But I don't know that to be a fact. And I see Brian jumping up, so maybe he can confirnl it, whether it is or whether it isn't. I'm wondering why the committee may not want to consider adding language so that we can focus highcr densities in town cores under a mixed-use program that we've tried so desperately to promote here in the county. And I know Ave Maria in their town center has utilizcd some of that from what I heard. And then Page 92 161,"A6 J~ary 30, 2009 looking at stepped down layers of density before you finally get to single family so that if we were to say in the gross density calculations of the RLSA, instead offour, it was six, then your credits could be used up more rapidly on less footprint, affording more open space and more green space. MR. CORNELL: From the committee perspective, I certainly understand, and we had a fair amount of discussion about this issue. And it is an important principal of smart growth, and the question becomes one of, what is marketable, what is compatible with the rural landscape out there. And I agree with you if there were more -- if there were higher density, that would potentially reduce the footprint, and I don't know that that still isn't possible to happen, and it could happen as time goes on and it becomes apparent that we need to increase densities in these kinds of developments. Today the workable marketable mix from the landowner's perspective seems to be about what it is in the LDC now. I think the LDC has pretty good smart growth criteria for town design, but I certainly understand your point. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, this morning, I think it was Alan who indicated that the density being used out there is not much different than that in the coastal area, which is two to two and a half. That's real low density. That's the density that's got cverybody concerned about urban sprawl. I mean, if we've got a whole new area that's being looked at, is there a way to plan? Maybe we ought to be looking at it. MR. CORNELL: Well, one point I want to make about the SRA density, and perhaps Brian would say something about this, too, but I know that there's a fairly significant percentage -- I want to say 35 percent -- that is open space within those SRAs, and that, you know, contributes to less density on the gross acreage, but you would have a higher density on a net basis. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But, since you don't have to deal with 15 percent water management because you've got the WRAs not being counted as SRA credited acreage, you have the ability to put more on that acreage than you do in the urban area. So 15 percent of four is what, another tive maybe, maybe more. So I'm just suggesting that it could be a little higher, and you probably have the room to put it there. MR. CORNELL: It could be, and I think it becomes a question of marketability and what they think they can sell, and I -- to that question, I would send you to the developers and landowners. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Brian, what I'd like to do is let us -- it would be just a minute. MR. GILLIGAN: Sure. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I want to get the questions done to the committee from the Planning Commission before we go to public, okay. And is therc any other questions before I go to one more, and that is, under policy 4.7.2 that starts on Page 57, the second to the last line, it said appropriately scaled uses described in policy 4.7.4 shall be permitted in villages. Now, in 4.7.4, you get into all kinds of things. Aviation -- which I'm wondering if it means airports -- research centers, aerospace, corporate headquarters. What is appropriately scaled? How do we determine what that is? Is there any way -- guideline f"r that? Because what may be appropriately scaled to a landowner who ha~ a potential on that site versus what the other parties may think would be two different things. MR. CORNELL: Well, as you might guess, Tammie Nemecek had significant input on this particular 4.7.4 -- I mean 4.7.4, and appropriate scale, I think, is a professional judgment call unless there are some specific criteria attached to that, which I suppose there would be a license to do that in the LDC. Right now I think professional judgment. I defer to staff to answer that question more specifically. MR. GREENWOOD: I don't have a definition for appropriately scaled, and I think that language did come from Tammie, I believe. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Brad? Page 93 16 I 1 Janu16;0~9 COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Mark, wouldn't we, when we established the LDC requirements for this, if we put a public hearing in there, that hearing could establish that. MR. CORNELL: It's kind of like a compatibility test, you know. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: As long as it's thought of. I just was curious if anybody could tells me what they intended when they put it here. I mean, that's tine. I have no problem with that. Donna, did you have a question? COMMISSIONER CARON: No, that's okay. We can wait until we get done. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Well, let's -- then on Page 57, let's turn to public speakers. Brian, I know you've bcen anxiously awaiting. MR. GILLIGAN: Just wanted to comment on the density issue. Brian Gilligan with Barron Collier Companies. You know, it's interesting. I mean, everyone has diffcrent opinions. When you take a town like Ave Maria, what works, what doesn't works, what could be done differently. We're prctty proud of it, the way it turned out. And on the density issue, when you look at our tmvn center core, we have mixed use, we have residences above that commercial. What you don't see yet in the ground is, kind of on the outer band of our town center, we're also going to have more multifamily there, which is a more dcnsc product, and then it's going to scale out into the residential neighborhoods. From there, you go into the TND, traditional neighborhood design-type product, very dense, with the requirements ofthe Rural Land Stewardship Program, there's pocket parks and other things like that. But the actual homes themselves are fairly dense in there. And somebody touched on it. With the overall requirements of the Rural Land Stewardship Program, with the 35 percent open space, wc do have overall density across the entire project of, let's say, 11,000 units we'rc entitled for basically on 4,000 acres. So it's going to work out of a density of probably about two and a half or so. And that's just, you know, bccause of the requirements of the Rural Land Stewardship Program. You have to put in parks, which are grcat, you have other kinds of open space. But I think if you were to drive around Ave Maria, if you went on Del Webb, went through Del Webb or the Polte product, you'd see it's relatively dense product. Mark, I'd have to say, I mean, if a homebuilder could put more units on an acre of property, they'd love to do so. That means they're going to make more money. So, you know, there's no push back from the developers or the homebuilders of wanting to go higher density if they're able to build an attractive product that the market wants. But I would say this, I would say with the overall tour units per gross acrc allowed under their program, we have quite a bit of room of Ave Maria. If you take a look at the Ave Maria plan -- Tom, I don't know if you have it -- but if you take an aerial of it, it's pretty dense overall. And if you got denser, I still don't think you're going to exceed the four units per acre. I don't know how -- I don't know how you'd get up to a density of five units or six units or something like that with all thc requirements of the Rural Land Stewardship Program. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: My goal was to try to find a way to use more credits to make them more valuable -- MR. GILLIGAN: Right. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: n and at the same time reduce the footprint. And if it's not practical, I understand, but I thought I'd throw it out there and hear what kind of n MR. GILLIGAN: Right. And I think it's a good idea. I just wantcd to relay, you know, from -- practically speaking, whcn you'rc doing a project like that, that's kind of the reality right now. Also, with Page 94 161 r A 6 January 30, 2009 Tanunie not here, I'm, you know, more than happy to answer any questions about what she put in. I'm chairman elect ofthe Economic Development Council. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: There's one paragraph in here you don't want to answer for her. It's on 4.1.8. I carmot figure out -- I have read that thing and read that thing. I carmot figure out what it says. But you might be prepared if she's not going to be here next Thursday and you are, so. MR. GILLIGAN: Actually, Mark, I mean, what are you referring to? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I don't want to jump ahead, but I'll tell you what it says. MR. GILLIGAN: Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: It says, it is recognized that the SRA development in the RLSA may generate surplus revenues to Collier County and Collier County may choose to allocate a portion of such surplus revenues to ensure that sufficient resources are available to allow Collier County to respond expeditiously to economic opportunities and compete effectively for high-value research, development -- MS. HUSHON: CRDs. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- and commercialization, innovation and alternative and renewable energy business project. MR. GILUGAN: I can address that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, that's okay. We'll wait till -- MR. GILLIGAN: But no, ljust want to comment, because there was a workshop with the Board of County Commissioners a few weeks back that we talked about the creation of economic development zones, and that language mirrors exactly what we talked about with the Board of County Commissioners. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Should have known. MR. GILLIGAN: So that's where that language comes from. So if you'd like to talk about it some more, we can. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, we will, because --I mean, it doesn't surprise me now that I know it came through a political process, but we'll go on. MR. GILLIGAN: No. But Mark, I would like to talk about that. I really believe that based on the fundamental compact, sustainable nature of the developments in the Rural Land Stewardship Area, I think there's going to be surplus revenues generated, that is, taxes and other charges and lees, over and above the cost of the county delivering the services, and what that speaks of is a way to stimulate economic development by using a portion, not all, but a portion ofthat surplus to invest right there within that community which will further generate more revenues coming to the county. So that's what that concept is, and that's why you see that language there. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, good, because I have -- then based on that, we will certainly have a lively discussion when we get to 4.1.8. MR. GILLIGAN: Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. Okay. Next speaker on Page 57. MS. JENKINS: Anita Jenkins with WilsonMiller. Mark, I just wanted to address some of your comments about density and the circles and how density is applied in the town centers and town cores, and that idea is identified in the Land Development Code, that it directs the highest density and intensity of uses to the town cores, the town centers, and then the intent is, with the neighborhood general and neighborhood edge, that those densities and intensities decrease as you move out towards the edge. So that is defined in the Land Development Code. And also appropriately scaled towards the villages, if you look on Page 73, there is attachment C to the Rural Land Stewardship Program, and it defines your stewardship receiving area characteristics. So then if you have one of those uses within a village, that use has to be scaled in such a way to fit Page 95 1611 A 6 January 30, 2009 with all the other uses that are required to be part of that village. So the n that particular use couldn't consume all ofthe land that is in the village without accommodating these other uses. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. So the fact that 4.7.4 is a new policy, it still has to be incorporated equally in the Page 73, attachment C? MS. JENKINS: Correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, good. Thank you. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Mark, a question. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes, Brad. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Can we talk about attachment C now? It does come up in 4.7. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Fine. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Anita, maybe you can answer this thing. Obviously we discussed thc gross density is up to four units per gross acreage, okay. These areas that have floor area ratio, you're going to be calculating that then by the parcel in which they sit? MS. JENKINS: There has been interprctation jrom the county staff that those are calculated based on the contact zone. If it's in the -- within the town corc, it's calculated from the town core. I'll have to go back and look at that, Mr. Schiffer, to remember how the county interpreted that. But I believe that when we were going through Ave Maria and looking at that specific issue for a parcel in the town core in Ave Maria, it wa~ n the interpretation was that the FAR was by context zone. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And I think if I remember the Ave Maria before the board is, we really had a little bit of trouble with this, and we had to kind ofleave it to the PUD to answer it. Because, for example, if you have retail office, that's your ideal mixed-use with residential, yellhis has a floor area ratio 01'.5 that is not going to crcate the downto"m. MS. JENKINS: Yeah. I think it's fair to look at those and look at the interpretations that have been made on those. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And then could we revisit and make -- you know, I think this matrix should actually work rather than n if the answer is it's staff-madc interpretation, that's not exactly an answer to that. I think we should look at their interpretation and all of us discuss how we want that to work. And Mark, there's your density in those. Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Good point. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Is there something you could bring back to us tfom after you review what staff n staff's interpretation was when we meet next week? MS. JENKINS: Sure. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. Nicole? MS. RYAN: Nicole Ryan, Conservancy of Southwest Florida. Commissioner Schiffer, you really segued nicely into my comments because my comments do deal with that SRA characteristics table. First,just to discuss, in policy 4.7, hamlets are eliminated, and I'm sure you'll get to more discussion on that when you get to the speciiic hamlet policy to be eliminated. But I did want to say the Conservancy supports the elimination of hamlets. We never really believed that they would be sustainable, so we like the fact that they've been eliminated. Our concern in policies 4.7.1 and 4.7.2 are that they -- we support the towns being able to go up to 5,000. If you're going to create sustainable communities, we think that it's probably better to have one larger community versus a bunch of very small communities. Page 96 16 I 1 JanUA3~009 But our concern is the proposed amendment ofthe minimum size of towns and the maximum size of villages. Towns currently are a minimum of 1,000 acres, and this is being proposed to be increased to 1 ,500 acres. Villages currently are up to l,OOO acres, and their maximum is being proposed ~o be extended up to 1 ,500 acres. And it has been understood that with the villages and with what that attachment C, the SRA characteristics table, requires for villages, that villages need to be larger to be sustainable. Our concern is that by allowing additional acreage for villages instead of making towns out of something that is going to be 1,00 I acres, towns by design are going to be more self-sutlicient. They have to have more jobs, more goods and services. They're really sort of that ultimate of a self-sustainable community. Some developers have said that they really would like to bump that acreage up to make villages work, but we haven't seen any evidcnce that simply upping the acreage of villages is going to solve the problem; therefore, instead of a knee-jerk reaction of saying, let's make villages bigger and see if that works, let's really revisit that whole SRA characteristics table. Towns have to have mass transit. They really have to be much more sustainable. So I'm not sure that we want to be increasing the size of villages and not looking at all of those issues. So we would ask that you revisit this issue, and maybe if Anita's going to be bringing forward some additional information on that characteristics table, we can find a solution looking at, again, increased density. Would a village of I ,000 acres work if the density were doubled? It very well might. So instead of, again, adding additional acreage to it, let's take a look at the whole form and see if we can make it work. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Nicole, before you leave. MS. RYAN: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: If a village is 1,000 acres or a town is 1,00 I acres, what -- why is that a big difference from an environmental viewpoint? MS. RYAN: Well, I think that it gets to if a village is 1,499 acres. You know, I think that ifthere is some sort of scaling or continuum, how can we make sure that when these acreages get to a certain level, we're actually creating something that is going to be sustainable. We like the idea of towns much better than the idea of villages because the towns are going to have, by design, more of the mass transit component of it. They're going to have more goods, more services. That is going to be where people live, work, and play. Villages -- you're going to have more travel outside of the villages simply by design. So if there's some sort of sliding scale or continuum that we can look at that make sure that villages really do function as they should and towns really do function as they should -- I'm just not sure that bumping up the acreage is going to be solving the problem. And I haven't seen anything that has shown that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, the only reason I was trying to compare on the exhibit, attachment C, the differences between the two, and there's very little ditIerence, and especially in transportation. They've got a -- they're almost identical. The only thing that villages have are equestrian trails over the town, and I'm n if all that's present, it seems like it's going to function pretty much the same as a town. I'm not sure it's that big of a concern. MS. RYAN: Well, there are some different levels of --I'm looking through here -- for the transportation actually in the GMPs when we get a little further. I believe that it -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. MS. RYAN: There are some different levels of what is expected as far as the transportation connecti vi ty. Page 97 16 1 Jlary 30406 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: We'll take a look at that when we get to it then. Okay. Thank you. COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Chair? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes, Mr. Wolfley. COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: That just -- I mean, I agree. These things have got to be big enough to where, let's say, 75 to 80 percent ofthc needs are going to be handled within that community. There's got to be jobs there. Thcre's got to be places to go to work, and that's what I was trying to get to before to make it attract -- attractive, havc some company want to come here. We've got to attract them somehow. And with, you know, a 500-acre entity, I don't think that's going to do it. So I mean, I'm in sort of agreement there that they should be a larger size. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Judith') MS. HUSHON: Judith Hushon, private citizen at this point. Mr. Wolt1ey, you just gave me a good lead-in. I spent the beginning of my married life in a planned town of Reston, Virginia, back when it was very small. And the one thing that, to me, the one town we have put in is lacking is an infrastructure put in by the developer that was bought into by the local businesses and attracted people to live there without having infrastructure at least at a minimal level to start. And I think this can be scaled properly in the Land Development Code, but I think it's something that you as the Planning Commission could be looking at. What is a requirement for a minimum town? A tiny grocery pharmacy, a gas station? Some of these things arc things that pcople cannot go through a week without visiting, so that if you're trying to keep pcople local -- which is what wc are doing with thcse towns, we're trying to locus them in -- the only way to do that and make it work is to put somc of these requirements on from the beginning and lay those in and say, cven if you havc to underwrite it, this is part ofthe development cost. At a certain point, you can -- you stop underwriting because it's making money. I mean, it's doing-- it's getting enough. It also is jobs. Everyone of those stores is 20. 30. 40 jobs that -- for people who will want to live there. bccause wouldn't it be nice to live there and work there? And whcre I started originally, of course, there were more jobs out of the community. Now there are more jobs in the community than out. So I see that as a really necessary thing. The whole concept of walk-ability, being a local, bcing a community, tocusing in on being a community, having town centers where you can go, having places where -- day care center is another one you need vcry quickly. If people are going to have jobs. then you havc to have day care centers so that-- because halfofthese people are female, and a number of them may have children. And so these are all things that I see as being really essential to having a town work, and I've seen a town that did work. And I think that in terms of writing and looking at this --I mean, you're looking at towns now, that's the reason I -- and new towns. And that's the reason I look to the Planning Commission. We on the EAC aren't going to be able to take this up. But the Planning Commission can look at some of this, whether they look at it right now or whether you look at it through -- by putting a little bit of language in here now. and then in the LDC, something in terms of required infrastructure by size of town would be the concept. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. MS. HUSHON: Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Your comments have interest, though, but before we go to the -- why don't we take a shorter break, give Terri a chancc to rest her fingcrs, and come back at ten after four, and we'll continue with Brian. and I'm sure he's going to tell us that part of the prohibition is the high impact tees, which they are, for things like gas stations out in Ave Maria. Page 98 16 I !nuary 30~0~ Now we'll break for ten minutes and come back at 4: I O. (A briefrecess was had.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. It's ten after. We can start back up again. And Judith got up and stirred the pot, and now we have some public speakers. Brian, go al1ead. MR. GILLIGAN: Brian Gilligan, Barron Collier Companies. I'm just going to be real brief. I know Judy's comments were given with very good intentions, and everyone has a different idea of what makes a town work; but I'm here to say the prof,'Tam is fantastic, it's flexible, it allows these things to happen. I encourage her and other people to visit Ave Maria. We have over $400 million invested in our infrastructure and our buildings and our university. We have a town center that has got nothing but praise on a national basis. It's a beautiful spot. We have a public that's under construction. We have Arthur X, one of our leading companies that's going to be building a 140000-square-foot manufacturing facility to create jobs. I mean, these are things that happened, and the Rural Land Stewardship Program allows these things to happen. It's not government's role to get in and mandate and dictate that immediately a grocery store of this size and that sells this should be there. Those things are going to happen, but they're market driven, and that's how -- that's how things work. And believe me, we would love to have, you know, as much commercial as we possibly can. But it does take tinle. It takes some time to get critical mass, but we're comfortable we're well on our way. And, again, I think the program, as written, allows that flexibility for that to happen. Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Brian, just so we're clear, the Publix there, you did have to incentivize that to be there, didn't you? MR. GILLIGAN: Well, I can't disclose the details of our deal, but suffice it to say that we worked closely with Publix to make sure that they came in very early in the process. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Would thcy have normally come in at this stage had you not worked closer with them? MR. GILLIGAN: Well, I think that in any new development, you have to work with Publix, or whoever else it is, to have them come in. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. MR. GILLIGAN: I mean, are you saying that-- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, no. I'm trying to --I understand what Judy was indicating. MR. GILLIGAN: But I guess, Mark-- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: It looks likc you tried to do that-- MR. GILLIGAN: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- by moving the process ahead of time by getting that retailer to come in -- MR. GILLIGAN: That's right. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- before they normally would. MR. GILLIGAN: And that goes for other, you know, retailers, too. I think anytime you want to seed a town -- because it's always the chicken and the egg -- you need to have the commercial services to have the residential. You need to have the rcsidential for the commercial services to want to be there. So early on you have to do things to jump start it and get it going. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, thank you. MR. GILLIGAN: Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anita, hi. Page 99 16' 1 A6 January 30. 2009 MS. JENKINS: And I get a treat. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You're the one. You got it. MS. JENKINS: I know it. Whosever it was. I just wanted to address walk-ability and assure you that in the Land Development Code the towns are to be designed as walk-able. That's one of the intents of the program. And unlike other areas in Collier County, one of the nice things is that you're required to put a sidewalk on both sides of the street. And in Ave Maria, not only do you have sidewalks on both sides ofthe street, but you have buffers and parking between that to give the pedestrian a higher quality of experience. And not only is the walk-ability addresscd in that manner with having the use facilities on both sides of the street, but those town centers in Ave Maria are allocated and disbursed throughout the town so you have choices of different town centers depcnding on where you livc. And in addition to being able to walk to those areas. the entire town sits within the classic bicycle distance of three miles. So you have the choice ofdiffcrent modes of transportation. Not only walking, but bicycling as well. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. Anybody else have anything? Nicole? MS. RYAN: It's been a long three days. So when I said that there was a policy that I thought was later on, it was right here in front of me, so I apologize. I had mentioned under the towns that they had an additional component for ensuring internal mobility, and that's the new languagc that has becn added under policy 4.7.1, the third and fourth line tfom the bottom -- or thrce and four Jines up from the bottom, it says, towns shall include an internal mobility plan, which shall include a transfer station or park-and-ridc area that is appropriately located within the town to serve the connection point for internal and external public transportation. There isn't a similar provision that has been added to the village. And in looking at attachment C it looks as if the villages do have to have a county transit access, which I'm assuming will correspond to similar language that has been newly added to the town provisions. So n make a suggestion that that sentence also be added under the villages so that there's a certainty that you have this mobility plan and sufficient public transportation acccss. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Thank you. Brad, is there any concern fi'om -- that you know of from the committee's side where they would react to the use of villages including that languagc where it says n so it says towns and villages shall include instead of just towns? MR. CORNELL: That's a technical question. I don't remember any discussion. If there was some, then I have amnesia. I would ask Nick Casalanguida in particular about the feasibility of that scale of development having mobility plans. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, it's one of those things we'll put on the Nick list when he gets back. Okay, thank you. That wraps up. I think, everything on Page 57. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Mark,just so n CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes, sir, Brad. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Just a question for Brad. Brad, would you have a problem if the towns didn't start at 15-'1 Let's say we started at 2,500 acres. I don't think there's any necessity to have a village's acreage grow to the point where towns pick up. And I think the reason that might be good is to encourage -- you know, and maybe even let the towns grow bigger. But do you think it's important that villages havc the acreage requirement and tov,ns start right after? MR. CORNELL: I personally do. I wouldn't be in favor of raising the bottom of the town. I think Page 100 1611 Ja~,2009 you lose some of the advantages that are delineated in the town parameters, you know, like this mobility plan and some of the other aspects. I -- I mean, from a sustainability standpoint, it needs to be bigger anyway. Why have the bottom end of it? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Right. MR. CORNELL: I think you also need some flexibility in not really knowing what every situation is going to be. And also, if you -- if you picture several more SRAs out there, towns, villages, there is going to be some interrelationship, both through transportation and commerce and travel between those towns. I think that, you know, as time goes on, there's going to be some shared benefits that they'll have out there, just by proximity. So I'm not sure that you want to cut out a bottom that might be more feasible for, perhaps, a smaller landowner who didn't want to capitalize as much. I'm guessing that, but I think flexibility is important, so I would bet that that would be an issue. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: All right, okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. And Jeff, I think, wanted to comment on this page before we leave it, so. MR. PERRY: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I'm sorry. Jeff Perry with WilsonMiller. Just a quick note on the issue with the towns and the mobility plan. That was something that we worked with transportation department on and crafted for the language like this for the town to ensure that the master plans as they were developed and came through the process got the attention that -- for towns. We really didn't talk about it in the context of villages. But keeping in mind -- I don't think it's a bad thing necessarily if we have something like that to consider, but keeping in mind that villages can start as small as 100 acres, that transfer stations and things like that could -- in fact, could be not an appropriately scaled use for villages of that type. But I think it's certainly something that we can look at in the context of villages, what kinds, especially if villages are going to be having some of the more economic uses that are talked about in the following paragraph. I think it might be appropriate to consider bus transfer stations and things like that that might be -- as long as they're appropriately scaled for the kinds of uses, and that would, of course, come through you as part of the SRA process. All villages and towns, all of those SRA master plans come through you and get the scrutiny, I think, that these policies are pointing to. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Thank you. Any other -- any questions? Ms. Caron? COMMISSIONER CARON: Yeah -- no. Ijust think that having some sort oflanguage that we can work on that gives an indication that that is a component so that you don't read this and think one thing and then, whoops, you get back to the chart and it's something else, so -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. With that we'll move on to Page 58. Fifty-eight starts with policy 4.7.3, which was a deletion ofhamlels and ends with policy 4.8. Are there any comments from the Planning Commission? Brad? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Yeah. Just -- and ask Brad, why did you get rid of the hamlets? MR. CORNELL: Not sustainable. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: That word sustainable means everything today, so what do you mean? MR. CORNELL: Well, too small to bc -- have a critical mass of commercial, of residential , of -- it would -- it would be more of a burden on taxpayers or the COD or whatever infrastructure provider was going to be paying for services for such a small development. It just didn't seem like that was something wc wanted to be fostering in the rural lands. We wanted Page ]01 1611'A6 January 30, 2009 something that had more trip capture, more self-containment. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. MR. CORNELL: They'd be lorever dependent on whatever was built around them. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: For employment for most shopping and evcrything~ MR. CORNELL: Right. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: But that's all. I mean, the kid -- thc young kids would go to school there. I mean, it's the scale of the development. I mean, if we want to do big towns, we do big towns, I guess. But I'm not so sure that that might not be an opportunity, especially something that could be themed, for example, like an equestrian neighborhood or something. MR. CORNELL: If you wanted to do something that was on a sort ofecotourism-type thing like a hunting lodge or equestrian lodge or something like that, you could do a CRD and capture what you're talking about, a sort ofless multi-facctcd, more singlc venture orientcd kind of development. But a hamlet COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: But density, docsn't it drop? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: A CRD is two units per acre. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Right. I mean, so was the hamlet, I gucss, so that's -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And a hamlet was two units per acrc, so 1 think the CRD and hamlet in that regard would be the same. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Yeah. Okay. I mean, if that's why they did it, that's why they did it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I think what they-- MR. CORNELL: That wa~ our thinking, right or wrong. We felt likc it was not a sustainable kind of development to have in the rural lands. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody else have any questions on Page 58? Ms. Caron? COMMISSIONER CARON: Yeah. On 4.7.3, these compact rural developments, this first line or two is absolutely gobbledygook. It's language that, you know, it's likc out of a seminar, you know. We're going to support and furthcr Collier County's valued attributes, and then we list, you know, anything we can think of, agriculture, natural resources, economic n and we're throwing all these things into a hundred acres or morc. I just n I think you've got to work on this language. I think it's become meaningless because you're trying to throw cverything but the kitchen sink in there and then say that it's really what CRDs were originally meant for, were ecotourism things. I mean, we're talking very small, very specific -- MR. CORNELL: I think that's --I think that's what we're trying to capture in this. And if we haven't, then you all will tell us, I'm sure. And maybe that's what you're doing. But that is what we're trying to capture, that it's a relatively small-scale development that's oriented towards some of the Collier County unique characteristics that would be compatible with that area, you know, and ccotourism is one way to term it. But we used thcse terms just to give it some flexibility. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Have you ever-- COMMISSIONER CARON: How does that get you to research and education and tourism and recreation? ] mean, then you've thrown everything here into the mix, too. MR. CORNELL: Well, we didn't want to eliminate those because those wouldn't necessarily be incompatible kinds ofCRD. I mean, I think of something like Rookery Bay, and that's not a residential development, but the kinds of uses at Rookery Bay in that setting aren't necessarily incompatible. They're good for the public. They're good for the resource in a long-term sense. And you can envision something likc that out in this rural land stewardship area, which has some tremendous attributes that many people don't ever get to see. Page 1 02 16 I lanuA ~ ~O~9 So that's what we tried to capture. If we've failed, then you tell us. But that's what we were looking for anyway. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, Brad, did you picture -- I don't know if you've been up -- I think it's-- my goodness, it's up near Punta Gorda. You go out on these farm fields and all of a sudden, there's this giant warehouse there surrounded by Wal*Mart trucks. I couldn't figure out what that was, so I went online and I found out it's the regional distribution ccnter for Wal*Mart. It's on a piece of property that's probably less than a hundred acres, but it's one giant, big building will all kinds of massive trucks running in and out of it. Why would you want the CRD to have one of those on it? Because if you look at policy 4.7.4, which was added to the reference of this CRD language, and go down and look at 4.7.4, you can have aviation, aerospace, health and life services, corporate headquarters, software information technology, wholesale and trade distribution. I don't think your group intendcd that. MR. CORNELL: Well, those don't apply to CRDs, I don't believe. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, look at the fifth line down. It says, appropriate scaled compatible uses described in policy 4.7.4 may also be permitted in CRDs. MR. CORNELL: Oh, I sec, yeah. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And I brought this up in some meetings I had with some of your people before this meeting as a problem, because you're putting in intensity in CRDs I don't think you or anybody intended ever to have there. So I think that that's -- something needs to be fixed in that regard. MR. CORNELL: Well, I'm going to have to defcr to others, but I'm going to guess that we have some constraint on what can be built; because I agree with you, that doesn't sound like something we want in those kind of places. But there would be some constraint in the criteria in that attachment C. But I'm afraid I'm not expert enough to interpret that and tell you how that would constrain that. It was definitely not our hope to see giant warehouses. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. And I didn't think it would be yours, and that's why when you were relaying what you thought it was, that's what I think everybody thought it was. MR. CORNELL: Ycs. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And when I brought this up to others, it was a surprise to them as well. So I'm not sure it was ever intended to be relayed like it ended up being. So -- George? MR. VARNADOE: If[ could just interject a second. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes. MR. VARNADOE: George Varnadoc, for the record. This came, I think, through Tammie Nemecek a~ the EDC, and I think it probably could be narrowed some. And I would ask your indulgence to have her be ready to address this when you reconvene on the 5th. And I will tell her of your concerns, and maybe she'll be ready to suggest a much narrower scope of this, Mr. Strain. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah. And you might suggest to her, the sinlplest way to get there is to take out that sentence that says, appropriately scaled compatible uses, then we're there. Then we get back to where everybody thought a CRD was supposcd to be. MR. VARNADOE: And I don't want to talk for her, but I think the idea was that we may have some unique research, but it has to do with ago or some high-tech industry that just needed a small office and some land to do their -- whatever the research was. So let me -- without predisposing as to getting rid of the sentence or changing, let me ask that we, if we can, have her revisit that with you on the 5th. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's fine. Does that work with everybody else? MR. VARNADOE: Thank you. Page !O3 l611 A6 January 30, 2009 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you, sir. Before we go to public speakers, I'm sorry. George kind of slippcd into try to help -- MS. HUSHON: Did he slip in? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- solve the problem, yeah. Hardly saw him come up. Let's make sure we're done with the rest of the committee requests first. And is there any other questions from the Planning Commission? Brad and then Donna. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Yeah. I think -- and this is to -- Brad, since you've essentially merged hamlets into this, I mcan, some of the phrases in and hamlets -- lor example, I do think you want convenience retail uses in the CRD, correct, or not? MR. CORNELL: I would think that that would be a part of a CRD, but -- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Right. Because you moved over, you know, the requirement often square feet per dwelling unit or something. MR. CORNELL: Right. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: So could you make reference to attachment C? I guess it's that one line up -- and it -- you know, it should include conveniencc retail uses and a ratio provided in attachment C. Obviously they would finally get there, but -- MR. CORNELL: Right. And we don't make reference to it, but it would be -- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Good idea to name thcm. MR. CORNELL: Yeah. I don't see a problem with that. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And then I think what you've cssentially done is merged hamlet into the CRD, and then added all of Donna's sales brochure wording. MR. CORNELL: Well, to have -- and to have it a little bit more defined in what direction we'd like to see that go in scale. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, as an example, you know, you've got a potential CRD south of the Pepper Ranch. Would you want to see a distribution warehousc there? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Yeah. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So thosc arc -- if you're thinking of it, we -- and I know you're on the right path. I just -- maybe somebody ought to take a revisit to this tfom your group, so -- MR. CORNELL: Right. And that reference -- [ think anytime you reference policies, there's sometimes unintended conscquences of -- wcl!, 1 didn't think that would exactly apply there, but wc're trying to describe a picture with words, and somctimes that's not so easy. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Donna, did you still have a question? COMMISSIONER CARON: Actually I just had a comment on 4.7.4. The beginning of the paragraph -- paragraph says, existing urban arcas, towns, and villages shall be the preferred location for a list ofthings. Do we not actually mean the Immokalee urban area -- MR. CORNELL: Yes. COMMISSIONER CARON: -- plus towns and villages? I think we need to say that. because I think that's important for Immokalee. MR. CORNELL: And I think this really refers to any cxisting urban area, but then towns and villages, this isn't described by existing. COMMISSIONER CARON: Yeah. MR. CORNELL: That adjective is only for urban areas. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Anything else') Brad, one question. When you get to policy 4.7.4, in the middle it says, agricultural research, aviation and aerospace. What did you n what is meant by aviation? Is that like airports? MR. CORNELL: Aviation and aerospacc, I think, is a buzz word that I heard yesterday in a talk that Page 104 16 1111I''''' A 6 January 30, 2009 the lieutenant governor gave, and it's kind of a popular industry that people in Southwest Florida would like to bring here, and they're looking for places to plug it in, and so I think it got plugged in here through the EAC's thinking. And I would defer to them or to Brian to expound on that some more. MR. GILLIGAN: Shaw Arrow. MR. CORNELL: Shaw Arrow? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. So the intention is not airports, it's aviation-related businesses? MR. CORNELL: Yes. I don't think we're looking for competition with Naples Airport or Immokalee Airport. We're looking for h CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I was hoping not. Okay. Any other questions on 58? Brad? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: A question in concept, Brad, is that the 7.4 -- 4.7.4, essentially that's going to draw people into that area, correct? I mean, obviously you could say everybody who's living there, but I mean, there are people from the urban part of the county that would -- might be associated with a lot of these things. MR. CORNELL: Yes, not in a residential kind of way, but in a tourism or work sense. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Workplace, right. MR. CORNELL: Yeah. Yeah, right, right. But the scale is not so monstrous that it would be a huge burden on that area. And obviously from an ecotourism standpoint, that would be incompatible, so -- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And it would counter-flow to most traffic anyway, so -- MR. CORNELL: Right. And there's going to bc a compatibility test that you're going to have to meet, with you, with the Board of County Commissioners. I mean, that's something that's going to have to pass muster when you look at any specific proposal on scale. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Thank you. I think we'll probably ask questions of the -- hear from the public. Judith? MS. HUSI-ION: Judith Hushon. I have some problem with the two units per acre, given the fact that what we've been talking about is ecotourism or research. I think of ago research being a logical thing, but it could be other kinds of research. And I have this vision of200 trailer -- a trailer park with 200 units, and I don't want to see that. I think n I would like to n you to consider holding this to a density, the base density of one to five. Instead of two units per acre, one unit per five acres, and that would let you have 20 units on the hundred acres. But why would you -- why in the world, for something that's being set aside this way, would you want to limit it in that way. That's my concem -- would you want to allow that density? Because the only thing -- I could just sce some really horrible things happening. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But on the other hand, some sort of density's going to be needed to at least have the CRD involved so it's viable. And I think thc word that's been used is sustainable. If you're going to have convenience facilities, if like -- that are convenience retail or market, if you're going to have a gas station, if you're going to havc a business, there's got to be some way to keep the workers or the people that would want to need these services close to it. If you allow the business but not the -- MS. HUSHON: Yeah. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- residences, you're going to force people to drive. MS. HUSHON: Well, if what you're having, a research --I mean, I see it as a dormitory of some sort for research out of a -- like FGCU or something like that might have a research plot. Those were the kinds of things, or an ecotourismlodge. And in those cases in general, they may have a little store right there, something right on the facility. But those pcople are generally eating their Page 105 16 JL! 30~ 2000 6' \ meals at the lodge or they're -- it's that kind of thing, at least I would see more of that. I don't know. I'm just wondering at the density that's being proposed. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, the density they're processing, Judith, just so you know, is I think the same as the density in the original plan. MS. HUSHON: Right. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And plus they're now adding more viability to the facilities by more uses. And if they do that, it may justify some more residential, so -- Anita? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Mark0 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Brad? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And the residential appears to be subordinate to the other activity as opposed to the residential being the primary, so -- MS. HUSHON: I agree. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: -- you would hate to have a need for more density and not be able to havc it in your dormitory setting. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anita? MS. JENKINS: Anita Jenkins with WilsonMiller. Ijust wanted to talk a little bit about the uses in 4.7.3. And the uses in 4.7.3 say that the prinlary uses shall be those associated with research, education, tourism, or recreation, and those need to be related there to the attributes. So it needs to be rcsearch dealing with agriculture, research dealing with natural resources, to that effect. So they arc related there, and that was the intent. It might be hard to get there, but that's the intent of that language. And as far as the appropriately scaled uses, 4.7.4, I went back and looked at the committee's deliberations on that because I couldn't rccall. And if you look on Page 1 44, you'll see those delineations. But I'll let you know what it was. They were struggling with these samc issues. Why would we want to allow all of these uses in 4.7.4 in CRDs? Well, what they did was, like in towns and villages, it says that the uses in 4.7.4, shall be permitted. This language says, may be permitted. So they had -- they can ask for it, but it might not be viable. But what they were trying to do is allow for it, if it makes sense, but it's not a given. It's not a shall bc permitted. It's a may be permitted. And they also added the word compatible in there as well to give it that compatibility test. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, the problem I have there is having been on the Planning Commission for quite a number of years now, I can tell you that if you give it once, you give it to all. So may bccomes mandatory once one gets it. If you don't give it to anybody, then the challenge is, why'd you put the language in there letting people think they could have it but never give it to them? So one way or the other, you end up being n trying to think of a polite word to say which end I'm being. But it doesn't come out like you want it to, let's put it that day. MS. JENKINS: So that was the intent of the committee as I -- you know, as I read back through it. So if you can help them with that, that's what they were intending. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: We'll lend a hand. Thank you. Russell? MR. PRIDDY: Yes, Russell Priddy. You know, throughout the day I've heard a number of people get up and say where thc people ought to live that come here next, and I doubt if any of us or if any of the people that are making these suggestions actually live in the housing types that have been suggested. Does the Conservancy have a dormitory for their cmployees? MS. RYAN: Yes. Page 106 16 I lnuary 3~2~9 MR. PRlDDY: You do? You know, are you all putting in a mass transit station? Would you redesign? But anyway. Ma'am? COMMISSIONER CARON: You're in the urban area. MR. PRlDDY: Oh, I'm sorry. I'm in the rural area, and they're not, so does that mean they can't comment on it? COMMISSIONER CARON: No, no. It's just the difference in what you were saying. MR. PRlDDY: Okay. I'm going to paint a picture of what a CRD in my mind might look like. On my 9,000 acres, I have an active quarry that has been in existence since November 26,1955. That will at some point play out. There is a defined footprint, and we're going to end up with maybe a thousand acres of lakes. One of the big criticisms for government buying up land -- and when I owned the Sunniland store, people would stop there all the time and want to know how to access the Big Cypress National Preserve for recreational benefits. When we mature in the rural lands, people are going to want recreational opportunities. My phone rings three or four times a week, peoplc wanting to go fishing. At some point -- not in my lifetime, I don't think -- I envision there being maybe a fish camp around those lakes, a lodge, overnight lodging, maybe some cabins. Yeah, it would make sense to have a little store and sell some soft drinks, maybe even some adult beverages, fishing tackle. You know, if some research group wanted to come in and set up shop to do research on how to provide us with future food source, you know, that would be allowable. But that's the type thing that I would envision taking place in these CRDs. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I hate to tell you this, but probably for the last time in the last two meetings we're all in agreement on this one. MR. PRIDDY: Time to go home. COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: So moved. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I think we're there. Okay. That wraps up Page 58. Anybody else have any other comments? If not, we'll move on to Page 59, it starts on policy 4.9 and finishes on policy 4.13. Are there any questions from the Planning Commission on that page? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: None. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: None, okay. Brad, the last -- the line that's been added where it says, infrastructure necessary to serve permitted uses may be exempt from this restriction provided that design seeks to minimize the extent of impacts to any such areas. There are essential services. Does that mean you can put essential services in FSAs and HSAs? Was that -- and essential services have a broad range of elements. Was that what the -- was that ever considered? MR. CORNELL: We had a discussion about this, and to be quite honest, I can't remember. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. MR. CORNELL: So I'd have to go back and read some of my notes. I can't answer that right now. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: We can revisit that on Thursday if that works better, but I think that's important that someone looks at the list of essential services we have in Collier County and realizes that -- and tell us if that language, the way it seems to read, that you would end up putting -- that would have accessibility to all those areas. And I don't think you really intended that, or you may not have. MR. CORNELL: Yeah. I know we had extensive discussion on this, and I apologize for not really remembering enough to answer your question. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Policy 4.1 0, why did you cross out the CRD reference on that policy? Page 107 1 6 1 lUary 30, ~O~ MR. CORNELL: Because it refers to them exceeding 100 acres. They don't anymore. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. MR. CORNELL: They're less than. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Then the ones less than 100 acres don't need to have a minimum open space') MR. CORNELL: I don't believe so. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Seeing as how the intent was for -- that's got a minimum of I percent of gross acres. Public green space or neighborhoods, minimum I percent gross acres. But there is no open space reference in the new CRD recommendation. In the old CRD recommendation it was greater than 35 percent -- or greater than 100 acres. So since they can't go above 100 acres, I guess it doesn't matter anymore. MR. CORNELL: That's minimal. CI IAIRMAN STRAIN: And then it says in that same paragraph, lands within an SRA greater than one acre with index values of greater than 1.2 shall be retained as open space except for the allowance of uses described in policy 4.9. I tried to figure out what they meant by that, and I didn't get n I didn't get to there, that point. And I know you may not, because this is probably something that you n MR. CORNELL: It's tying back to the same issues. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. It ties --I couldn't tell what they were trying to get to, so maybe if-- MR. CORNELL: I'd like to have a chance to look back into that because, you know-- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. MR. CORNELL: -- I don't n I can't answer that right now. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Thcn the last line, as an incentive to encourage open space, such uses within an SRA cxceeding the required 35 percent shall not be required to consume stewardship credits. Now, that means if you have 45,000 acres and you provided open space greater than 35 percent, say it's 50 percent, that means that 15 percent of the acreage then is not going to be counted towards the use of stcwardship credits, but they would be part of the developable properties. MR. CORNELL: I believe that's correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Because that would encourage more golf courses to be spread out more, more sprawl, because you would be creating open spaces that wouldn't be counted, so -- MR. CORNELL: Ifthat's something you could sell and ifit met the criteria for the design of SRA towns and villages, which it mayor may not. I think you still have to compare the SRA development plans with the criteria in the LDC, which are pretty good. I think they -- the intention is to get a walk-able trip capturing mixed-use compact sustainable development. And if a golf course is in conflict with that I don't think you could do it. And you guys would have a say on that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Wcll, I'm not sure we could argue a winning point ifit's allowed by the GMP or by a code. So I'm not concerned about that one, but then if this whole thing takes a look at credits as the answer instead of acreage, it may not -- still it's going to be counted as non-SRA acreage. MR. CORNELL: No. It's going to be counted as SRA acreage. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But not SRA credits. MR. CORNELL: You won't need to consume credits, but it will be part of the acreage within the SRA total. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Do we know exactly what open spaces are included that they're trying to talk about? Page 108 16 I lanuary a, ~9 MR. GREENWOOD: Yes. That's in policy 4.10. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Public and private conservation lands, undeveloped areas of designated SSAs, agriculture, water retention, water management areas, recreation uses. Is that what we're saying is open space? MR. GREENWOOD: That's the way it's defined in 4.10. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. So that does create a problem because you've got -- your recreation uses could be a lot of everything. And basically, if you're above 35 percent, none of that gets counted, so you'd be encouraged to do that, which increases the footprint of the development area, especially since a lot of it might be internal so you can have amenities. It can be used as amenities. That's not new language. It just is a concern. MR. CORNELL: Right. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So I think we'll just have to deal with it when we deliver our points. MR. CORNELL: Right. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Does anybody else have any other questions on that page? And we're on Page 59. Okay. Are there any comments from the public? Anybody got any questions? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Well, we will move on to Page 60. Top of Page 60 we start with policy 4.14, and it ends at 4.15.3, or at least it almost ends there. Any questions from the Planning Commission on Page 60? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I do, Mark. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. -- Brad? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: In 4. 1 4, is it common for all developments with public roads to have them maintained by the developer? So essentially, once you pull off of these existing roads, it's totally maintained by the development then, everything? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, that's the way it reads. In fact, I was suggesting that we change that line. Instead of private -- public and private roads within an SRA shall be maintained by, it says the primary town or community it serves, I would just simply say by the SRA it serves, and that way, any SRA, whether it's -- any uplands that are developed, they have to maintain their own roads. That's like COD -- it probably would encourage the formation of COOs because then they have a municipality in which they could do that with. I don't sce that as bad. And for the taxpayers of Collier County, it's probably an advantage. Any other questions from anyone on the -- on Page 60? On the top, Brad, where it says, 4.14 -- MR. CORNELL: Yeah. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- the fourth line down -- well, the third line it starts the sentence, at the time of SRA approval, an SRA proposed to adjoin land designated as an SRA or lands designated as open shall provide for the opportunity to provide direct vehicular and pedestrian connections from said areas to the county's arterial collector roadway network as shown on the county build-out vision plan, and then it goes on and on. Is there anything -- is that where we would want to include the connections between SRAs? MR. CORNELL: I believe this is what it's getting at, and it's anticipating what that vision plan is going to be articulating. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Because one of the things that we need to address is to make sure we have an integrated transit system and each town -- each SRA doesn't stand alone. It looks at how it's going to connect to the other SRAs in the area. MR. CORNELL: That was -- that was discussed at some length and definitely was the intention of Page 109 16JaLa! 30,120A 6 all the parties that we're discussing it on, the committee, with transportation department, ECPO, landowners. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, maybe when we start up on Thursday Nick could address that issue for us when he's back here. And also as far as the maintenance of the facilities, instead of writing in primary towns and community, simply reference back to the SRA, then it's more comp- -- and it catches everything in case something's not defined there. MR. CORNELL: That's a good idea. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Then the last sentence of that 4.14, these actions shall be considered within the area of significant influence of the project traffic on existing or proposed roadways that are anticipated to be expanded or reconstructed. And I guess that's another Nick question. I'll hold that to him. I'll wait for him to gct here. MR. CORNELL: That's in refercnce to mitigating an SRA tratlic impact. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. MR. CORNELL: So he's trying to describe what area you would be talking about. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, the area ofinfluencc -- significant influence is what I was going to ask, because right now we have a project called the Silver Strand that's coming forward, and its area of significant influence has become a difficult issue to overcome with transportation, so I think it ought to be spelled out as where we're talking about. And at the sanle time, there needs to be some language in this document as to how those mitigations are going to be paid. I know wc have traf1ic impact fees, but there's an item called proportionate fair share that Nick's working on. Some n some of that language needs to get in here ifthat's going to be the way we're going to be looking at agreements for traf1ic in the future. I spoke to Nick about it. When he's here on Thursday, maybe we can ask him where that would be most helpful. MR. CORN ELI.: I would encouragc you to do that. That would be a n probably a better tinle to have a good discussion of that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Policy 4.15.1, they crossed out the reference to 4.7.4. Now, why would we put it in if we're going to take it back out again? Because we -- 4.7.4 talks about what the preferred locations of diflerent uses are. And it's been referred to as even being applicable now to CRDs, which is now in question. But then when it says, SRAs are intended to be the mixed use to be allowed the full range of uses in the urban area, why would we -- why would they not want that reference in this one? I mean, it's certainly now not all SRAs. But at the time this wa, written, they would have applied it to all SRAs, towns, villages, and CRDs. So I don't know if you really want it in there for a CRD purpose. But why wouldn't you want the towns and villages to have 4.7.4 when that's what it pertains to? Maybe it's a cross-reference we ought to follow up. MR. CORNELL: It looks like a mixed cross-reference. I agree with your question, and I can't answer it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. MR. GREENWOOD: Well, on Page 58, the existing policy 4.7.4 would be stricken -- I'm sorry-- would be renumbered, and it would be renumbered to 4.7 -- 4.7.3. That's-- MR. CORNELL: Oh. MS. HUSHON: Oh. MR. GREENWOOD: That's why the change. MR. CORNELL: Oh. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Wait a minute. MS. HUSI-ION: That's the CRD, then that's wrong. Page 110 16 I 1 JanuaAo~009' CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No. 4.7.3 is the policy up above. That 4.7.4 was stricken and changed to 4.7.3. MS. HUSHON: 4.7.3 should be out. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: In 4.7.3 in the old text, which was 4.7.4, iii. COMMISSIONER CARON: Yeah. 4.7.3 needs to-- MR. GREENWOOD: We'll look at it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Would you look at that, because what I'm worried about, it's blanketing all SRAs. And right now it appears that even -- that CRDs may not take the blanket applications of uses that all the other SRAs provided. And this would be contradictory to that, and I'm not -- that contradiction could cause problcms in the future, so -- MR. CORNELL: It does look like it's a mistake, but -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Well, let's try to get through this page if we can and we'll call it a night. Are there any other issues from the Planning Commission on this page? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody from the public? Judith? MS. HUSHON: One ofthe things that came up when we did finally review Ave Maria was -- as the EAC, was the wildlife crossings that was what were basically requested and were agreed to. And then they ended up being take- -- I understand, taken out of the impact fees. And I don't know whether this is going to come under this proportionate fare share concept, which it could, or whether the -- something like the -- putting installation of a town that requires now -- increased traffic, which now means we need the wildlife crossing, becomes the responsibility of the town developer to put in. But that's my -- where I'm coming at. I'm not sure that should come out of the impact fees that were collected on a per-square-foot basis or whatever for the town. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I think, Judith, what we ought to do is save the discussion of proportionate fair share till Nick gets here. MS. HUSHON: That's fine, but Ijust would add to that the wildlife-crossing issue. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I agree. MS. HUSHON: I'd just highlight that as a -- k.ind ofa sub-issue to that. That's where I was coming m. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Are you going to be attending our meeting next Thursday morning? MS. ffiJSHON: I'm not sure. I will listen. I'm not sure whether I'll be there or not. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Well, I made a note to bring it up. MS. HUSH ON: Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I'll try to remember to bring it up. Notes sometimes get missed, too, but I'm MS. HUSHON: Depends on whether I definitely am doing the other meeting in the afternoon. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. MS. HUSHON: Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And we'll wait till then to bring it up, and I think what we'll do by summation right now is stop this meeting here where we're at. When we resume on Thursday of next week, we'll begin with policy 4.7.3 and touch on the issues that either Tammie or Nick are more involved in and try to resolve any of the remaining issues on those and pick up where we left off today. So with that, is there a motion from the Planning Commission to continue this meeting to 8 -- I mean actually to 9:30 in the morning on February 5th at the Board of County Commission chambers Building F at the Government Center wherc we normally meet? Page 111 16 I 1 Ja~0,~009 COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I so move. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Schiffer. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: (Raiscs hand.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Seconded by Mr. Vigliotti. All in favor, signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: Aye. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Aye. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Aye. COMMISSIONER CARON: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Aye. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Aye. COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So moved. The meeting is continucd. ***** There bcing no further business for the good of the County, the meeting was adjourned by order of the Chair at 4:55 p.m. COLLIER COUNTY PLAN\'lING CO.I\;1!\',\!S.SION ~ I t )'L kL .i C\ II f "&4 c"- MARf STRAIN, Chairman Thesc minutes approved by the board on __ 7) - s- corrected u'l ^_._.._~- as presented ~ or as Transcript prepared on behalf of Gregory Court Reporting Services, Inc., by Cherie' R. Nottingham and Terri Lewis. Page 112 16 I 1~lfh1a~5609 / TRANSCRlPT OF THE MEETING OF THE COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION Naples, Florida, February 5, 2009 RECEIVED fo4AR 1 ? 2009 :';(1'-"'-'-. 1,'F,:r . JlrllS~iJner::, 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 8:30 a.m. in REGULAR SESSION in Building "F" of the Government Complex, East Naples, Florida, with the following members present: CHAIRMAN: Mark Strain Karen Homiak Donna Reed-Caron Tor Kolflat Paul Midney Bob Murray Brad Schiffer Robert Vigliotti David 1. Wolfley (Absent) ALSO PRESENT: Jeffrey Klatzkow, County Attorney Joseph Schmitt, CDES, Administrator Ray Bellows, Zoning & Land Development Review Misc. Corres: Oale_-.----- 'lem# .-.-- Page 1 16 , Flua~ ~(, " CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Good morning, everyone. Welcome to the February 5th, 2009 Regular Meeting of the Collier County Plarming Commission. If you'd please rise for Pledge of Allegiance. (Pledge of Allegiance was recited in unison.) Item #2 ROLL CALL BY SECRETARY CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Will the secretary please take the roll call. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Commissioner Kolflat? COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: Here. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Commissioner Schit1d) COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I'm here. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Commissioner Caron -- I'm sorry, Commissioner Midney? COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Here. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Commissioner Caron? COMMISSIONER CARON: Here. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Chairman Strain? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Here. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Commissioner Vigliotti is prescnt. Commissioner Murray? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Here. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Commissioner Wolfley is absent. Commissioner Homiak? COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Here. Item #3 ADDENDA TO THE AGENDA CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, with that, we'll look at addenda to the agenda. Some of you may have gotten an e-mail that today's one item, which is the CHM -- Naples Hotel Partners, LLC was on and then off and then on and off. But it is on. I guess they're going to go with the advertised distance, and that's the distance that apparently is reflected in our packet. So we're good to go. The second petition, the Sembler Family Partnership, Number 42, McMullen MPUD, has been continued to March 5th 01"09. We have a couple items we'll go through in chairman's report. And this meeting, when it is over, we will n no, no, Catherine, not now, but you're one of the couple items. MS. FABACIIER: I need to add to the agenda, sir. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No problem. Once this meeting is over, wc'll adjourn and we'll reopen a continuation of the RLSA meeting and we'll go from there. But right now let's talk about the timing of the next RLSA meeting. Today when we start up, we only will have a couple hours, two to three hours. That is not going to be nearly enough time to finish up. I've asked staff to look at the availability ofthc CDES room and this room -- this room is booked solid, so that's kind of out of the question n but to finish up over at CDES where we started. Page 2 'F~ A 6 16 I 4ebruary 5, 2009 I asked them to exclude Mondays and Tuesdays as available dates, because Mr. Midney has difficulties on those two days being there. And I think it's important, since this is generally in his area, that he is at least available as much as possible for those meetings. What that has done has provided us with three dates after today for the RLSA. And I'm telling you this now so that when we come to a motion to continue, we can have the dates kind of picked out. February 20th is available. February 26th and February 27th -- no, I'm sorry, just -- Tom, it's just the 20th and 26th, is it not? MR. GREENWOOD: We've identified in rooms 609-610 -- Tom Greenwood, for the record. We've identified in rooms 609-610 availability for the Planning Commission, if you wish, beginning at 10:00 a.m. on Friday, the 20th of February. And the -- and again, looking at late week, the 26th of February, all day is available. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, by 10:00 a.m., does that mean there'll be another -- MR. GREENWOOD: There's going to be something else prior to that, and I'm not real sure what it is at this point. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Would you have enough time to set the room up? MR. GREENWOOD: You may want to -- I'd have to check and make sure. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Ms. Caron, did you have something you wanted to mention? COMMISSIONER CARON: Oh, I was just going to say the 26th is better for me, if we're jumping in here. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I think we're going to need both, and that's where I'm coming from. Based on the review process and the little bit of time we have today, I don't think we'll get through all of the GMP amendment part of it today alone. And then I don't know about the rest of you, but I have collected over a page of questions that aren't related to any specific GMP item. Then we have to go into deliberations and discussion on each one of the policies that we feel need to be changed. And then we finally can entertain a motion. [ don't want to lock us into having to cram all that into one day. And if we can get it done in one day, that's great. But I'd like to have the two days reserved as a backup in case we can't finish it. Mr. Midney, if we were to look on the 20th in the aftemoon, would that work better for you? COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Yeah, I'll be there. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That will give time to set the room up -- staff could set the room up. Does that -- does the 20th starting at I :00 work for most everybody here? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Sure. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Then the 26th, does everybody feel comfortable with that date? COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, so we'II-- Tom, if you could set those aside, what we'll do is during the discussion we'll make a motion to continue then to one ofthose dates. MR. GREENWOOD: I will do so. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. That takes care of the addenda to the agenda on that item. Our next regular meeting is February 19th. Does anybody know if they are not going to be here on the 19th? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, we'll have a quorum. That's going to have a little bit busier schedule than todays. Then the -- that's the last item on the addenda to the agenda. Page 3 16 I 1 ;ebru16~0~ Item #5 APPROVAL OF MINUTES - DECEMBER 18,2008, REGULAR MEETING We'll go to approval of minutes. Our regular meeting minutes from December 18th. Is there a motion to either modity or recommend approval? COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: So moved to approvc. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Vigliotti made a motion to approve. Is there a second'? COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: I'll second. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. Ms. Homiak seconded the discussion. All in favor, signity by saying aye. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Aye. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Ayc. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Aye. COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: Aye. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye. COMMISSIONER CARON: Aye. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion carries. Ray, the BCC report recaps. Anything you want to add? MR. BELLOWS: I have nothing for today. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Item #7 CHAIRMAN'S REPORT And then Chairman's Report. There are two things. A letter with five pages, I think, of attachments, including kind of like a petition. I don't know if it's an official -- yeah, it is, petition tor the denial of rezoning known as Heavenly MPUD, along with two pages ofletters from people on the Heavenly PUD was sent to this building for some rea<;on. Ray, I'll turn it into you for the record, as regards to distribution. It needs to be included in packets on the Heavenly PUD or -- MR. BELLOWS: Correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- sent out to us in some manner. So before the days over I'll make sure you get this and it gets distributed. MR. BELLOWS: Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Then the other itcm on today's chairman's report. Catherine ha<; a brief discussion on some lingering issues she has been badgering us about for a while. Come on up, Catherine. MS. F ABACHER: Thank you, thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I think it's a sign code, right? Page 4 161 , A6 lbruary 5, 2009 MS. F ABACHER: Exactly. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: We've been putting that on and off. I'm not sure where we're at with it, but thank you. MS. F ABACHER: Okay. You all must be glad to see me. I haven't bothered you in a long time. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Yes. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Yeah, I feel neglected. MS. F ABACHER: Well, you won't be now. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Is this fluorescent color illegal? COMMISSIONER CARON: Not on the design. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Guys, be careful. Everything's on record. So as you speak, it gets typed as best it can. MS. F ABACHER: Okay, ready for me to begin, Mr. Chair? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes, go right ahead. MS. FABACHER: Okay. What we've given to you is the preliminary draft of the sign code revisions. It's all in the memo here. But just as a brief reminder, we were sued by Bonita Enterprises, Ltd., because of that truck that came through town. We went to court on that case. As part of the settle -- the court declared sections of the sign code unconstitutional. And part of the settlement agreement was for us to take those out. And I might add, if we don't, then we become liable again to be -- we could be sued again. The hard part that you're going to have is in advising the BCC. Because to make this document content neutral -- you'll see when you read the articles in here what these terms mean. But to make it content neutral, speaker neutral, have no prior restraints and not be over broad, we have a very vague thing, and it could be that anybody could put anything on any sign, essentially. Under the First Amendment, that's allowed. I will have presentation for you in two weeks, along with the final -- we're just making a few tweaks. But I will have a full presentation on it. But I thought for now I have the new revision in here, along with a copy of the current sign code that's from supplement five, which is in-house being proofed right now, so we're almost caught up on the LDC. And I've also put in a couple articles by -- I put the lawsuit in here. I put in several articles too by Dr. Mandelker, who is our recognized constitutional scholar. And then a couple other articles from other persuasions. Some came from a book put out by the sign industry. But it all addresses the legal issues and constraints. And this is one of the most litigated issues inland use law is signage and the free speech. So it's going to be a tough one, but I know the board -- it's scary to loosen the controls. So what you have to do is weigh the risk you take oflosing control of what goes on the signs versus how safe you are against being sued again. Because I think we have a very large settlement we've paid out already, and we could be sued agam. But there's going to have to be a balancing act. And at some point -- and I know the board is going recommend -- I mean is going to depend entirely on your recommendations. But at some point we have to feel like we can protect ourselves but not to such an extent that we put ourselves in harm's way legally agam. So in two weeks we will give you the final -- just a little tweaking. And later this week I hope to send you the strike-through and underscore version, which is very lengthy, and we had to stop working on it because it was so difficult, and worked on the clean copy. Now we're having it, you know, put into the ordinance form for you all. Page 5 1611 A6~ February 5, 2009 So if you have any questions at all in the next two weeks or something, please e-mail me and let me know. Because it's a work in progress. And if you can let me know ahead of time, I can get with Dr. Mandelker and we can work on those issues that you find. But we would very much appreciate your help on this. One final thing is, we have not made any substantive changes in the sense of -- we are allowed to talk about the size of signs, the location of signs. the placement of signs, the number of signs. We're allowed to do that. We have not changed any of those things from the regular code. All we've done is tried to take out the content-based, speaker-based, prior restraint issues. So good luck. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Brad, did you have a question? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I did, but she actually answered it. MS. F ABACHER: And also, Dr. Mandelker will be here. We have set the dates for the first public hearing, or possibly only public hearing, for March 2nd and 3rd. it's on the cover there, when the public meetings will be held here. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Klatzkow, in the litigation or the court case that resulted in some kind of settlement, did we provide a defense or was that just a n never got to court, never got to trial? Was it mediated? How did it n MR. KLA TZKOW: Oh, no, we defended it and we duly got our heads handed to us. As Catherine said, this is a balancing act. I can give you a sign ordinance that's 100 percent safe against any legal attack and we'll look like Las Vegas, and we don't want that. Any so retreat from that is opening you up to a little bit of attack. So it's a balancing. You know, it's going to be a little bit of risk here, but if you want to maintain the standards of the community, that's what you do. This isn't like real property law or the law involving, you know, wills and estates, which has been the same for centuries. This changes every year. And it's really in the eye of the beholder. And the fact of the matter is, our sign ordinance would have been upheld through most parts of this country. The part of the country we live in, we have a court up in Atlanta that's very liberal when it comes to this sort of issue. And it's what you deal with. And the Supreme Court's never really definitively ruled on the issue. One case that came to them, they split 4-4 on. And it's quite frankly an area of the law that's constantly evolving. And it's in the eye of the beholder. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, where I was going with my question, my part of the request on whether or not we had a defense, I assumed there was, it was just what was in it, meaning if you had case law citation in the defense, is there a possibility that we could have a link to that case law so we could review it, if need be? MR. KLATZKOW: If you'd like, yeal1. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I mean, is it Westlaw? Or if you could just provide the citation. MR. KLA TZKOW: Well, I can provide you with the opinion that the court gave, if you want that. That's reall y n CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I think if we haven't got that-- I know I've seen-- MR. KLATZKOW: If you want to see our briefs, I can get you a copy of our briefs as well. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Would you mind? That would be helpful. MR. KLATZKOW: Don't mind at all. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. Mr. Vigliotti? COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Jeff~ how much did it cost us to settle the lawsuit? MR. KLATZKOW: I don't have the number off the top of my head, but it wasn't cheap. MS. F ABACHER: Excuse me. Page 6 1611.~A62009 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Catherine? MS. F ABACHER: Mr. Chair, I wanted to add, though, that, you know, Jeff has really given you some good background, but Jeff Wright could probably get the case law that you want, because he's the one who's worked on this thing. MR. KLA TZKOW: Catherine, I think I could do that too. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah, I think the County Attorney can do that, too, Catherine. MS. FABACHER: I understand, I just -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I'd rather go to the source, so if you don't mind, that's all taken care of. MS. F ABACHER: I'm trying to take it easy on him, not throw him under the bus. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No, nobody was. I was simply looking for additional backup that we may want to review to understand better what we can and can't do. MS. F ABACHER: Absolutely. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Nobody was throwing anybody under the bus. In fact, I have the highest regard for our County Attorney, he's done an excellent job. It's just a matter of -- MS. FABACHER: For both of us. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Huh? MS. FABACHER: You have the highest regard for both of us. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes. So Catherine, with that, is there anything else? MS. F ABACHER: No, that's it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. MS. F ABACHER: Thank you. Item #8A PETETION: CPSP-2008-6, CAPlT AL IMPROVEMENT ELEMENT CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Let's move on to consent agenda items. The first one is CPSP-2008-6. It's the Capital Improvement Element that we heard before. Anybody have any concerns, questions or whatever? If not, is there a motion to approve that consent agenda item? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: So moved. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Second. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Murray, Seconded by Mr. Vigliotti. Discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: All in favor, signity by saying aye. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Aye. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Aye. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Aye. COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: Aye. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye. COMMISSIONER CARON: Aye. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody opposed? (No response.) Page 7 16 I lru~ry 5, 16 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion carries. Item #8B PETITION: CPSP-2007-6; POTABLE WATER SUB-ELEMENT The second consent item is CPSP-2007 -6, the I O-year water supply facility's work plan. Is there any discussion or is there a motion to recommend the approval of that consent item? COMMISSIONER MURRA Y: I'll move that item as well. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Murray's made-- COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Second. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- the motion, second by Mr. Vigliotti. Discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: All in favor, signity by saying aye. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Aye. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Aye. COMMISSIONER HOMlAK: Aye. COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: Aye. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye. COMMISSIONER CARON: Aye. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody opposed? (N 0 response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion carries. Both of those are 8-0. Item #9 A PETITION: SV-2008-AR-13618; CHM NAPLES HOTEL PARTNERS, LLC Now, into our first and only advertised public hearing for today. Petitions SV -2008-AR-13618, the CHM Naples Hotel Partners, LLC, requesting three sign variances to allow two wall signs at the Spring Hill Suites. All those wishing to participate in this item, please rise to be sworn in by the court reporter. (Speakers were duly sworn.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Are there any disclosures on the part of the Planning Commission? (No rcsponse.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, hearing none, we'll move forward with the applicant's presentation. MR. BOU-SLIMAN: Morning. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You need to say your name for the record, if you could. MR. BOU-SLIMAN: Sure. My name is Mike Bou-Sliman.1 am the managing partner for CHM Naples Hotel Partners, and obviously representing the property at this time. We have two lots here, lots 15 and 16, that we were constructing two hotels on, actually. There's a Spring Hill Suitcs, which we just reccntly opened, and Fairfield Inn and Suites that we're under construction on right next door, so we control both parcels. Page 8 161 I. .. ~.".. A t.. Febru~,~09 What we are asking for, it's really pretty simple. We've got -- we've already been permitted for the one sign that's on the building facing west, which faces 951, Collier Boulevard. And we currently have been permitted for the monument sign, which has just the Spring Hill Suites logo on it. What we desperately need because of this location is a sign on the south side of the building facing the interstate. These hotels, both of them, are what we call limited service properties. And we depend about 35 to 40 percent of our business on drive-by traffic. So signage is very critical to us to be able to bring people in off the freeway and/or going up and down the roadway to occupy our building. With the current sign that we have on the building and with the additional wall sign we're asking for, the building is 61,000 square feet. We still actually fall below the maximum allowable square footage, which I believe is 250 square feet. So even between the two signs, we're still below your maximum allowable square footage. So we've reduced the size of those signs so we comply with that. We do not have, you know, any residential around it us. It's all commercial/industrial. So I don't -- feel very confident the sign doesn't present any problems for anybody in the neighborhood. Our neighboring properties, I'll just add, across the highway, the Comfort Inn and the Super Eight, which obviously have been there for a little while, both have the two signs on their buildings. And I've got documentation for that, if you'd like it. And also, there's another hotel along the freeway up on Pine Ridge, the Best Western, which only has single street frontage, and that also has two signs also. So, you know, it's basically, you know, critical for hotels of our nature to be able to have that sign so people can view us and find our hotel. The second part to it is simply an entry sign. The Fairfield, which is under construction right now, sets back off the road a little ways, and we have one single entry drive. If you look at your site plan you'll see we have one single entry drive that's going to service both properties. So we're just asking that the entry sign for the Fairfield just be placed with the Spring Hill sign, since it's out at the road front. The Fairfield one actually, you know, if we were -- if we were to put it at the entry of the Fairfield, it basically serves no purpose. Because once they're in the drive, they know where they're at. So that's kind of the general summary. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Are there questions of the applicant? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I do. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Schiffer? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: On your new site, are you going to have any signage on that up on, what is it, the -- MR. BOD-SLlMAN: Fairfield? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: n white -- yeah, going into there. What's going to be for signage on the new site where you're going to have the Fairfield? MR. BOD-SUMAN: There'll just be a building sign, one building sign, facing Collier Boulevard, which would be the west side of the building. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. So people coming off of Collier making that turn on the trail, you're not going to have anything on that corner pointing them down towards your access drive? MR. BOD-SUMAN: I'm sorry, I'm not sure I follow where you're talking about. Like on -- off of Collier Boulevard? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Right. You come off of Collier, I forget the name. It's -- MR. BOD-SUMAN: Oh, City Gate Boulevard? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: City Gate. And you're going to go down City Gate for a little bit and then you're going to make -- head south on White. So nothing's plarmed for that corner? MR. BOD-SUMAN: Not out by City Gate and Collier Boulevard, no. No, we have no signage out Page 9 16FeL!5, :196 there. That of course is not our property. And we've asked the developer if he would try and do something out there but, you know, nothing has been proposed or plarmed at this time. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: But that -- in other words, I'm talking about the corner of your property where you're building the Fairfield Inn. It would be the northwest corner. MR. BOU-SUMAN: No, actually -- you're talking about the northwest corner oflot l5, which would be the Fairfield site? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Correct. MR. BOU-SUMAN: No, there's nothing that's going to front the street. We've actually just been approved recently for lots. But the front portion of the Fairfield is actually going to be a separate parcel, or actually is now a separate parcel. It's just a one-acre out-parcel. So yeah, there's nothing else proposed for there. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. Then the other question is the south sign, the one facing 75, it kind oflooks a little crowded on that facade. In other words, I know you need a larger sign because you have a greater distance, but -- MR. BOU-SUMAN: To the contrary, there's an off -- that's a pretty big facade. It probably -- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I'm actually thinking of the pediment that it's actually mounted on. I know the total length of the building is quite large, but -- MR. BOU-SUMAN: Yeah, are you looking at the sketch that-- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Yes. MR. BOU-SUMAN: -- that was in the enclosures? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: In other words, the one on thc west side kind of balances nice. This one looks like it's crowding. To me anyway. I mean, it's an aesthetic issue. MR. BOU-SUMAN: Right. 1-- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Do you need it to be that big, or maybe position it slightly lower or something to -- MR. BOU-SUMAN: Yeah, I would tell you now looking at that, I'm not sure that's a real good representation of how it -- you know, scaled, you know, versus the actual facade. Let me -- Nancy, do you have that one photo I sent you where he did scale it right on the building? MS. GUNDLACH: Let me cheek it fl)r you. MR. BOU-SUMAN: We did actually have the sign company scale it on an actual photograph of the building. No, it's an actual color photograph ofthe building. Give me one second, I think I've got it in my file. This is a shot of the actual physical building. I believe, and I apologize to you that -- yeah, the sketch that you have, you know, showing a 32-foot total width of that sign, the width of that parapet wall, as we call it is, you know, probably 50 foot in width, and has a height of -- I would say of at least 11 feet. So the sign letters themselves arc only -- they're two-foot ten, which is 34 inches is the tallest letter. And 34 inches against II feet is -- you know, I think it will -- aesthetically it will fit in there pretty -- I mean, it will look quite uniform. But in answer to your question, if you'd like it to be a little bit smaller, I don't have any problem with making it a little bit smaller, as long as we've got something on there, I think it'll get seen. We can go to a 24-inch letter, which would cut it down. A 24 or even a 30-inch letter. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I mean, the point is the one on the east is proportioned fine. MR. BOU-SUMAN: Right. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: This one is out of -- so what you're saying, that the total impediment up at the top is how much feet, you say? Page 10 16' ~~ruaA5(,09 MR. BOO-SUMAN: rfyou look -- you see the top row of windows -- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Yes. MR. BOO-SUMAN: -- which is the fourth story. If you go from even that EIFS above that to the top of that peak, it's easily II foot. It means, I could get you the actual dimensions, but-- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: The width is what I'm looking -- MR. BOO-SUMAN: The width I would tell you, is at minimum 50 feet. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. All right. Then it will probably fit. Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Any other questions? Mr. Kolflat? COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: Are these signs lit? MR. BOO-SUMAN: I'm sorry? COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: Are these signs lighted? MR. BOO-SUMAN: Yes, sir. But it's not a -- I will tell you, it's not a -- they're very subdued lighting. It's not a neon type of any nature of that where it's glaring. It's just straight back lighting. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, any other questions? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Do you have any problems with the recollUnendations by county staff? MR. BOO-SUMAN: No, sir. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Hearing no other questions, we'll ask for the county staff presentation. Thank you. MS. GUNDLACH: Good morning, Commissioners. I'm Nancy Gundlach, Principal Planner with Zoning and Land Development Review. And staff is recommending approval of this Spring Hill sign variance. And it is subjected to three conditions of approval. And one of -- the second one is slightly going to change, but I will begin with the first one. The first condition of approval is that the second wall sign, that's the one on the south side that we were just discussing, will be located on the southern building facade. The second condition of approval, which is changing slightly, is that the directional monument sign shall be limited to 35.5 square feet, not 44.35.5 is the size that was advertised. And the third condition of approval is that the directional monument sign height will be limited to 12 feet. And I'm happy to answer any questions that you might have. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Any questions of staff? Mr. Schiffer, then Ms. Caron. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Nancy, recommendation one, after going through the hearing and what they present us, is there any way they could move that sign someplace else but where they're showing it? MS. GUNDLACH: That sign is going -- if you look at that elevation of the building-- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Right. MS. GUNDLACH: -- and you see the white area, that's where they're proposing the sign on -- they need the south on the south facade to face 1-75. Mr. Bou-Sliman had offered to make that sign slightly smaller, if it's the proportions that are kind of bothersome. He is willing to do that. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: My question is -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No, I don't think that's the question. MS. GUNDLACH: Oh, what's -- Page 11 161 'lb~alb09 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah, go ahead, Brad. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: The question is it's on the southern facade. I mean, is the intent allowing him so that that sign can wander around on the facade, or is it to n in other words, why are we saying that? Because this is where we're expecting it to be, exactly there. MS. GUNDLACH: There is -- okay, I'm going to back up a little bit and share with you the code requirements. This hotel is allowed to have one wall sign. And currently there is one that exists on the western facade. And the request is of course to have this one on the southern facade so they can get their visibility from 1-75. So I'm not quite sure if that answers your question. It's just simply where they desire for it to be. They feel that there's -- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: My concern is does recommendation one give them the ability to move it anywhere they want on the southern facade'? In other words, why don't we just strike recommendation one. I can't see any advantage to it. I can't see -- I mean, he wants it there. That's the only prominent spot on the building. Why would we need that at all? MS. GUNDLACH: Okay, I see your point. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: But the concern is that if we leave that in there, he has the right to let it wander all over that facade. MR. SCHMITT: Can I -- lor the record, are you just recommending that for number one we cite specially as showing on the referenced drawing? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Right. 1 mean, wouldn't that -- MR. SCHMITT: The second wall sign, Sign B, shall be located on the southern building facade as displayed on figure one or whatever. So it specifically cites where it would go on the building. That's what you're looking for? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I think my confusion comes in is that the applicant has an application. He shows, you know, documents showing where he wants to put the sign. MR. SCHMITT: Yeah. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Why would our recommcndation have to say that he has to put the sign as per the application? I mean, doesn't that go without saying? MR. BELLOWS: For the record, Ray Bellows. I think the intent is that sometimes the provision is subject to the encroachment or variance as depicted on the illustration. In this case we'd make this an exhibit to the resolution. That would lock it in the location. I think that was the intent of that stipulation. But I agree with you, it should be more specific as to this graphic. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So in your recommendation one, we'd reference the graphic in some marmer or form when it comes back for consent. MS. GUNDLACH: Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ms. Caron? COMMISSIONER CARON: Yeah, we are -- in number two we're now changing the size of that sign to go with the advertising. Do you have administrative authority to increase the size of that sign anyway? MS. GUNDLACH: We don't. COMMISSIONER CARON: Okay, thank you. That's good. MS. GUNDLACH: I wish we could, but we don't. COMMISSIONER CARON: That's good. So 35.5 means 35.5. Page 12 16 I Fl~'2A96 MS. GUNDLACH: Yes. COMMISSIONER CARON: Thank you, that's a good thing. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody else? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Thank you, Nancy. MS. GUNDLACH: You're welcome. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Are there any public requests? MS. BELPEDIO: No one has registered. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, with that we'll close the public hearing and entertain a motion. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I'll make a motion. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Schiffer? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I recommend we move Petition SV-2008-AR-13618 with a recommendation of approval as per the staff recommendations as amended today. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Second. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, motion's been made and seconded. Just so we're clear in the staff recommendations, because it has to come back on consent. And number one on the recommendation, there will be a reference to the graphic that's been provided to us in some manner so that we lock it in. And number two, the 44 will be changed to 35.5. Were there any other changes to the recommendations from staff that we missed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, with that in mind, all those in favor, signity by saying aye. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Aye. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Aye. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Aye. COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: Aye. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye. COMMISSIONER CARON: Aye. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion carries 8-0. Thank you. And with that, we will need to entertain a motion to adjourn, because we advertised the continuation for 9:30. So we're going to have about 28 minutes in which we have to break and come back. ISn COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: So moved. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- there a motion to adjourn? Mr. Vigliotti? COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: So moved. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Seconded by? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Me. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Murray. All in favor? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Aye. COMMISSIONER MURRA Y: Aye. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Aye. Page 13 1611''''' A 6 February 5. 2009 COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: Aye. COMMISSIONER MlDNEY: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye. COMMISSIONER CARON: Aye. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, the meeting is adjourned. We'll come back at 9:30 and resume a continuation of the RLSA meeting. ***** There being no further business for the good of the County, the meeting was adjourned by order of the Chair at 9:03 a.m. COLLIER COUNTY ~L^rING Cgl\;l_MISSION f~" leV\. ~l V ,4{lf'---' MARK STRAIN, Chairman These minutes approved by the board on /) <, 0 (1 __as presented corrected v or as Transcript prepared on behalf of Gregory Reporting Service, Inc., by Cherie' R. Nottingham. Page 14 16Flr~,':A 6v( TRANSCRlPT OF THE RLSA MEETING OF THE COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION Naples, Florida, February 5, 2009 RECEIVED I-.1AR ! 7 2009 80,;lI(10f(', , ..0,101;/ C0rrl/:~I<.~' >"..O~(:r.,; LET IT BE REMEMBERED, that the Collier County Planning Commission, in and for the County of Collier, having conducted business herein, met on this date at 9:30 a.m. in SPECIAL SESSION in Building "F" of the Government Complex, East Naples, Florida, with the following members present: F Fiala Halas Henning Coyle Coletta CHAIRMAN: Mark Strain Karen Homiak Donna Reed-Caron Tor Kolflat Paul Midney Bob Murray Brad Schiffer Robert Vigliotti David 1. Wolfley (Absent) ALSO PRESENT: Jeffrey Klatzkow, County Attorney Joseph Schmitt, CDES, Administrator Heidi Ashton-Cicko, Assistant County Attorney Misc. Corres: Date', item#"__ Page I '"'!":; to t''', A e.. 16 I l'FebrUary 5,'to09 f CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, we're back online. Everybody, welcome to the February 5th continued meeting for the RLSA. This wa~ a meeting that we started last Wednesday, continued it Wednesday to Friday and Friday to today. Item #2 ROLL CALL BY SECRETARY So first thing I'd like to do, since it is a new meeting from the last one, it might be listed separately in the recording instruments, I want to ask for a roll call again. Mr. Vigliotti, would you do roll call? COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Yes. Commissioner Kolflat? COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: Herc. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Commissioner Schiffer? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Prcsent. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Commissioner Midney? COMMISSIONER MlDNEY: Here. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Commissioner Caron? COMMISSIONER CARON: Present. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Chairman Strain? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Here. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Commissioner Vigliotti is present. Commissioncr Murray? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Here. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Commissioncr Wolfley is abscnt. And Commissioner Homiak? COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Here. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, a little housekeeping matter. I wish to thank the recording office upstairs for the nutritional embellishment during the break. Cherie', we're wired, so if we talk too fast, we can blame it on the recording office. And with that, the other housekeeping matter is time today. The EAC is hearing the RLSA for their continuation in developmental services building on Horseshoe Drive starting at 1:00. I want to make sure that the people that are here from the committee and others who have to attend that meeting at I :00 have ample time to grab a lunch and travel to that point. So since we are going to meet on this matter again, probably one ifnot two more meetings, we can easily cut off at any time that's convenient. And I need to know if it's 1 I :30 or noon. Bill, do you know what your committee would prefer? MR. McDANIEL: It's solely at your pleasure, sir. I mean, we'll make adjustments accordingly to be able to get there. I mean, an hour is travel time. I know that there are some technical issues in moving the projector screen. And that particular room up there is not available for access for anybody. It's being utilized until I think II :30, we heard that this morning. So whatcvcr mccts your pleasure, we'll do nccessarily what we have to do. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Does staff have a concern time-wise? MR. GREENWOOD: No. Page 2 \ (p' 1 iA 6 ~ February 5, 2009 Item #3 - Continued from the January 30, 2009 Meeting FIVE YEAR REVIEW OF THE RURAL LANDS STEWARDSHIP PROGRAM PHASE II REPORT PREPARED BY THE RURAL LANDS STEWARDSHIP AREA REVIEW COMMITTEE, DATED JANUARY, 2009 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, we'll just find a convenient time to break somewhere between II :30 and noon, try to give you guys as much time to reorgauize and get back up there as possible. Bill, when you left last time, Brad was working on responding to some of our issues, but in going through the paragraphs where we had continued on your departure, there were some matters that couldn't be answered by the people in the room at the time. And Tanunie Nemecek was one of those individuals who were pointed to as far as having answers for some of our questions. We left off on Page 58 of Phase II, Section 2 report. The policy that we had lingering questions on was Policy 4.7.3. And this is the one that involved the changes of uses within the CRD and brought in Policy 4.7.4, which is a new policy. And Tanunie, you weren't at that last meeting. There was discussion about the CRD's and their expanded uses. And when we pointed out that there was a new sentence added in 4.7.3 that said appropriately scaled compatible uses described in Policy 4.7.4 may also be permitted in CRD's, that opened up a whole ball of wax in regards to uses that I don't know if everybody understood were possible to go into CRD's. Because CRD's were previously looked at as more or less a less intense smaller-scale use. So anyway, you want to -- I know that you -- in talking with you since, I know that I don't think you intended it as it was stated, so -- MS. NEMECEK: Yes. Thank you, Chairman Strain. There was a great deal of discussion about the CRD's within the committee when we were talk:ing about economic diversification and what activity would actually occur -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You've got to slowdown a little bit. You've got to really-- MS. NEMECEK: Sorry, I've been driving back from Tallahassee. I'm still in drive mode, I think. So what we did was in the other language you'll see that there's a statement that says that towns and villages are the preJerred location for these types of uses. We had actually had CRD's in there originally, but had -- in our discussions had removed CRD's as a preferred location. I think it was -- in looking at what the intent was, what we did in Policy 4.7.4, I think it would be appropriate to remove that line from the Policy 4.7.3. I don't think we just went back and made that connection between our discussions in Policy 4.7.4 and what would be modified in 4.7.3. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, because if you do drop that sentence, you still then retain the primary uses that were originally in CRD's or that was now suggested for support research, education, tourism or recreation. And I think this committee had recommended bringing the convenience retail uses down from the hamlet section and adding it there as well. Does that seem to work with what your intention was of that? MS. NEMECEK: Yes, it does. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Let me make a note of that. At the end of the process, we've got to go through all these notes, so -- in4. -- first of all, does anybody else have any questions on 4.7.3 from the Planning Commission? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. In 4.7.4, it's my understanding that the intent of 4.7.4 was that you Page 3 . , . I I 16 I fl A"" February H009 -- you were looking to find a way to add a reference so that Immokalee urban areas, towns and villages for sustainability shall be the preferred location for business and industry within the RLSA to further promote economic development, diversification and job creation. And I had met with you and talked about the last sentence that was added that got into the whole myriad of uses that you wanted to have in there. We have found that the GMP is more of a concept document. And I think by modi tying your first sentence to add something referencing the sustainability of those CRD's as a need, and then leaving the permitted uses to the implementation of the LDC would be probably a cleaner way to go than have to debate what the GMP meant every single time someone wants to put a use in there that may not have gotten listed in the LDC as a reference to the GMP. And here we go with acronyms, so sorry about all that everybody, but I don't know how else to get it across. What's your thought on that? MS. NEMECEK: Well, I think the discussion in the committee did center around trying not to be so specific in the GMP because the difficulty in changing and modi tying it, and that a lot of the specificity should be put into the LDC when we go to the LDC section of it. So, you know, I think the intent here is that describing those types of businesses that n or the general sense of businesses that we're talking about, you know, we're not necessarily talking about the three-legged stool that, you know, of construction companies that we have here are basing it on, some of these lower wage jobs, but looking more at the high-tech nature of it. So even if -- I think we could accommodate that in an LDC amendment, as we've done in other types of zoning that we've brought forward with regard to research parks and that kind of stuff. So I think it could be appropriate. I don't want to lose the emphasis, though, you know, that the highest and best use ofland in Collier County tends to be higher residential. And when we're talking about developing research parks and business parks, it always tends to be a much more difficult conversation because it's a long-term endeavor to develop those parks. And so we want to make sure from an economic development standpoint that we preserve property for these high-tech uses, that we have places for these businesses to go and we have a balance in our community between residential and job opportunities for people in the community, and being able to place those job opportunities near where the people live. So I think it's -- I like the sustainability piece of that. And even if you said promote economic sustainability, economic development diversification, I think that that's an important component of what we're talking about. And what we do is that the economic sustainability comes from the balance between having a residential tax base and a business tax base here. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I think that would help with keeping the GMP as a concept document. But on Page 60 as well, just so you have a level of comfort, Policy 14. 1 5.1 says that SRA's are intended to be mixed use and shall be allowed the full range of uses permitted by the urban designation of the FLUE, as modified. And then of course it lists the policies, one of which is 4.7.3. So I think you've got it there as well in more of a concept status that then allows the LDC to be more refined -- MS. NEMECEK: Right. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: n which is what we have to then oversee in regards to SRA development MS. NEMECEK: Right. Page 4 p, A6.. 16 I IFebruary 5, 2009 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- and it makes it a lot easier. MS. NEMECEK: And the more prescriptive concept in 4.7.4 is the diversified industries. It's that fourth leg to our economic stool that we're emphasizing in there, that this is 'equally as important as some of the other concepts that are coming out in this document. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, anybody else have any questions on Page 58? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I have one more. In 4.7.3, you've got to put in-- or you could have the option to put in houses in a CRD two to one, which means you could have about 200 homes. And under the persons per household in Collier County, you would end up with about just a little under 500 potential people living in those 200 homes. What about services? And I notice that you've crossed off in the seventh line, and the services and facilities that support permanent residents. Why was that crossed out? Do you know? Because, I mean, we could get into the definition of those services in the LDC. To me I thought if you're going to do it primarily for residential, you may want to leave some of that in just so that the residential has what it needs, unless it's covered somewhere else and I just haven't caught on to it. MR. McDANIEL: For the record, Bill McDaniel. Mr. Chair, I believe that's exactly the case. Those essential services for the residents there are captured elsewhere, both in the LDC and in the Rural Land Stewardship Overlay. And if] might add just one -- does that sufficiently answer your question? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I understand what you said. I'm just wondering -- I don't know how that specially is done, because I don't know where CRD's -- it's more of a cover yourself type argument I'm making to you. And that's why I was surprised it was struck, because it didn't hurt to leave it in. And it reemphasized that if you're going to have these residential uses, you better have the services there, and you better think about it there. And to put it in another paragraph, it may not be readily thought about. Mike, did you know? Or Tom, do you guys have any idea why that was-- MR. McDANIEL: And if[ might add just one little comment with respect to what Tanlillie was speaking about earlier on 4.7.4. I recall during those discussions that our prem -- there is probably a little more specificity with the definitions of those -- or designations of those types of businesses. The goal was to suggest, if you will, environmentally friendly green businesses, if you will, high-tech and that sort of thing, and not heavy use industrial, manufacturing and those sort of things that are less conducive and potentially can have a greater harm on the environment at some particular point in time in the future. That was the premise behind our designating those types of businesses, with more specificity than typically is found in the GMP. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I understand what you just said, but I don't know ifit fits when you've got uses in there like wholesale trade and distribution. And I go back to my Wal-Mart example out in Punta Gorda, out to the east there. That's one giant block of concrete standing in the middle of a farm field with 1,000 trucks running around it. And that's their wholesale distribution location for the Southwest Florida area. I don't really think you want that, from what you just said. And I really strongly suggest, and we can always do that anyway, that you regulate the uses to the LDC and let the LDC define that, and that will protect the interest that you're now talking about. At least I would think so. MR. McDANIEL: That's certainly an appropriate path for you all to travel. I was just sharing with you at the committee level as we were going through these discussions how we arrived at this language in an effort to promote those type of businesses and not really get into a debate about the particular exposure, Page 5 l6~ 16 I Flruary 5, 2009 if you will, that comes from one type of business or another, but to promote that as a standard. if you will. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Well, any other -- if there's no other questions on 58 -- Paul? COMMISSIONER MlDNEY: So then would you suggest striking wholesale trade and distribution? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No, I would suggest the first sentence be modified to include economic sustainability as the purpose and drop everything after that where it starts to say permitted uses shall include. That process is an LDC process. And I think the committee and the property owners will be better served to have that detailed in the LDC rather than taking a risk on having something he never intended by too generic language or too strong language in the GMP. MR. McDANIEL: And just for the record, I mean, we at the committee level felt we had covered that. And I'm not suggesting that your suggestion is out of Hoyle. Those permitted uses shall include but not limited to. So we felt that we had sufficiently covered it here to offer up the premise behind why we were doing or what we were intending with that. And I don't disagree with what you're saying, Mr. Strain. From a committee perspective, that's the path that we were traveling at that time. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I understand. Paul, does that answer your question? COMMISSIONER MlDNEY: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: On Policy 4.7.3, how would you prevent someone not wanting to broach the thresholds of a village, and instead of doing that they put in five or so little CRD's and said each contiguous adjacent piece of property is now a parcel with 100 acres and those are all CRD's and we don't cross the village threshold, therefore, we don't have to put in the criteria of the village, we just have to put in the criteria of five CRD's? Since you took the balance of the language out of 4.7.3, how is it that you would prevent that from happening? MR. McDANIEL: I can't answer that. That really did never come up as a discussion point that I can recall at the committee level. Do you guys remember? MR. EIDSON: I'll take a stab at it. For the record, Gary Eidson. My recollection is that we were focused on the village size. You know, we had gotten rid of the hamlets and we were focused on the village size. And I honestly think that the CRD discussion was -- and correct me ifI'm wrong, but it almost was tangential to the focus that we had on the village. Your -- I guess that's why they have this process, so people see things differently. But we didn't envision -- we saw -- there was a question about economic viability, which was why -- of the -- there was a question of making the village large enough so there'd be more economic viability. And I think that we envisioned that the CRD's -- the CRD part of the village -- it would be a part of the village, not necessarily a standalone. That was kind of] think what we were seeing. We were seeing these clusters of economic viability through a small -- if you will, northeastern kind of companies. You know, that entrepreneurial high-tech kind of company that would be attractive down here because there would be an incentive to do it. And that's -- and that all goes back to, you know, the developmcnt of the airport in the future, the development of29, all of that concept. We were seeing a whole economic center that could evolve and be attractive, so we didn't think of the CRD's as standalones, we thought ofthem as integrated. And I don't disagree with what you're saying. Page 6 16 I rti" ~1f 5, 2009 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I imagine you all did, and I think it's a good thought. I'm more concerned about -- MR. EIDSON: The possibility-- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- people who read things differently when they decide they want to come before the boards and say gee, it doesn't really say we can't do this so therefore we can. And I would be -- that's my only -- that was my concern. It was more of a protective concern than trying to stop anybody from doing anything. It was just a cautionary thing. MR. JONES: Good morning. For the record, Tom Jones. I think the way that the committee viewed it was the CRD wasn't a mechanism that was utilized to skirt around the village criteria. Because the way it was written, it says that the compact rural development is a form of SRA that shall support and further Collier County's val ued attributes of agricultural natural resources and economic diversity. So I think if the issue is we would have these little pods of200 homes clustered around as a CRD, somewhere when somebody comes before the various boards they'd have to be able I think to justify how that particular pod is in support of agricultural natural resources or economic diversity. So I think if somebody tried to pop just little housing developments, say it was a CRD, I don't think it works according to what 4.7 says. I think it certainly tries to skirt it. But I think that was the intent. And clarification is certainly -- you know, the LDC is certainly a place to clarity what is acceptable within a CRD. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, the only -- and I understand that part of it. But do you have any objection to limiting a maximum amount of CRD's that could be collected together before they have to become a trigger for the thresholds of a village or a town based on their size? MR. JONES: Yeah, that would probably be something worth taking a look at. Especially with respect to what a CRD is supposed to be. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Thank you. Anybody else on Page 58? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: If not, we'll move to Page 59. Now, on 59, we went through this last Friday. MR. McDANIEL: Before you jump forward, if[ might-- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes, sir. MR. McDANIEL: -- I just have one last point. And I have somewhat personally an issue of limitation of those CRD's. Not that it can't be a subject matter of discussion in the future. But the locale ofthose CRD's and the premise behind those are working with smaller landowners to -- and not have to force joining of properties in order to add up to the sizes necessary for in fact a village. And we have to -- and if we start to limit the ability of any ofthe processes of towns or villages in here, it could have a constraining issue later on down the road. And that's something we need to be conscious of in our language if in fact that's your suggestion there. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, when you have a village or a CRD or a town, you have specific criteria that are required, and it's triggered based on the size of that area. Some areas need governmental facilities that others wouldn't. I would hate to see someone skirting those responsibilities by putting 10 CRD's together for 1,000 acres when really it's a village and they should be looking at the criteria for villages. And that was my concern. MR. McDANIEL: No argument there. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I think we've -- in this committee we've seen all kinds of attempts to modity the intent of the codes. And so the tighter you make it, the safer you are. MR. McDANIEL: Agreed. The caution was just from a limiting standpoint, remembering that this Page 7 '1611" ~~ February 5, 2009 .. A6. is an incentivized program, and flexibility within the program has to be adhered to in order to maintain the marketplace for the utilization of those credits. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: To the point where it's reasonable and doesn't incur additional cost to the taxpayers of the county. Page 59. Anybody have any questions on Page 59? Because there were a few lingering questions from our meeting last week. MR. McDANIEL: And I know Brad Cornell has a couple of comments on those. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, Brad? MR. CORNELL: For the record, Brad Cornell, with the committee and also with Collier Audubon and Audubon of Florida. My comments would only be in answer to the questions that you had last week that I could not answer on 4.9 and 4.10. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. MR. CORNELL: I don't know if you recall that discussion. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Oh, I -- parts of it, yeah. I think I'm older than you so I'm forgetting more, but I'm trying. MR. CORNELL: Not much older. Your beard's a little longer. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's what I'm going by. So if it's by the length of the beard, I'm really old. On 4.9, Brad, the issue that was --I think one of the issues brought up was the underlined addition about infrastructure necessary to serve permitted uses may be exempt from this restriction, provided the design seek (sic) to minimize the extent of impacts to any such areas. And I believe I asked you if essential services were considered part of that infrastructure necessary, and I think that's where we got off on one tangcnt. MR. CORNELL: I belicve that's correct, reading this. And also, what I wanted to relate to you was in answer to the question was there wasn't consensus on the committee on this particular policy in 4.10, but the majority felt that relative to SRA's that had higher scoring habitat areas and open areas that would be left open and the possibility of citing infrastructure or essential services and those kinds of uses in those areas, that the permitting process through the state and federal government rcgulations would be the adequate way to address those concerns about conflicts. If you're going to put a road or essential services or some use that otherwise would conflict with high habitat values. You know, of course we're talking about something that scores greater than 1.2, that those conflicts would be resolved through the permitting process, not through the RLSA policies. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, but see, the sentence that this underlying sentence exempts says the following: In addition, conditional uses, essential services and governmental essential services, with the exception of those necessary to serve permitted uses and for public safety, shall not be cited on lands that receive a natural resource index value of greater than 1.2. Then the next sentence goes on, infrastructure necessary to serve permitted uses may be exempt from this restriction, provided the design seeks to minimize the extent of impacts. And that's ambiguous anyway. But that infrastructure -- essential services are libraries. I mean, I got n was given a definition by staff. And public libraries, parks, emergency medical, all services designed to operate and provide water, sewer, grass, telephone, electricity. I mean, so you've got a -- MR. CORNELL: Well, it's those -- as it says, those that are necessary to serve permitted uses and for public safcty. So how you would define that -- and I agree, there was some ambiguity in that. But that's the exception. Those that are essential to serve permitted uses and public safety arc the essential services Page 8 16 I l' '::Aa6s, 2009 that you would put there. And then the infrastructure that would be required for those may be allowed, depending on if you've minimized the extent of the impacts through the design of that infrastructure. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, and of course the way someone minimizes is just an opinion. MR. CORNELL: It's an opinion, I agree. And there is ambiguity. And as I said, there wasn't consensus; however, the majority of the committee felt that if there was a problem with conflict in terms of land use, especially from the vantage point of habitat value, if there was a conflict with that -- of something being put into an open area, then that would be resolved through the permitting process. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, so you're comfortable with the fact that if you have a higher index value of 1.2, you can put in a park or a public library on that property? MR. CORNELL: With the stipulations and the conditions that you've got here. Like I said, there wasn't consensus on this policy, but the majority felt that you could resolve it with the permitting process. If somebody said I'm going to put a library here on gopher tortoise habitat, that that would not go through, or at least it would be addressed adequately through the permitting process. And the other thing that was understood was that only two percent of the open lands do score greater than 1.2. So there would be -- we're talking about a relatively small percentage of the landscape. Nevertheless, that was the majority of the committee's opinion was to deal with it that way. But they'd be comfortable, yes, to answer your question. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You said that you're thinking this is only going to go on the open lands; is that right? MR. CORNELL: Right. In an SRA. You can't put an SRA in flow way stewardship areas or habitat stewardship areas. So that's what we're talking about here, SRA's. We're not talking about any place that would be otherwise -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. MR. CORNELL: -- you know, preserve areas or incentivized to be SSA's. It's only the development areas. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, thank you. 4.10. What was your -- I know we had issues on 4.1 O. MR. CORNELL: Your concern, if I recall correctly, was that the last sentence, which is an existing policy, but obviously this is a review of the whole thing, not just the things that we recommended. Your concern was that we might be incentivizing through that policy golf courses and open areas by not requiring credits to be used. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. MR. CORNELL: And when you look at the uses allowed in open areas, we didn't really see that. And I think you've raised a legitimate issue, so -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: What areas of open area -- okay, do you -- and [ know we talked about this, I don't know offhand what area. Do you remember we tried to define open areas? MR. CORNELL: Yeah. And there's-- MR. GREENWOOD: It's in 4.] O. MR. CORNELL: 4.10'1 Oh, that's where we are. But also what uses you're allowed to have in open areas I think is in one of those matrices. Schedule C, attachment C; is that right? No, where is it? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Tom? MR. CORNELL: Yeah, here it is. Recreation and open spaces. Page 9 161 tl~A6'4 Februarv 5, 2009 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Active recreation, golf courses. So all those are golf courses. MR. CORNELL: Well, that can be one of the uses, right? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. So basically what happens, is 4.10 would encourage development by expanding the ability to develop more land without it being counted as an SRA, because it's golf courses. So how does that help keep the footprint down -- MR. CORNELL: Well, that's an observation that I personally didn't think of I don't know if anybody else on the committee wants to address that. We didn't think of that, as far as I can tell. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Is it something you think ought to be explored further? MR. CORNELL: It sounds like something that was an oversight, yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, that's all I'm asking. MR. CORNELL: You might be able to address it through a modified piece of -- you know, except for such and such uses. If the desire is to incentivize additional open space and not golf courses, then if that's your concern, then yes, you would need to modity that last sentence. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, actually, my concern goes a little different. I want to understand the true footprint of what is going to be developed in the RLSA area. MR. CORNELL: Right, so -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And if we're going to have greater percentages of open space encouraged by uses that don't count, more than likely you're going to have greater uses of open space. And if that open space is a developable area, like a golf course or a park or something else, it's not the same as the preserve areas that a lot of people think this plan is going to provide a certain limitation on. So that's where I was g01l1g. MR. CORNELL: I hear you, and I think that's a legitimate issue. From -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I made a note of it. MR. CORNELL: -- my perspective, we didn't discuss that, so that's -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I don't think our objective is necessarily to change your language that your committee's work cd on, simply to have suggestions so that when it goes to the board there's a list of suggestions, and when it goes to adoption or transmittal, there's more to look at, more ideas. And I guess that's how I see it kind of evolving. So I wasn't suggesting a language change right now, but it's something I think ought to be looked at to be prepared. Anything else on Page 59, anybody? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, Page 60. Anybody have any questions on Page 60? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I do, Mark. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Go ahead, Mr. Schiffer? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And we've never talked about 60, before, right? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right, I think it's a new page. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. The maintenance of the public and private roads shall be maintained by the primary town or community that's served. That seems somewhat -- I mean, will that be clear as to who's rcquircd to maintain the roads or -- as opposed to being maintained by the SRA it's in? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Could you say that again, Brad? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Well, the second paragraph down, it's the maintenance of the road systems, the requirement of the town or community. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I think we did start to talk about that, and that's why Nick is here. Because there was a series of things that need to occur, not only within the town but between the towns and how they are to be maintained. So is that where you're headed? Page 10 1611 Fet6~009 COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: But anyway, I mean, the town -- it's really to reference the town or community. Would it be better to reference the names they have, like towns, village or CRA that they're within? That's kind of the first part of the question. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I think Friday we suggested striking the words primary town or community and substituting the words SRA. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay, that's what I have. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That means any SRA, whether it's a CRD or whatever, they have to deal with this. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Which is what I thought the intent was. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And that's why I started out saying did we talk about this Friday, because -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: We did, but we didn't finish. So I'm sorry, you're right. MR. McDANIEL: That's my understanding of it anyway. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Nick, thank you for coming today. And I think we left off on Friday starting to get into Policy 4.14 when we hit into questions that everybody -- not everybody, but your name was brought up. In a good way. MR. CASALANGUIDA: For the record, Nick Casalanguida with Transportation. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: This particular policy brings in a whole pile of beginning issues, and I think a lot of the transportation issues that we may want to pick your brain on could be understood better here. First of all, the proportionate fair share agreements that are being discussed in the county now as alternatives to something that may occur in impact fee disappearance in the future, and DCA's. Would this paragraph be the appropriate paragraph to start entering into requiring those documents to be, let's say, agreed to prior to the approvals of any SRA's in this RLSA area? MR. CASALANGUIDA: It could be. I mean, Mr. Schiffer's comments about removing within the town, I have no issue with that. If you wanted to stick to just saying within the SRA, to address his initial comment a few minutes ago. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. Where do we talk about integrating transit systems? Would it be -- and I'm trying to make sure that we address -- because I know there's a lot of transportation issues in the RLSA. I want to make sure whatever policy they're supposed to be in, they somehow get in here. And that includes proportionate fair share agreements, DCA agreements, integration of transit systems, how the roadway system will connect when each landowner's individually developing an SRA. They've all got to agree on some common element. Where in this document -- and I don't know if you've read it or not yet. MR. CASALANGUIDA: Oh, God, if you're going to ask me to go through this and tell you exactly -- what I can tell you, I've written it and worked with ECPO to put it in here. As you go through it, we have sections where we talk about transit being included, subsidized bus subsidies, transfer stations incorporated into the town. We have talked about in this document having DCA's where we outline the responsibilities of the respective county and the developer. But I can't tell you exactly which one. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No, I went through this and tried to find some of that. But do you feel that from your department's perspective you've gotten the information in here that you need? I mean, I know you haven't done a full data and analysis yet, but have you had enough familiarity with this document to get some of the concepts in? And I'm talking this proportionate fair share issue, that seems to be an important one on your Page 11 16 ,,'} A" ~ February 5~009 department's mind, so n MR. CASALANGUIDA: If there -- understand that most of these will be DRl's, and understanding that we're going to have DCA's at the same time concurrently, not ahead of a DRl approval, I'm pretty comfortable that we can outline or define our responsibilities such as proportionate share as part of that, yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: What if a village or a CRD is done, generally they could be small enough they won't broach the threshold of a DRl. MR. CASALANGUIDA: If you wanted to include that as part of the proportionate share, making them -- requiring them to do a DCA, that would be appropriate. I don't know the size thresholds of this. Maybe one of the plarmers would want to fill me in on that. But if it goes through the PUD process or it goes through some sort of development approval process, I'm sure we could come up with an agreement at that point in time. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, CRD's are 100 acres or lcss and villages are 100 to 1,500 acres. MR. CASALANGUIDA: But the density that would go with that? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well. village is one to four -- or lour units per acre, and CRD's are two units per acre. MR. CASALANGUlDA: So at 1 00 acres and two units pcr acre are 200 units? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. MR. CASALANGUIDA: I mean, that's relatively small. We could approach that at the PUD review stage, ifthere is such a process that goes forward with that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. If we put language in here that forms these entities, villages, CRD's and towns, without a requirement to consider a proportionate fair share agreement, the language in Tallahassee, if it goes through that, voids the need for impact fees and is based basically on comprehensive zoning being approved. How then in a PUD level would you institute the proportionate fair share agreement ifit had to be done prior to the zoning of the property from a compo plan level? MR. CASALANGUIDA: I don't know how you would do it. So you may -- like I said, then we may want to consider that, if we're going to anticipate some sort of change at the legislative level for impact fees and you wanted to stress proportionatc share in this, you could certainly look at that as part of staffs review of that in the next phase. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, that was my concern. MR. CASALANGUIDA: Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And if someone -- and you had another issue that I thought we had mentioned, is if you've got a village and a village and they're separated by a distance, how will the roads in between handle them? MR. CASALANGUIDA: Well, that's where that master planning goes into effect. I mean, if we -- we're going to have a roadway network that's going to serve not only the RLSA, the adjacent counties and back to the urban area, they're going to have to consider that. To have some sort of master plan -- and again, in working with Mr. Perry at WilsonMiller, we both recognized that it's going to have to be fluid. But whether that road goes one mile to the east to where it's proposed or one mile to the west, when you model that road, that road has to be there. So if we have a master plan to work off of with some consideration for flexibility, that's when you would address the discrepancies betwecn two towns. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. And as far as the county build-out vision plan-- MR. CASALANGUIDA: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- that's being devised by your department? MR. CASALANGUIDA: Right now we're going to coordinate that with compo pJarming. We're dropping the scope right now. Half of it's public involvement, coordinating with folks like ECPO, adjacent Page 12 161 rr:aJ~9 communities, the lmmokalee CRA, Conservancy and comprehellSive planning to develop that plan. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: What's the process for approval of that plan when it gets done? MR. CASALANGUIDA: If it's adopted through the GMP, it would go through the board. If it's a planning exercise, it would be something that's brought to the board, is informal (sic) for adoption. So it depends on if the board chooses to adopt that recommended language to have a new section in the transportation section -- transportation, element. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. And we're going to do that in-house? MR. CASALANGUIDA: In-house. With a consultant as well, too. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Who's the cOllSultant? MR. CASALANGUIDA: It hasn't been chosen yet. Most likely, if[ can do it under the general planning contract, it would probably be AIM Engineering at this point in time. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Anybody have any questions of Nick at this point? Donna? COMMISSIONER CARON: What's the timing of that? MR. CASALANGUIDA: We are meeting next month to finish out the roadway network analysis. That's the first phase of getting the vision build-out plan. Because the vision build-out plan doesn't take in just roads, it takes in transit, it takes inland use. You're probably looking at about another 12 months after that. So probably a year from now. COMMISSIONER CARON: So we can safely say a year and a half? MR. CASALANGUIDA: Thanks for your encouragement, Commissioner Caron. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: We're just remembering Vanderbilt Beach Road extension. MR. CASALANGUIDA: Oh, every chance you can, Mark. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, thank you, Nick. MR. CASALANGUIDA: You're welcome. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I think that's so far what we've got. Gary? MR. EIDSON: I do, too. On 4.17, does that language in there provide a framework to address some of the issues you were talking about? Final local development orders will be approved within -- you see where that is, 4.1 7'1 And then it talks about in accordance with the concurrency management system of the GMP and LDC in effect at the time of the final local development order approval. Does that kind of get to the fact that it would be global and what's relevant, or do you want to be more specific? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The only thing I'm concerned about, there's a push now to invalidate impact fees -- MR. EIDSON: Right. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- state-wide. I want to make sure that if there's impacts generated by a site and they should be paid for by the site. Then if the inlpact fees are gone, we still have a way to make that happen. And if Nick feels comfortable with 4.17 as being that application, then I've got no problem with it. But that's -- all I was trying to do was make sure the taxpayers as a whole were equally protected if the impact fees were gone. MR. EIDSON: Well, Ijust wanted to, you know, kind ofrefer you to that language to see ifit helped. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: It might, thank you. MR. McDANIEL: And this is more of a housekeeping point than anything. In 4.14, and this is -- Page 13 16 Llry 5~0~ Tom Greenwood? There seems to be a discrepancy between our books, and I wanted just a point of clarification. That language that Brad brought up earlier about public and private roads within an SRA and their maintenance and who's responsible, in my bigger book it doesn't show that as new language. It's not underlined in the larger book, and I'm just wondering if that wa, all-- if that was part of the original RLSA and just inadvertently got underlined here. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Or we've got time to correct it, regardless. MR. McDANIEL: Correct. Absolutely. That's something to check into, if you would, please,just as a point of clarification. It brings up a valid point, but I just wanted to make sure. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. MR. McDANIEL: I happened to notice that, so n CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Nick, unfortunately one question I forgot to ask you about Policy 4.1.4. The first sentence says, the SRA must have either direct access to a county collector or arterial road or indirect access via road provided by the developer that has adequate capacity to accommodate the proposed development in accordance with accepted transportation plarming standards. Now, when it says SRA, I'm assuming it means all the SRA's, any level ofSRA, CRD, village or town. MR. CASALANGUlDA: Ycs. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You feel that -- okay. What is the minimum road that you feel could be supplied to a single standing I DO-acre CRD that has the potential of200 homes and whatever businesses would be going with that? MR. CASALANGUlDA: It would be a two-lane local road. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Two-lane local road of what width? MR. CASALANGUlDA: Twenty-two to n in terms of pavement width? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No, right-of:way width. MR. CASALANGUIDA: You could go as minimum as 40 feet if they took the sidewalks within their property. You know, it varies, based on design. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Do you know what the minimum easement width has just been more or less n MR. CASALANGUIDA: Sixty feet for typically a two-lane. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No, the Pepper Ranch, 100 acres of the SRA that wa, left out of the SSA in the south of Pepper Ranch with the Farnl Cattle Road leading to it. If that 100 acres was left out with some idea of ever being developed, by language here it looks like you're now telling me the minimum developable road they could put through Pepper Ranch to get to that would be 60 feet. MR. CASALANGUIDA: It depends. I mean, our county road standards require a road section to have II-foot lane calls, five-foot sidcwalks on both sides, proper spacing. You can do that within 40 to 60 feet. I mean, you're right, that's the answer. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I thought I heard on the meeting on the Pepper Ranch that they werc looking like they were agreeing to a minimum easement of 15 feet. I'm not sure if they were ever to do that how they could get legal access if they wanted to develop that 100 acres. And that's a concern, because I'd hate to see someone coming in later on saying pursuant to this language, this county, knowing that that 100 acres could potentially be a CRD, and if we own that ranch we'd end up having to put in a wider -- maybe possibly bc tricked into using a wider roadway. MR. CASALANGUlDA: My recollection is that agreement contains language, and someone correct me from the County Attorney's Office, that that road is to maintain in the condition it is right now, Page 14 161"-A6 February 5, 2009 and it's not to be inlproved to any other use other than cattle ranching. That was on the record I think placed by both the applicant and the adjacent property owner. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Well, then uplands would never be developed, basically. MR. CASALANGUIDA: That was my understanding. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, thank you. MR. CASALANGUIDA: You're welcome. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: We're moving on to Page 60. Any other questions from any of the sentences? I mean, I'm still going to move into more, but I wanted to make sure I keep up with the rest of you. (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: As we move down to the very end of Policy 4.1.4, there's a long added section to that para!,'Taph. The last sentence, these actions shall be considered within the area of significant influence of the project traffic on existing or proposed roadways that are anticipated to be expanded or constructed. What does that mean? The actions shall be considered within the area of significant influence. MR. McDANIEL: And if[ might suggest you read the entire added in underlined. I mean, to pull an excerpt out of one of the additions that we have suggested as modifications, there is further definition above with respect -- and my recollection ofthe discussions there were just to ensure that there were proper mitigations and zero impact, if you will, with respect to these road improvements and such that were coming along. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, the area --I know, I didn't read the whole thing for the sake of the court reporter and time, because it's in on the board. MR. McDANIEL: That was the main premise behind what we were looking to do there. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, my questions on that last one, what is the area of significant influence; do we know? Is that a defined term, is what I'm trying to find out. MR. CASALANGUIDA: It is in your GMP. On your significance test it's two percent, two percent, three percent, that threshold test. And I believe in the transportation element it talks about within significant influence and it defines it as two percent on the adjacent link, two percent of the next link and three percent. So depending on the size of the project and how far the trips, based on significance test, went out would be how far they would have to mitigate for. So if you took a development of 1,000 units and you said it generates 50 trips or 100 trips, you would do that test on each adjacent link. And once you stopped, you would say that's your area of significant influence. You would have to mitigate within that area. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And in that area you take into consideration all known zoning at the tinle. So there's -- their mitigation is for them, even though the road may have other applications coming in that would add additional burden to it. MR. CASALANGUIDA: It would, but the significance test tells you how far you go out. And then your test as far as your proportionality would be different. So the significance test says we go this far to look at it. And then say the third link you put on 10 trips. And that 10 trips is a percentage of.O 1 percent of impact on that road when it's widened. We have a formula that says that multiplied by the cost is what you would pay for as part of your proportionate share. The only part, if you run this thought process through, that's concerning for both parties is when the improvement has to take place and who's responsible to make it happen. If the road's failing and then they apply, the argument can be made that okay, I've applied, I've been turned down, you've got to fix the road. So it's a timing issue we're trying to work out as to when that kicks m. Page 15 16 I ~1i'>' A L Febru~ H009 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. If you continue on in that same sentence, Nick, after the word significant influence, of the project traffic on existing or proposed roadways. Now, I would suggest a period there, but there isn't one, and it says, that are anticipated to be expanded or constructed. So if the existing or proposed roadways are not anticipated to be expanded or constructed, then they wouldn't have to have any of the mitigation actions for traffic impacts on them; is that fair to say? And what would be the time frame of that anticipation of the expansion or construction? MR. CASALANGUIDA: You touched on the issue of timing. Now, anticipation of expansion or construction means that that road is plarmed to be a six-lane road by the vision build-out plan or by the long-range transportation plan. So there is some expectation that that road will be widened. You get into that tinling issue. I can't solve that in this paragraph. And the responsibility issue. I don't want to get into a situation similar to Ave Maria in terms ofI've got to build it and now I have declining revenues. You know, I don't want to be in that situation again. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I think that's relevant in all of our minds. And that's probably why we want to make sure we don't gct in that situation again. MR. CASALANGUIDA: And in discussions with the folks that worked on that, they're cognizant of that and they're going to work with us on making sure that we have some sort of back checks that, you know, in terms of revenues and timing. And we're still trying to figure out how we get there. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Would you suggest that a time frame be added so that it's consistent with a plan that we have like -- that are anticipated to be expanded or constructed within a so many year time frame? MR. CASALANGUlDA: Well, not necessarily, because you could be paying your prop. share on a road that may be outside your five-year plan, but it could be in your vision build-out plan. And when that road comes on-line, I may be knocking on someone's door and saying I'm ready to widen that road, we're asking you to pay your proportionate share now. So they may be -- you know, because you're talking about phasing developments. If it's a 5,OOO-unit subdivision and they come in and we widen a certain road and that accommodates it to a certain phase and then five years later we bring it one of the roads from the LRTP, long-range transportation plan, and our five-year plan, they may still have proportionate share responsibilities to that roadway. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Well, I'm just concerned about how this fits in. And you haven't figured out the language yet, but I think that if this were to move to transmittal, you'd have something by the data and analysis stage, would you not') MR. CASALANGUIDA: I think we would, but I think it's more important to say each individual SRA, depending on the size and where it is, that individual agreement would be more relevant to what would be happening. Because you may havc one that, depending on the size, may only have significant impact on our road that's within our five-year CIE, and it'd be a straightforward agreement. You may have one that depending on the size may be phased to incorporate improvements and payments or proportionate share over the course of 20 years, depending on the project size and where it is, so -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, based on the ultimate timing facility, timing sequence, are there any roads in Collier County that are not anticipated to be expanded or constructed? MR. CASALANGUIDA: That's a loaded question. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I mean, I'm concerned about those last words. And I think that you could make the sentence function just as well without that caveat if you put a period after roadways. COMMISSIONER MURRA Y: Yeah, it opens up too many issues. MR. CASALANGUIDA: I don't have an issue with that. I think it's n CHAIRMAN STRAIN: It'sjust a suggestion. And I'm trying to keep as tight ofa rein on the concepts as we can. And I don't think -- I think that just leaves it too fluid. Page 1 6 16 1 r" A 6 Fetuary 5, 2009 MR. CASALANGUlDA: Yeah, I don't disagree. If you put a period at the end of that, it wouldn't take away from what we're trying to accomplish. It might eliminate some ambiguity. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Well, we'll move on. Is there any other comments? Ms. Caron" COMMISSIONER CARON: Well, I think in the next Policy 4.15.1, we were concerned here about the policy notations. I think 4.7.3 needs to come out and 4.7.4 needs to go in. MR. McDANIEL: And that is correct, I believe, with concurrence from staff. MR. GREENWOOD: We'll look at that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, now wait a minute. The CRD's are an SRA. So they aren't permitted the full range, but they are permitted as modified by Policy 4.7.3. So if you take the reference to 4.7.3 out that modifies the CRD's, you're going to inadvertently open them up to everything in the FLUE. A lot of acronyms in that sentence. MR. McDANIEL: I think maybe with the -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The poor public is trying to follow this. Sorry, everybody. MR. McDANIEL: I think the main point would be maybe just to un-strike 4.7.4-- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes. MR. McDANIEL: -- and leave 4.7.3 in there. COMMISSIONER CARON: And leave 4.3 in. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: 4.7.3. And I think that would be right. Is that it, Ms. Caron? COMMISSIONER CARON: Yeah, thank you, for right now. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Mark, just -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes, go ahead. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: My only question on that, though, wouldn't the other 7.1 and 7.2 bring in 4.7.4? Wouldn't it be best to let them bring it in rather than this bring it in? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, let's -- 4.7.1 does reference it down in the second paragraph. 4.7 used to reference it but it's been crossed out. 4.7.2 does reference it . COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And 4.7.3 does not anymore. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: You know, we get there, but without -- you wouldn't want the guy in 7.3 saying he gets it from this paragraph. COMMISSIONER CARON: Right. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah, why don't we -- you know, that's a good point. Bill, what he's suggesting is if you go back to Policy 4.7, leave the reference -- well, that 4.7 would work, because it's set in the general criteria where to look for towns, villages and CRD's. Then in 4.7.1, 4.7.2 and 4.7.3 where appropriate you reference 4.7.4, so it wouldn't need to have to be redundant in 15.!. Because by putting it there it may conflict with the CRD language in 4.7.3. What's the matter? MR. McDANIEL: That's fine. That's a fine sugg -- I mean, it could be repetitious, but there's no doubt it's better. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Well, if you leave it -- if you do what we were saying, a guy in the CRA could say I get those uses and cite this policy to give them to him, so -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So the best thing is to leave it like it's written. The committee had stricken it. It should probably be that way. Page I 7 16 I '1 'A'" ' "r: ebruary ~2009 If you move down in that paragraph, the next sentence, or second sentence past that says, depending on the size, scale and character of an SRA, such uses may be provided either within the specific SRA, within other SRA's in the R1~SA or ",ithin the Immokalee urban area. Well, I understand what you're trying to say. There's two concerns. If you have another SRA and it's a village, town or compact rural development and they meet the minimum criteria of attachment C, then you can't -- you shouldn't be able to rely on those, because they've already met their minimum for the SRA that they're built within. And for you to take advantage of that by saying that they now can apply to your SRA as well, you're kind oflike double dipping on the same calculation that built the first SRA. And the same would apply for cven the lmmokalee urban area. If you've got enough facilities to handle the Immokalee urban area for a certain area that the SRA's adjacent to, how can the SRA dump the added density onto that area and not have that area have to have expansion or require some expansion while the SRA doesn't have to do anything? I know you didn't change anything here, but I'm suggesting something may need to be changed. MR. McDANIEL: And minimumly (sic) discussed at some stage of the game. I mean, I think my understanding is we were discussing this wa~just to try to encompass the regionality (sic) and the flexibility for the location of the different SRA's as they in fact come about and come to fruition. Right now we've had one that we can sink our teeth into and learn the lessons from, if you will. Inevitably there will be more. And the goal wa~ to encompass the regionality (sic). CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah. And I'm not -- I have no problem with the goal, I'm just trying to make sure that the SRA's don't overburden each other by one relying on the other and not having to create additional facilities. Tom? MR. JONES: Well, it is in the existing policy, but I think Bill was getting to it right about the time I stood up. There may be some synergies that would make more sense to have perhaps a government center, a combined government center in one SRA as opposed to having two smaller government centers, one each in an SRA And when the original document was put together, there was also some -- again, back to the originality (sic) concept, there was also some possibility that maybe some of these facilities get combined into Immokalee, ifthere was some reason to do it. So I think what we're trying to do is maintain a level of flexibility that in some cases it may make sense to combine these into one SRA instead of scattering them among -- especially these government services n among multiple SRA's. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And I think that's a good idea, Tom. But my concern was if you have a village and town that requires a .6 FAR for civic and governmental institutions, you put that in that village, but then you add two or three villages to it that rely on that, you've exceeded the .6 capability. All I'm saying is we might want to add some language that retains that level of FAR performance for whatever was added to it until such point it becomes overburdened by the numerics. Then it has to move to their own sustainable government facilities and whatever else they have to put in there. MR. JONES: Yeah. I think we might be saying the same thing. I was just trying to back up the original concept of when that was developed on the first go-around. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. I think we are. I just want to make sure that there's no -- we can minimize the potential problems with this language is all. Anybody else on Page 60 before we go to public comments? On Pages 58, 59 and 60. (No response.) Page 1 8 16 J .. ^ t.. 1;.,ebruary~, ~09 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Does anybody in the public have any comments on those pages? Jeff? MR. PERRY: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. For the record, Jeff Perry with Wilson-Miller. On Page 60, Policy 4.14. First an observation. The -- in the second paragraph, the second new text that's underlined there, that's the language that basically supports -- the previous sentence talks about a transportation impact assessment meeting the requirements of the LDC shall be prepared for each SRA to provide the necessary data and analysis. That's a traffic impact statement much like you would have with a plarmed unit development or something else. It's the same criteria in fact that is required of PU D's and other land zoning entitlements. The new language talks about how you mitigate for all of that inlpact, and in fact requires the developer contribution agreements and all those proportionate share kinds of things that would be negotiated during our review of these things. Even those projects that are not going to be DRl's, if they are sub-DRl, they would still be subject to this paragraph, which would require not only the traffic impact analysis, but then would also require the mitigation for that impact within that area of influence, as Nick has indicated. All this is covered by the traffic inlpact statement guidelines. So I think this is the new paragraph that sort of shores up how you deal with impacts that are identified by the impact analysis that's required for every SRA, regardless of its shape or size or context. The first sentence, though, however, of that same paragraph concerns me just a little bit. And I would ask that between now and the time this ultimately finds its way through to a GMP amendment in transmittal, the very first sentence of that second paragraph says, public and private roads within an SRA shall be maintained by the SRA it serves. In the transportation analysis, preliminary analysis that we've conducted so far, we have identified on the transportation map, the build-out map and the 2025 map that you have seen, some major facilities, some major new facilities. And I'll use as an example Little League Road, which is going to be running north-south parallel with the north-south run of Immokalee Road, several miles to the west of Immokalee Road. All the way from Immokalee Road sort of skirting Lake T raflord, all the way up to State Road 82. A major north-south corridor that theoretically is going to -- could bisect or go through the middle of an SRA. I'm not so sure that it's the responsibility of the SRA to maintain that roadway. Another example might be the loop road around Immokalee, which actually starts at Immokalee Road near the Camp Keais intersection, goes over to 29 and then goes around Immokalee, ties back into 29 at the north side of]mmokalee. There are segments of that roadway which admittedly will be a major east-west and north-south arterial. There are segments of that which could actually be through the middle of an SRA. And to avoid having a landowner submit two separate SRA's that straddle the roadway, it might be more appropriate simply to have some flexibility to decide who's going to maintain the roadways when the SRA comes in and go through the motions of determining the public benefit of these roads. Whether there is substantial reason why the county would want to maintain ownership and maintenance of these roadways I think is best left at some point. This first sentence simply says that if it goes through an SRA, it's the SRA's responsibility to maintain it. And I'm not sure that's always going to be the case. So I'd ask that at some point in the future we have an opportunity to sort of work with Nick to come up with some language that might add a little more flexibility that at the perhaps time of SRA those decisions would be made. Certainly local roads within SRA's, even, you know, traditional what we call spine roads, collector roads that serve the developments. There's no -- obviously those are roads that should be the SRA's Page 19 16 I ~ebr~ary~J~9" responsibility and not the burden of the county. Just as today PUD's have that same kind of burden to maintain their own roadways. But arterial and collector roads that serve a much broader service I think need to be examined a little in more detail. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's a good point, Jeff. MR. PERRY: Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And this whole exercise is to put these points out so when we get to the next stage we can have more thought on them, so -- Anybody else in the public have any comments? Elizabeth? You're spending a lot of time in Collier County lately. MS. FLEMING: Yes, I am. Elizabeth Fleming with the Defenders of Wildlife. I have a comment and I want to ask some questions also. I'm looking at Policy 4.4 (sic) in that -- on Page 60. In the area down at the bottom it talks about-- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Policy -- you said 4.4'1 MS. FLEMING: 4.l4-- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, thank you. MS. FLEMING: -- on Page 60. Down at the bottom talking about some ofthe mitigation tor SRA's traffic impacts and talking about wildlife crossings and things of that nature. In the discussion that came up just a little while ago about the issue of timing, we've really tried to stress this in our discussions with others that Defenders, we believe that the mitigation should take place at the time -- be able to mitigate against the impacts. So if the impact occurs, it takes place for some time and later in comes the mitigation. We don't feel that's adequate. So I know the only project out there so far is the Ave Maria project, and I don't know all the ins and outs that have gone on between the landowners and the county, but some discussion did come up. But a point I want to raise is we've been expecting that two panther crossings are going to be constructed on that road to mitigate against the increase in traffic and the impacts. And now there's -- because of the economic downtum, I don't know about impact fees, I don't know all that's taken place. But I do know more n some people have moved there. The university students are there. I've been out there. I know there are more cars on the road than there used to be. So when can we expect to see the panther crossings constructed on that road? Obviously when it's widened. But that's my question, is -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, that's one of the things we're-- MS. FLEMING: -- how do you move forward with these timing issues? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, that's what we're trying to partially fix. And you've kind of hit on the only example we have, the DCA that created A va Maria happened at a time that made a commitment that is not quite the amount needed to complete the road. Ave Maria's contributing a huge amount of money for the road system, but Collier County's got to do the rest. The problem is, Collier County's rest to do is a lot more than I think we anticipated. And the timing of that has not happened prior to development, it's going to happen either concurrent or during the development, as it is now. And I think you're suggesting that mitigation should occur before the impacts happen from the development end of things, which means Collier County and Ava Maria would have had to put the money up at the early stage, prior to any money coming in either from impact fees or from development revenues. Is that kind of where you're going? Page 20 161 1 Fl6~009 MS. FLEMING: I understand that there are logistical and real financial issues involved, but we're here to advocate for endangered species, so I'm saying panthers and other species are going to be impacted by traffic. We feel that the mitigation -- the remedies should be there at the time of inlpact. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And the only -- I know your panther crossings are important to you. They require a large segment of the road to be in basically as far as costs go, because you have to elevate them, put in culverts and build the road system to accommodate those crossings, and that's a big chunk of money. And doing that early I think is where the concern's going to be. Well, it will certainly end up being explored, I'm sure, but I don't know what the answer is today, so -- MS. FLEMING: Well, while those other issues of timing are being discussed, we just would like this to be included. Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. Anybody else from the public have any comments? Oh, Paul. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: It almost seems like something like that, you'd have to wait till its four-Ianed and, you know, that could be pretty far out. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, ifit's -- I imagine-- COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: You wouldn't want to do a panther crossing for a two-lane road and then have to totally redo it, right? MR. McDANIEL: Certainly not. And if] might, I think as time transpires we are developing n in conjunction with the existence of the Rural Land Stewardship Overlay, we're developing a long-range transportation plan. It was flipped up there -- or there was an excerpt of it being flipped up there on the map. And certainly one of the things that transportation can take into consideration is the facilitation of the road construction in advance of the impacts so that we're not, as you said, Paul, building the crossing on a two-lane facility when we all know inevitably it's going to go to four. And I think that is Elizabeth's valid concern with respect to those particular crossings. And there has been an increase in traffic. And again, it's a learning process but a timing aspect of the long-range transportation plan that's going to be necessary to help mitigate those -- that particular circumstance. But it's commg. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. Any other -- Nicole? MS. RYAN: For the record, Nicole Ryan, Conservancy of Southwest Florida. And the issue of the timing for panther crossings has been something that has concerned The Conservancy. With the Oil Well Road widening, those panther crossings were not part of the Phase I, and indeed you are going to be feeling the impacts of the development long before those crossings are put in. So we certainly support having some sort of better timing coordination for that. And another suggestion that we advocate and have been advocating is if you do not build in those primary panther habitat areas, then you're more than likely not going to need the new two, four, six-lane roads, and so you won't need the roads, you won't need the crossings. That won't solve all of the concerns for Oil Well Road and other roads, but it certainly could cut down on the number of new roads and new crossings needed if you again avoid primary compress n stay on that footprint where SRA's could be located. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. Any other questions? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: If not, we will move on to Page 61. Cherie', we were thinking of going between II :30 and 12:00. I'm assuming you'll need a break between then -- before then? Okay, give us a little bit more time and we'll take a break for about 10 minutes, Page 21 16 te1ary Ab '1 okay? Okay, we're on Page 61 and the policy starts with 4.16 and goes -- starts on 4.19 towards the bottom. Are there any questions from the Planning Commission on Page 61? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I do, Mark. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Schiffer? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And these are really housekeeping. Policy 4.16 is normally after the CRD's, they keep noting that are less than one (sic) acres in size. And obviously you can't have one greater than, so you may as well remove of one acres (sic) less in size, because they're all of I 00 acres less 111 sIze. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So about in the middle of the paragraph after the reference to CRD's, the first one that isn't crossed out, drop the words that are 100 acres or less in size, is that -- I mean, they have to be, so that's a good point. Bill, is there any concern from your end~ MR. McDANIEL: Not at all, sir. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anything else, Brad~ COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: No, that's good. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Donna? COMMISSIONER CARON: Further down in that paragraph, one, two, three, fourth line up at the end it begins, individual potable water supply wells and septic systems limited to a maximum of 100 acres of any town, village or CRD. Well, I don't think you're going to have a CRD that's a septic system for something else. So I'm not sure that they're applicable here is all I'm saying. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. COMMISSIONER CARON: Or that just means it can't exceed 100 acres? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: It's on an interim ba~is, so h COMMISSIONER CARON: Bccause that's a maximum h CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well. I think what they're saying is if you have a 100-acre facility you can have the homes within there on water wells and septic, but once you get past that you have to go to a centralized system. Is that what you're trying to say? MR. McDANIEL: That's my understanding. This is all part of the original program, and that was my understanding of that. I can honestly say we probably didn't have a lot oflengthy discussion revolving around that, but -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Brad? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I think what it's saying is you can only do that on an interim basis. MR. McDANIEL: Correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Which you obviously have to go into. MR. McDANIEL: And it sets a limit for progression of development, going through the process for maximum acreage of exposure to that to -- just to facilitate. And again, it's a timing issue. And from a development side, bringing in product on-line and having units there available for sale. COMMISSIONER CARON: So it's anticipated that these CRD's are going to have centralized water. MR. McDANIEL: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: At some point. MR. McDANIEL: At some particular point in time. It says -- it basically picks that up, individual Page 22 1611 A6 February 5, 2009 potable water supply and septic systems may be permitted in CRD's. And I don't know if there's an actual requisite that requires them to hook to central sewer or water at any particular time. Someone else might know the answer to that. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Well, this does. I mean, I think the intent of this is that you could theoretically build out a full CRD, have it all on wells and septic, waiting maybe for an adjoining development where you'd connect at a later date or something. MR. McDANIEL: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Paul? COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Could you maybe mention that it would be required to have it at build-out? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, there might be more availability ifit's regional. I mean, if you're going to build out a CRD but you've got a regional plant like the north plant for Collier County coming on-line, you really wouldn't want to force somebody to put a central system in when that one -- I think the circumstances would dictate it and we can probably get into that in implementation language at the LDC. But this just says that it will be there -- it will be allowed on an interim basis. And I think the interim basis can be defined in the Land Development Code. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Yeah, as long as it's defined at some point. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, that's the LDC implementation. Anything else on 61'1 (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Bill? MR. McDANIEL: Sir. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The middle of the --let's see, third paragraph, or second. Third it is. The capacity of infrastructure necessary to serve the SRA at build-out must be demonstrated during the SRA designation process. MR. McDANIEL: You have to forgive me. Which policy are you in? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: 4.16. And that was toward the end of the third line. Then the sentence after this says infrastructure to be analyzed includes: Transportation, potable water, wastewater, stormwater management and solid waste. Where is it we cnter into the analysis of other facilities such as EMS, sheriff, government facilities, libraries, parks -- well, parks I know are minimized in the -- are required in the attachment C. But what about those kind of services? MR. McDANIEL: I think that's addressed in the LDC, ifI'm not mistaken. There's definitions in the LDC about essential services. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I'd have to -- I don't recall that. But I know that wouldn't we be -- we had to negotiate -- or Ave Maria has negotiated land for sheriffs office and fire departments and all like that. I want to make sure that somehow that's a requirement. MR. McDANIEL: And again, I think Mr. Greenwood passed out a definition page earlier. And these are excerpts out of the LDC. And it defines the discussion we were having on the floor area ratio and the essential services and the dcfinition of those. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, the reason I was concerned about that is because of what I read in Policy 4.17. The things I -- you reference in 4.16 are Category A, public facilities, and in 4.17 it's emphasized that the review will with be based on Category A public facilities. Why wouldn't we want to base it on both Category A and Category B? I mean, why isn't fire protection and police protection and EMS coverage and all that just as important for public safety and welfare as the others? Is there a reason we Page 23 1 6 Ilrua;A,~:" wouldn't want to get into that? MR. McDANIEL: Absolutely not. I mean, those are as important as the others, actually. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Then I would suggest that in 4.16 where the sentence refers to the infrastructure, we might sec infrastructure and essential services to be analyzed -- includes but not limited to. And then that opens up 4.17 to have Category A and Category B reviewed. And I've got to write here for a minute, so excuse me. Okay, let's move on down the page. COMMISSIONER CARON: You're going to want to do that same thing in 4.18. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah, shall be considered and not limited to. And then we -- COMMISSIONER CARON: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Then we get dOWll to Tammie's sentence. Tanlillie, as we talked, can you help us understand or -- what that means? Maybe since -- I don't know how many people had a concern over what it meant. I mean, I wasn't concerned, I just couldn't follow what you were trying to say. Maybe there's a simpler way to say it. Because I do know that I asked others on your committee and not everybody understood what it meant, so -- MS. NEMECEK: With regards to this, the EDC has been working with the Board of County Commissioners. We had a workshop with them in January talking about the creation of economic development zones throughout Collier County. But in particular to this one and related to the fiscal impact analysis, the fiscal impact analysis will show whether or not an SRA is revenue neutral or positivc to the community. And the concept and idea is that if it is showing that it is revenue -- fiscally positive to Collier County, that Collicr County may have the opportunity to take a portion of that revenue and invest that in economic development activities that would catalyze companies to locate in thosc arcas that would spur on additional economic development in the SRA areas. So it's basically taking that excess revenue from thc fiscal impact analysis, or a portion of that, and investing it back in that community in order to be able to have companics locate there. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And when I discussed this with you, since you were the famed author of this, my concern after you explained it to me was not -- if you have an FlAM, as Ave Maria does -- and again, sorry, that's the only development out therc, we have to keep picking on them -- they're going to produce a rcvenue generation from that facility. whether it's negative or positive, I would assume it's positive. But in their analysis in the FlAM, they're not going to have costs outside their realm, outside their SRA, outside what they contributed to the road system. But yet the road systems costing the taxpayers substantially more money than they're going to show on their FlAM. I don't blame them for not showing it, it's not a requirement. But when you read this sentence, if you base the excess revenues on those generated by the figures in the FlAM, then you've got no way to protect the taxpayers for the out-of-pocket that they're going to put that is many, many, many times more millions than what the contribution was by Ave Maria for just the Oil Well Road. And if that's the case, at what point then do you really have excess revenues, so that you can honestly argue then that those excesses could be dumped into some economic opportunity, when really there aren't any excesses to the taxpayers. They may be for the development, but not to the taxpayers. And I think this would only apply if those revenues were to go to the taxpayers. And in the analysis to the taxpayers, you wouldn't show excess -- there may not be excess revenues. And that's my concern on how this applies, how this tits together. MS. NEMECEK: Right. And the fiscal impact analysis has been adopted by Collier County as the Page 24 161 l"~'IL FebPJuH,2009 analysis that we're going to use for this. And so I would suspect that if -- I don't think Russ is here, but I would suspect that if -- when you look at that analysis, it would take into consideration like impact fees do, in that development you're charging somebody for the impact that they made for that road segment to be able to build that road segment. So for Ave Maria, for example, would it not make sense that you're charging that community for their impact, their portion of impact on that road, and others that use that road, new development that would go on surrounding that road would absorb the additional -- I mean, is it likely that Ave Maria would absorb the full 100 percent impact on Oil Well Road? And they're the only ones that would have to absorb that impact, I guess, would be my first take on that question. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, they wouldn't be paying for it, that's for sure. That's not part of the agreement. But I'm more concerned about how you calculate excess. Because under that scenario, there's no real access to the taxpayers. And therefore, if you're taking what could be more positive away from the taxpayers and putting it back into the SRA before there's a balance to the taxpayers of Collier County, we're never getting ahead, or we may not get ahead as quickly. And that's the concern I have with that statement and the way it's worded here. MS. NEMECEK: The second part of -- well, the second part of what we're talking about with economic diversification actually goes back to the fact that these businesses happen to be revenue generators for Collier County. So investments in high-tech companies that are locating on a footprint with buildings that are a higher cost and generating taxes that actually are a surplus to the community more so than the services we have to provide to them, you're actually investing in a revenue generation opportunity for Collier County rather than a cost center for Collier County. So, I mean, aside from the fact that the FlAM model -- and that's something that is core to this program, and that's something that, you know, you will have to talk about with regards to how that analysis is factored in, but I think it's been generally accepted that that's the fiscal impact analysis that we're going to use. It's going to say are we fiscally neutral or positive in a five-year basis. And if we are so, if that FIAM model is accepted by the county, then how do we use those funds to be able to invest in projects that are going to generate additional revenue that otherwise would not be here in Collier County. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I don't remember the numbers from Ave Maria. I remember Babcock Ranch is I think more than Ava Maria's. There was a huge amount of money, supposedly based on the FlAM, that was going to be generated by Babcock Ranch as a positive to the county. And had this applied to that, I think it was 293 million, some big number like that. That number then, by this statement, some of that could have been considered surplus revenue when in actuality it wasn't, it was only what was within that SRA. And I go back to my point, and I'm not sure we're going to resolve it here today. But it's an issue I think needs to be studied before we lock this in, because it's a concern on how that's calculated. And that's what the point I guess I was making. MS. NEMECEK: Right. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And I understand your argument, and we'll just kind of have to leave it at that. Any other questions of Tanunie while she's up here? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, thank you, Tammie. And then the last item on Page 61 is Item 4.19. And that goes over to Page 62. Before we get into that one, why don't we take a 10-minute break till five after 11 :00 and then we'll come back and finish up for today. Thank you. Page 25 1611 , A Lit Febr~2009 (Brief recess.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, everybody. Mike, you want to -- somebody want to put the speaker back on? Okay, if you'll all take your seats again, we'll resume the meeting. And we left off on Page 61. We started towards the bottom on 4.19. And before we do, we'll ask tor public speakers on Policies 4. 1 6 through 4.18. Does anybody in the public need to address it. Brian? MR. GOGUEN: Hi. Brian Goguen, Barron Collier Companies, for the record. The discussion of the FlAM we talked about I think last week and we're talking about it again today, when you look at that, I mean, Mark, you brought up the point, and I think what you're saying is that all of Oil Well Road should basically be attributed to Ave Maria. And I don't think that's how-- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No, that's not what I was saying. MR. GOGUEN: Okay. Well, the way the FlAM works is when -- let's take a single-family home comes on-line, the impact fees for the county are calibrated, as I understand it, so that the cost or that impact fee reflects the cost to the county of that single-family house coming on-line. So you takc the FIAM, let's say for Avc Maria. And as we move through it and we're fronting impact fees, we pay 50 percent of impact fees at SOP and the other 50 percent at CO of the units. So we're paying our impact fees in advance as these homes and businesses and other things come on-line. We basically are a positive because of that timing dil1erence. Again, those impact fees are calibrated to reflect the cost to the county of those units of development coming on-line. So I do think in that sense that it is paying for it as it goes. I don't think it would be fair to attribute -- in that sense we're paying -- those impact fces are paying for those off-site improvements, Mark, that you referred to. I don't think it would be tair to load on top of that a whole bunch of additional costs when again we're paying as we go. The FlAM is adopted by Collier County. It's adopted by other counties around the state. It is the model that everyone uses, and, you know, I think we need to take a close look at that. And I agree with you, it has to bc fair in order to be able to accomplish what we want to and measure these things. But I'm just telling you, I don't think n I don't think it's fair to take a disproportionate amount of those off-site improvements and attribute it to a project like Ave Maria or other projects that happen out there. As it relates to the DCA, there's been a few comments that I've heard that in some way I guess the thoughts are that Collier County didn't come out with the agreement that it should have. I can tell you from our standpoint, you know, we feel that we are doing more, you know, perhaps than we should be doing. So I guess that's the mark of any good negotiated agreement, if both parties feel that, you know, they left something on the tablc. And, you know, as it goes forward on DCA, the same thing is going to have to happen. We're going to just look closely at these things and we're going to have to come to win/win situations in order for these projects to be able to move forward. One other point was made about panther crossings. And one aspect, one significant aspect of the panthcr protcction agrccmcnt that wc're putting in place, the landowners and the environmental groups, is to create a fund. And one of the significant or vcry high important areas that this fund will be used for is for those panther crossings. So there again, if we can keep this program voluntarily incentive based and the program moves forward, I think we will have that funding to be able to put those panther crossings into place. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And Brian, let's go back to your first comment. Page 26 16 I I'" A " ~ February ~009 I think you missed my point. It had nothing to do with the FlAM, had nothing to do with Ava Maria's deals and DCA's and everything they got in place. What they got in place, Collier County needs to honor and we need to continue with it just like we always have. I have no question about that at all. That was the only example we have unfortunately is Ave Maria. What I was trying to say is if Tanunie's language in the first sentence where it says, it is recognized that the SRA development in the RLSA may generate surplus revenues to Collier County, I want -- my concern was that that sentence cannot be based solely on the SRA's FIAM, because there are other extenuating circumstances that don't take into consideration the taxpayers cost that aren't on the FIAM, and they shouldn't be, and you guys shouldn't be responsible for them. Never was insinuating you should be responsible for more than you are. All I'm trying to say is that when you calculate that sentence, which has nothing to do with your calculation, really, you can't rely solely on your calculation. That's the only point I was trying to make in that, and that's what my concern was with the way the paragraph was written. So it wasn't specific about an FIAM for an SRA. Here we go with acronyms again. FIAM is the financial impact analysis model and SRA is stewardship receiving area. So that's what I was getting at, Brian. It wasn't -- and unfortunately when we have to talk about only one project, Ava Maria's name's going to come up as an example of possibly how this could apply. But I wasn't suggesting that you need to have more on your FlAM, that's certainly not the case. MR. GOGUEN: Okay. And I appreciate that clarification. And as it relates to as we get more into the details of what Tanunie talked about and these economic development zones, I do think we have to keep in mind, because sometinles there is a timing difference as it relates to it. Sometimes, you know, major portions of infrastructure like Oil Well Road have to be put into place, but I don't think we can lose sight of the fact that we need to diversity our economy and we do need to develop a sustainable source of funding in order to be able to invest now in the things that we're going to need, you know, for the future. So I agree with you, we're going to have to work through those details. THE COURT REPORTER: Could you spell you name, please? MR. GOGUEN: Bill Goguen. G-O-G-U-E-N. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Any other questions on Page 61'1 Tanunie, did you have something you wanted to -- MS. NEMECEK: Just as a follow-up. Thank you, Chairman Strain. The idea here is that we figure out a mechanism in which we can develop sustainable ways of funding our economic diversification efforts here in the community, particularly if we're going to be competitive in order to do this. If there is a way that you say that this community itself is showing that there's a positive impact through that analysis, granted that there's other costs that have to be borne to build that road. But those are being borne by those other developments that are going to impact that road, correct? CHAIRMAN STRAIN : Yes. MS. NEMECEK: Okay. So if we are going to say that we want to induce some revenue generation opportunities for the community through the development ofthese business parks, research parks and having these high-tech companies here that will help balance out the residential tax base to the commercial tax base, because if we're overly dependent on residcntial development and that's the only thing that we have in these developments, the fact of the matter is no matter how much money you want to charge, you're still not going to have enough to be able to sustain the community. So I guess there's a -- the mechanism still needs to be worked on and we've got a group that's working on that right now. But I guess I don't want to throw the baby out with the bath water in this discussion in saying let's figure out the mechanism by which we can do this as a needed piece of quite Page 27 1611 A6" February 5, 2009 frankly infrastructure for this community so that we're not overly dependent on residential development in order to sustain us, but we actually have places where we have businesses, they're generating positive revenue generation for this community tax base, for this community that actually helps to fund those roads, rather than relying on the homeowners to be able to do that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I learned something yesterday from someone who told me that residential is actually a negative to the tax base. That someone was you. MS. NEMECEK: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And that's exactly where I'm getting at. When you said it was a negative to the tax base and you had a ratio, that applies to all elements, not just those within the FlAM analysis. And that's the point I was trying to make with your reference to how we calculate surplus revenues. And that will come out of the wash in the data and analysis I'm sure as this time goes on, but that's something I'll be looking for and it's something that staff now has a heads-up for. Thank you. MS. NEMECEK: Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Gary? MR. EIDSON: Yes, a thought that came to mind. And this is word-smithing. But where it says it's recognized, I was thinking that you -- if that was just changed to say in the event instead of that it's recognized, it changes the whole tone of that sentence, that thought. And then you go further down and you put a comma after Collier County, and eliminate the "and", and it says, Collier County may choose. What you're doing is you're creating an atmosphere that's more of consideration than of fact. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That second comma what is it you were referring-- MR. EIDSON: Well. you're counting down there, it says may generate surplus revenues to Collier County, comma, Collier County may then choose to allocate. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I think any changes that -- I mean, that's a positive change. We ought to -- they certainly ought to be considered. MR. EIDSON: Yeah, I just n I threw that in because I can sense where there's a wall in this discussion. And that might just breach the wall a little bit so that we can make it a little more open. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. Appreciate it. Okay, we've got -- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I have a 61. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, Brad, go ahead. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Bottom of 61 where essentially I guess what we're saying is that in the old program you needed eight, now you're going to need 10. And where sending areas were vested under the eight. So if you came into the program assuming eight was enough, is that what that's meaning? I mean, that bottom thing. MR. McDANIEL: That was our attempt there. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. Is there a way we could like establish a date? Wouldn't it -- in other words, we don't need 10 until this comes into effect, correct? MR. McDANIEL: And that's pretty much the way it was worded. Because there again, there's really -- it's difficult to determine when this -- when the new, if you will, rural land stewardship overlay is in tact going to be adopted. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: But we could put a placeholder with a date, which I think might make that easier. MR. McDANIEL: You're grabbing at straws, Mr. Schiffer. I mean, at some stage of the game, depending on the entire process -- and that was one -- I mean, we talked about that at length. And rather than to try to pick a date of specificity and a timeline that folks have to necessarily gear to, the language Page 28 1611 A6 February 5, 2009 here allows for it to transition as the ultimate adoption of the program is put in place. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: When I say a placeholder, I don't mean put an actual date. We could put a parenthesis this will be the date that the thing comes into effect. Because I think that makes it clearer to people that from that date forward that things change. The vested means somebody's got to go back and investigate vested. But that's just my thought. I think a milestone that's a point in time is better than a milestone that's a concept. MR. McDANIEL: And my only response to that, and again, you all are welcome to make any suggestions that you wish, is that when things like those suggestions get inlplemented into the program, it then becomes a perception as some of the information that was disseminated prior to the existence of the initial Rural Land Stewardship Overlay plan with respect to percentages and ultimate credits. And if that gets into print, someone potentially could hang their hat on it and it could be a misleading statement or a guise of such in the future. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I'm not sure of that, but-- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I think some of the recommendations we made previously may make that eight to 10 credits something that has to be rethought out as they re-plan this. Because one of the suggestions this committee made previously, and we'll actually dwell on it more and debate it more, is just putting a cap on credits. And how those credits fallout can be jiggered any which way they want. They can go up, down, they can do whatever they want to do with them, allocate more for restoration. But you're not taking away any property rights by doing that, that have already been granted. And everybody can't be hurt by it any more than they were originally. So that might bc a safe way to consider something as we go down the future, but -- anything else, Brad, you wanted to bring up? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: No, I'm good, thanks. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: We're on Page 62. Actually, I've got a carryover fTOm 61 that goes to 62. lt's the same policy Brad was talking about. The last sentence on Page 61 says, opcn space in excess of the required 35 percent, as described in Policy 4.10 or for land that is designated for a public benefit use described in Policy 4.20 do not require the use of credits. Okay, so that means you can increase the open space but you don't have to use credits up. But if you look at that thought and go to 4.20, the acreage of a public benefit use shall count toward the maximum acreage limits described in Policy 4.7 but shall not count toward the consumption of stewardship credits. Now, am I to read this that in Policy 4.19 you refer to open space or land that is for public benefit use, do not require the credits. But in Policy 4.20, only the public benefit use shall not count to the maximum acreage limitation. So that means any excess open space will increase the maximum acreage computation. MR. McDANIEL: I believe that's correct. And that was encompassed in that 35 percent of open space definitions earlier. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And if you do more golf courses because you don't need credits for them and it doesn't -- and you can expand the development footprint, in essence you're encouraging the development footprint to go beyond the 45,000 acres. That's the way it reads to me, at least. And that's what concerned me. So anyway, that goes back to the use of credits and how we apply them. MR. McDANIEL: I can assure you it certainly wasn't our intent to imply that typc of a thought process. The goal was for the capping of the ultimate acreage, but yet allow for flexibility of utilization of Page 29 16 I 1 Febr~ry~ 20~9 those open spaces in relationship with the consumption of the credits. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, if you capped -- if you included open space in 4.20, along with the public benefit so that it is capped at the 45,000 acres, you would really be discouraging open space. Because then you've got a cap that's going to be used up by non revenue-generating land for the most part. So I understand why it came out this way, but I -- I'm worried now that the 45,000 acres becomes a whole heck of a lot more for every numbers of open space they want to increase for things like recreational areas, golf courses, who else knows what else could go under that -- MR. McDANIEL: And as I said last week, Mr. Strain, and I would suggest that -- I mean, these are all positive comments with respect to the potential of what in fact could happen. There are going to be additional review processes. We will have the benefit at the next go-around of seven years worth of experience on the EAR-based amendment cycle again when this program comes back, and we'll have that benefit. And we can certainly lay hands on, if you will, the potential for that if someone has abused that portion of the program to exceed the ultimate developable acreages out there. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And the only concern I have there is once given, it's very hard to take away. We have constant challenges with people who believe they have land use rights, and when you try to reduce those land use rights in some of our minds by saying you can't do something that you could do before, we ultimately get into arguments with that. So that's the only thing I was bringing that up for. Let's move on down through the rest of the policies, up to group five. I don't want to -- we'll stop at Policy 4.2.2. today. And we have one public speaker that needs to address us today, because she can't be here on our other two meetings. But let's first go through the rest of the four policies. Anybody have any issues with those? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Mr. Chair? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes. sir. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I just have a question. On the top paragraph -- and it's because the hole punch in my notebook went through this paragraph. What is -- there's some policies. It's 4.7, we crossed out 4.5. That's what's the next one? MR. McDANIEL: Looks like it jumped -- the hole punch went through everybody's book. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. 4.15.1'1 Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, any questions on the balance of the page? Go ahead, Mr. Midney. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: This is just kind of a reiteration again about the -- this would allow -- 4.21 one would allow two villages of not more than 500 acres within the ACSC. And that seems like too much development within the ACSC, which is supposed to be protected environmentally. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, previously it was two villages or CRD's and not more than 500, now it's saying two villages doesn't limit the CRD's. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: So you could wind up with two 500-acre villages there. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: What was your intention, Bill? MR. McDANIEL: Clarification, elimination of the hamlets, promotion of the CRD's, and limitation of ultimate development in the ACSC. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Wouldn't you be better off saying -- limiting the amount of SRA development and not referencing whether it's a CRD or village? Because the way this reads, it says, however, that CRD's or villages of not more than 500 acres each. MR. McDANIEL: And if I may make a suggestion, Mr. Strain. There are a lot of different ways of saying the same thing. And folks' opinion as to how much development is too much within the ACSC is really not part of what -- other than from a discussion standpoint, as to whether it's good or bad or how in fact you can say it. Page 30 16' P -::JA, 2009 We did the best we could at the committee level developing this language for the clarification and reducing the ambiguities. There's certainly a lot of different ways of saying the same thing. And you folks have done a phenomenal job in pointing out different ways that things can be stated for clarification purposes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. So Paul, your point was to clarity or to say that it's not acceptable having that many acreage in the ACSC? COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Yeah, because they're talking about stuff. They're saying well, it's not so bad if it's already predominantly cleared as a result of Ag. Group I or earth mining uses. What I'm saying is that Ag. I is less destructive to the panthers than large residential areas with -- including the essential services that would have to go in there too. So I would like to keep it as Ag. I and not have two large villages in there. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So you don't think there should be any SRA development in the ACSC? COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: No, CRD's, not villages. Eight 500 acres. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, that means you'd have five CRD's. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: You could. It doesn't mean you'd have to. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But then that triggers the problem that I brought up earlier. You start combining CRD's to avoid the triggering of the requirements of a village. And even if we didn't address that, I bet you DCA would. So that -- so if you have five CRD's, they're bigger than the village minimum, but they don't have to have the sustainability of a village. I'm not sure that's a better thing. But Tom, did you have something you wanted to contribute? MR. JONES: Sure. I was just c1aritying -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You always do, that's good. MR. JONES: Whether it's good or bad, I don't know. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Oh, no, it's -- MR. JONES: It's always good. As Bill stated, the committee's intent on Policy 4.21 was to just simply streamline it based on the fact that in earlier policy we had removed hamlets as a form of development as an SRA. The debate whether or not two villages or the existing language is appropriate or not, it is the existing language, it is the policies that were adopted and approved by DCA previously. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, the ditterence here is the way that reads. And I guess it goes back to the word-smithing that Bill talked about. It may need to be word-smithed a little bit, because the way this reads, you wouldn't be limited to just two villages of 500 acres, it would be whatever amount of CRD's could go in there as well. MR. JONES: Right. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Was that the intent of the committee? MR. JONES: No, that wasn't the intent of the committee. The intent ofthe committee was to eliminate the utilization of hamlets within the area of critical state concern. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I think we ought to first attempt to clean up the language, Paul, and then see how it rides when we go into our discussions on a motion -- or deliberations. Brad? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Because reading it, is it the intent that you can't have more than two villages, each of which can't be greater than 500 acres, and then unlimited CRD's? That's the way the-- isn't that the way -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah, so you'd have 1,000 acres potentially in villages and an unlimited number of CRD's. Page 3 1 1611 lh;~': 2009 COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And CRD's everywhere. MR. McDANIEL: Here again, that wasn't the n MR. JONES: Again, the intent of the committee was to elinlinate hamlets from the language. The unintended consequences that you'rc delivering up now are certainly reasonable from where you're sitting. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Well. we can format that in some recommendation. Gary? MR. EIDSON: Gary Eidson. Another thing to think about on a CRD is that a CRD could be an environmental group that's going in to work in that area. It could be a small cluster of, you know, types of homes or whatever that would accommodate that. And I know that discussion was had. I don't know how deep we went into it. And I do know that certainly an agreement about cleaning up the hamlet language, because we had to go through and do that a lot. So in your deliberations you might think about the fact that it would be prudent to have some -- it might be prudent to have some type of development in that area that would accommodate, you know, those things that we're most concemed about from an environmental standpoint. So I would say tread carefully. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: I have no objection to the CRD's, it's just the two villages of 500. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I think what we ought to do is attempt to clean the language up, and then when we go into discussion, we can refine that -- the quantity, if that's the desire of the board. So first the language ought to be fixed, and we can do that when we get into deliberations. That takes us to the end of the policies, Policy 4. I'd like to stop there and first get any kind of public comment on the remaining of the items on Policy 4, if there is any, and then we have one public speaker on an item on Policy 5 that she needs to address while she's here today. Nicole? MS. RYAN: Nicole Ryan, Conservancy of Southwest Florida. First on Policy 4.19. The Conservancy has been very concerned about the need to increase the number of credits for each acre of development, because that's based on again infusing more credits into a system and then devaluing the credits by requiring more of them for each acre of development. We very much support exploring the Planning Commission's idea of capping the credits at what the program currently allows and then providing for some redistribution of how those credits are assigned so that we can preserve more ago lands in appropriate areas, wc can provide for corridors. We believe that that really is the solution that will protect cnvironmental resources, agricultural resources. And also in looking at DCA's initial comments on the Florida Panther Protection Plan, which also had in it one of its elements, this 45,OOO-acre cap and the introduction of more credits. Their initial comment was that, quote, an increase in development rights available for transfer raises questions about the adequacy of current development potential, justification for additional land use allocation, consequences on the footprint of development and urban sprawl, and public facility impacts. We recommend that you work within the extent of development rights currently available for transfer. So we see what you'rc proposing as consistent with what DCA was also suggesting. And a comment on Policy 4.21. The Conservancy believes that all SRA's should be moved outside of the ACSC. This is some ofthc most environmentally sensitivc land in the county. It doesn't contain all of it but it does contain a good quantity of it. lt's primary panther habitat. It's also the land that is furthest away from our current urban area, from urban services. If you're going to have SRA's, you're going to have to be building road networks and providing infrastructure for these areas that are very, very far away. So we had advocated and still support removing all SRA's from the ACSC, having that land be part Page 32 16 I r'" FA45,2009 of some sort of agricultural preserve category. Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Nicole, part of the argument here is that there are some -- and it's the acreage that Mr. Midney focused on. It says, provided, however, that CRD's or two villages of not more than 500 acres each, exclusive of any lakes, created prior to June 30th, 2002 as a result of the mining operation shall be allowed in areas that have a frontage on State Road 29. So the way I'm reading that is wherever this mining operation is, it's already spoiled the land, and that's the land that can be used, not to exceed the areas for villages of up to 500 each. Is that the way that reads? MS. RYAN: Well, I think that one of the concerns about having it even focused on an area where you have a former mine pit is that the development doesn't just impact the development footprint. You're going to have to be providing roads to get out there. There are going to be impacts from that. And also impacts to the environment from intensitying that use from any current uses to a new town. Lighting, you know, light pollution, noise pollution, those sorts of things. So we see it as an impact not just to the footprint but to essentially the entire area. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. Any other public speakers on Policy 4'1 Group 4 policies. Okay, Allen? MR. REYNOLDS: Good morning. For the record, Allen Reynolds with Wilson-Miller, representing the Eastern Collier Property Owners. In your discussion about the open space as it relates to the acreage cap, I want to make sure that the -- that it's clear. A common understanding of growth management plans is that you have to read the policies in their entirety to get the final interpretation. So arguably you have to go to a couple of places to get to the conclusion. The conclusion is, is that any open space within an SRA does counts towards the 45,000-acre cap. And the way that you get there is if you look at Page 59, under Policy 4.10, it makes it clear that open space is part of an SRA under that particular policy. If you go to Page 56, you'll see -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Wait. MR. REYNOLDS: Go ahead. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Let's go back to 4.10. Where does it say that in 4.10? MR. REYNOLDS: No, I'm not on -- 4.10, you are discussing the open space as to whether or not that counts as part ofthe acreage cap. 4.10 is related to the public benefits. So what I'm trying to do is answer your question as to whether or not excess open space can cause you to exceed the 45,000-acre cap. I think that's where you were concerned. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, the only n but you said -- and I'm not trying to find fault with what you're saying, I want to make sure I understand what you're saying. So you referred us to 4. 1 0 by saying that open space is part of an SRA, right? Is that what you said? MR. REYNOLDS: Correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Is this the open space that's defined as open space? Because it's not capitalized, and so I wasn't sure what they -- it just says open space adequate to serve the forecasted population and uses within the SRA is provided. By the mere fact that the open space, which by definition shall include public and private conservation lands, undeveloped areas and designated SSA's, agriculture, water retention and management areas and recreation uses. So you're saying all those are part of the SRA. And if you cap the SRA at 45,000 acres, these then are part ofthat cap? Page 33 1611 A6 February 5, 2009 MR. REYNOLDS: No, you have to read those two sentences separately. The first sentence is talking about open space within the entire RLSA overlay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. MR. REYNOLDS: Okay, so that includes SSA's, agricultural areas, those kinds of uses. Then if you read the next sentence it says, to ensure that SRA residents have such areas proximate to their homes, open space shall also comprise a minimum of 3 5 percent of the gross acreage of an individual SRA. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. MR. REYNOLDS: And then it goes on to say, as an incentive to encourage open space, such uses within an SRA exceeding the required 35 percent shall not be required to consume stewardship credits. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. MR. REYNOLDS: But it still counts towards the acreage. The only thing that you're -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: What about the 45,000 cap? MR. REYNOLDS: Okay. Well, if you go now to policy -- on Page 56, Policy 4.2, up at the top it says, total SRA designations shall bc a maximum 01'45,000 acres. CIIAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Then how does that comport with the sentences that I read where in Policy 4.19 it references to both open space and land for public benefit do not require credits. But in 4.20 it only said acreage of public benefit usc does not count. Why wouldn't you say acreage for public benefit use and open space? MR. REYNOLDS: You could say that. That would be fine to say that, because it's accurate. What I'm pointing out is that it is alrcady covered by other policies. If you want to make it, you know, clear to put it in there, that would be perfcctly fine. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, so the 45 -- MR. REYNOLDS: I just didn't want you to think that the open space feature allowed you to go beyond 45,000 acres of SRA's, because it doesn't. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, that's fine. And if that clarification be added to 4.20, that does help if we were to use the 45,000 acres as a cap in lieu of the credits. MR. REYNOLDS: Yeah, I think that would be a good suggestion. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Thank you. MR. REYNOLDS: You're welcome. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Before we go to the young lady who's been waiting all this time to talk with us, is there any other Group 4 policies? Tom, you jumped up. MR. JONES: I did. And I'd like to make this comment as a representative of a landowner in Eastern Collier, not on behalf of the committee, if I may. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. MR. JONES: And the only reason I'mjumping up here is because my colleague and friend Russell Priddy is not here today. And I think with respect to any comments made to the area of critical state concern, he would have been out of his chair rather quickly, because he and his wife's family, with the exception of approximately 300 acres, all their landholdings are within the area of critical state concern. And when the initial program was set up, it was voluntary, it is incentive based. We also recognize that even though there is an area of critical state concern designation, it does not preclude development within the area of critical state concern, when it was established or even today. Recognizing that, when we went through the NRI scoring and those types of exercises in the initial program for three years to set up the initial program ovcr a three-year period of time, there were areas that were deemed suitable for potential development under the criteria that was established. Page 34 16' M:ruaA,Qo9 Recognizing that there are open designated areas within the area of critical state concerns, we set up criteria that, you know, it had to be developed with credits generated from with inside the area of critical state concern. So we did to an extent -- we acknowledged that there are concerns with that area, but we also recognize that people have legal rights to develop within the area of critical state concern under that designation that was established by the state. If anybody -- if anybody wishes to propose carte blanche no development within the area of critical state concern, then I think one, you have to address the statute itself which does allow for it. And secondly, on behalf of landowners within the area of critical state concern, if you're going to say they can't develop their properties, then I think the second part of the sentence needs to be how are you going to compensate those landowners within the area of critical state concern? Because now you're not talking about a voluntary incentive-based program, now you're talking about a regulatory program that has stripped the ability of people to develop lands that they have rights to develop today. What we attempted to do back -- from the committee's perspective what we've attempted to do is try to dis-incentivize development within the area of critical concern through the creation of the agricultural preservation credits. That's how we're trying to keep it in line with a voluntary incentive-based program. And as I said earlier in my comments, that 2.6 was developed among conversations of a number of landowners who felt yeah, it probably is enough. Now, did we all sign papers and say it was and we weren't going to do it? No, that didn't happen. But we think we reached a consensus where it does incentivize -- or it does dis-incentivize development. So thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, Tom, we don't want to leave any stone unturned. MR. JONES: I'm sure you don't. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And the stone ofMr. Priddy, and he has very exciting discussions with us, so -- MR. JONES: He certainly does. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- you can tell him the next time he shows up, we can certainly go back and revisit his concerns on this policy, because we don't want to leave anybody out of the picture. MR. JONES: And I can appreciate that, but Ijust couldn't sit still with Russell not being here and making some comment with respect to Mr. Midney's comments. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, you and he certainly have different styles. MR. JONES: Yes, we do. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So with that, I think we're going to end the Group 4 policy discussions. Did you have something else you wanted to add, Bill? MR. McDANIEL: I did, sir. And if you would like, this has to do more from a public perspective than the committee's perspective, and it relates directly to a conunent that you made to Nicole while she was up there with respect to the existing mining operation. It is on Mr. Priddy's land. And I would caution you that there are a lot of perspectives as to what spoiled in fact means in relationship to a particular mining operation. There's no one that will argue the fact that there are impacts that are associated with it, but I just would respectfully request consideration with definitions in relationship to especially for me something that's near and dear to my heart. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, no problem. Thank you, Bill. Now, for the patience, and you'll have to state your name for the record. And I know you've been very patient attending our meetings, and I want to thank you. I hope they've been enjoyable, but I doubt -- I wouldn't want to go that far. Page 35 1 6 I t:b:uary~J?09 MS. HIRSCH: I like talking here. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Your issue is one that's going to be coming up, and I understand you won't be able to be here. It's Policy 5.7, which is a policy that gets into the issue of the dark skies and lighting. So please go ahead. MS. HIRSCH: Dorothy Hirsch. And I enjoy watching you and listening to you, and thank you for your service, actually. I won't be able to be here, honestly, because I will be with my daughter while she has another round of surgery for her breast cancer, so I honestly can't be here. But it brings me here all the same. I started to get interested in night light or dark sky about a year ago and started to study it, its effect on human health and wildlife health. There's a great deal of scientific data out there that is beginning to lead to the conclusion that light at night affects the circadian rhythm of both humans and wildlife. For humans this means that our ability for our brain to make melatonin, which is very important for our sleep, is disrupted. And that in turn disrupts our hormone levels, potentially causing breast cancer and prostate cancer in humans. And these studies for the last year have been increasing and so has the science. So my concern is that we have an opportunity here to look at these new communities that will be developed, and put in lighting that not only reduces light pollution in the sky, or certainly half this country can no longer see the Milky Way at night. But more importantly, the health of human beings, as these studies become more and more obvious that may be very prove-able that they are increasing in younger adults breast cancer and prostate cancer. So I would ask you to set a standard that when a new town is built, that we look at the International Dark Sky Organization and whatever standard it may have out on an international level. And this translates all the way back to lighting in our neighborhoods, whether it's from streetlights that light trespass onto our homes and the side of our homes and into our windows. Light should be directed where it's going to be used, not where it's not going to be used. As well as new homes that are being built are lighting up their homes like hotels. And increasing the light around them, shining into others homes. Also, you can take it into the business communities, especially where we're starting to put condos on top of those, the exposure that these people have to a great deal of night life --light, excuse me. Also, shift workers, I mean, that's a whole issue that is really being investigated, that people that are exposed to work at night are definitely having increases of both breast caneer and prostate cancer. But of course what you can really effect is the light that is out in the neighborhoods and on the streets and in the business communities. And [ will leave one article that came out from Science News, and it's just touching on the issue. And [ will leave that for a quick read tor you. You can go to internationaldarkskies.org and they have lots of information, including a lot of the standards that we could just use right from their website. The other issues, you can also Google breast cancer and nightlight, and there's an enormous amount of information on that that will pop up. If you can take the intense technical reading, it's very informative and very scary. The other issue, when you talk about animal life which I feel is very important, whether it's also down to insects, they are being affected. And when animals and insects are being affected, as well as the little sea turtles, we know that it's going to have some kind of effect on humans. The little night -- the f1ies that light up at night are actually disappearing because of so much light. Their little lights are how they mate, so they're greatly being affected. The other issue is you might want to -- if you can check out the November issue of National Geographic. I mean, there are a lot of prestigious magazines and newspapers that are now picking up on this. But they have a very widespread article on wildlife health. They do touch on human health, but they Page 36 1611 FebruJ,,609 have a wonderful article on wildlife health. So again, I would just ask you to please put this standard forward to our commissioners. It is the future. I think we will move there. And it will save on energy, if I must throw that out there as well. We waste -- residential and business placed an incredible amount of energy misdirecting light and having more light than they need. So we can reduce our carbon footprint out there by a huge, huge number. You would be surprised. But I thank you so much for letting me speak. Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, we really appreciate your pointing this issue out, because it is coming up on Policy 5.7. And by telling us today, we will have ample time to go look at internationaldarksky.org, and we will probably have a lively discussion when we get to Policy 5.7 because of you, so thank you very much. MS. HIRSCH: Well, thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Appreciate it. Anybody have any questions? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: If there are no other questions, we need a motion to continue this meeting to February 20th at I :00 in the afternoon at the community developmental services building on Horseshoe Drive. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: So moved. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Vigliotti made the motion. Is there a motion? COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Second. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Second by Mr. Midney. This meeting is hereby continued to that date. All in favor, signity by saying aye. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Aye. COMMISSIONER MORRAY: Aye. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Aye. COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: Aye. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye. COMMISSIONER CARON: Aye. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I assumed you all would. So we're done. ***** There being no further business for the good of the County, the meeting was adjourned by order of the Chair at II :49 a.m. Page 37 These minutes approved by the board on corrected --, "n) . .- ,~ ..., -(,) I 16 I lebru~,60~' COLLIER COUNTY p~"AfING C5M~ISSION VV~u.l\1 j~~~ MA STRAIN, Chairman as presented v or as Transcript prepared on behalf of Gregory Reporting Service, Inc., by Cherie' R. Nottingham. Page 38 j Fer(Fll"iQ~ 7 TRANSCRIPT OF THE MEETING OF THE _ CONTRACTORS' LICENSING BOARD i'~ C'r:iVt:::.u OF COLLIER COUNTY 'C" ' '-.09 . Fiala ~ -/ iV1i\;~ 2 U LU Naples, FlorIda Hala~ '~ / "9/ .,,, l > "nn1I'5<onOI'" February 18 2009 Henning -r: ::;7 , Coyle v- Coletta ~ LET IT BE REMEMBERED, that the Contractor Licensing Board, in and for the County of Collier, having conducted business herein, met on this date at 9:00 a.m. in REGULAR SESSION in Building "F" of the Government Complex, East Naples, Florida, with the following members present: CHAIRMAN: Richard Joslin Michael Boyd Eric Guite' Lee Horn Terry Jerulle Thomas Lykos ALSO PRESENT: Patrick Neale, Attorney for the CLB Robert Zachary, Assistant County Attorney Michael Ossorio, Contractor Licensing Supervisor Page 1 Misc. COrTes Date: i{) ..{ Item #..l.l2lL! ~opleS to. 16Ffbfary W'fDf CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: I'd like to call to order the February 18th, 2009 meeting of the Collier County Contracting Licensing Board. Any person who decides to appeal a decision of this board will need a record of the proceedings pertaining thereto and, therefore, may need to ensure that a verbatim record of the proceedings is made, which record includes that testimony and evidence upon which the appeal is to be based. To open the meeting, I'd like to start with roll call starting to my right. MR. JERULLE: Terry Jerulle. MR. L YKOS: Tom Lykos. MR. JOSLIN: Richard Joslin. MR. BOYD: Michael Boyd. MR. GUITE': Eric Guite'. MR. HORN: Lee Horn. CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: Thank you all, gentleman, for showing up today and making it almost a full board. Any additions or deletions to the agenda, staff? MR. JACKSON: Staff has no changes to the agenda. CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: Very good. All right, gentleman, if all the board members have read the last month's minutes of last month's meeting. MR. L YKOS: Well, how about if! make a motion to approve the agenda. CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: Okay, if you'd like to do that. MR. GUITE': I'll second it. CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: Got a motion and a second. All in favor? MR. BOYD: Aye. MR. GUITE': Aye. MR. JERULLE: Aye. CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: Aye. MR. L YKOS: Aye. Page 2 l~lryf ;~807 1 MR. HORN: Aye. CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: Any opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: Motion carries. And now we'll go to the approval of the minutes. If everyone has read them. Any changes or deletions or additions anyone noticed? MR. GUITE': I'll make a motion to approve. CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: We've got a motion. MR. BOYD: Second, Boyd. CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: Second, Mr. Boyd. All in favor? MR. BOYD: Aye. MR. GUITE': Aye. MR. JERULLE: Aye. CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: Aye. MR. L YKOS: Aye. MR. HORN: Aye. CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: Any opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: Motion carries. Under discussion. I suppose, Mr. Ossorio, you're going to present this end of the month report? MR. OSSORIO: Good morning, Mr. Chairman. Michael Ossorio, Contracting Licensing Supervisor. Over the last couple of months I've been telling the board that we're going to be giving you an update, a monthly update. I know that we've been doing a yearly update, but I figure that since you make recommendations to the Board of County Commissioners referencing our fees and how we regulate our fees, I thought we should at this time give you a monthly report. And with that, it is what it is, and I have no questions other than to tell you that we're looking at October, November, December and Page 3 1611 'IA 1e~ary 18,2009 January for this year. So -- CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: Looks like it's been a sizeable amount of dollars and cents have gone through. You guys must be busy in the field, huh? MR. OSSORIO: We do. I think we've issued -- we're referencing issuing about 75 citations a month. And with that, we bring people in compliance. In other words, if they're not licensed, they come take the exam, get the books and we process them for a new license. CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: So in the future what we're going to see is a monthly report each month for each meeting? MR. OSSORIO: Every month. CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: Every month. MR. OSSORIO: Until you get tired of looking at it and tell me you don't want to see it anymore. CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: No, that's fine, I like to see it. MR. L YKOS: Thank you. CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: All right, next item on the agenda is your annual ethics coverage for the Sunshine Law. Gentlemen, this is all in your packets this month. And this is the code of ethics for Collier County and the Florida Commission on Ethics. Just so that you're aware that there are some things that you can and cannot do. Some things that are listed in here are for all the advisory boards that service Collier County and all of its different boards. I suggest that you take a moment out of your time and try to read through this and just get some of the ideas as far as things that you can and cannot say. If you have any questions, feel free to call Mr. Neale on his phone, cell phone, probably, because he'll answer those questions for you, I'm sure. MR. NEALE: I'll be glad to. CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: Any other questions on that? Page 4 February 18, 2009 (No response.) 16 rr A 7-' CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: All right, we'll move right along. We'll go into new business. MR. NEALE: Mr. Joslin? CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: Yes. MR. NEALE: One suggestion I'd like to make just before we get into new business is that -- because I think everyone knows Mr. Dickson resigned as a member of the board over the past month. CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: Yes. MR. NEALE: And because of his long service, I'd just suggest that the board possibly recognize that and maybe recognize him in a letter or something like that going forward. CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: Okay. Is there a letter that can be transposed? You want me to make it up or do you want to write it out and I'll send it? MR. NEALE: You know, I'd be happy to take a shot at it and maybe have you and the board endorse it. Because, you know, Mr. Dickson did serve for a long time. And I think all of us greatly appreciated and respected his knowledge and support of the board, so CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: That is correct. Those of you who don't know Mr. Dickson, he's been on this board for approximately 20 years, and I served under him as vice chair for 10 of those years. And unfortunately Mr. Dickson had to resign due to some issues that he didn't feel comfortable with being on the board or couldn't be on the board any longer. He's going to be a body on the board that -- for a roofing contractor that's going to be very highly missed for sure because of his input and because of his knowledge of the trades that he has presented. And also as chairman, being able to carry on the meetings in a manner that kept the meeting flowing, in which I'm going to try to take this spot and try to do the same. Page 5 16/."'1~"1l February'fS, 2fl[)1f Anyway, I would appreciate that letter, that would be very nice. And I commend Mr. Dickson for all the years of his service. MR. OSSORIO: Mr. Chairman, while we're on the subject of Mr. Dickson, Mr. Herriman has e-mailed me this morning, and he has sent his letter of resignation as well. He has some personal issues he has to take care of. With that said, we need a consumer. I'll be talking to Mrs. Filson today. Tomorrow, I believe, the 19th will be Mr. Dickson's postings. So if any contractor out there wishes to serve on this licensing board, can make application to the Board of County Commissioners under the manager's office. CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: All right. So that means on the board right now we are short three members? MR. OSSORlO: Two consumers, one contractor. CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: All right. Maybe I'll put out to the City of Naples, I believe that's one of them, and also City of Marco, that's another one, as well as a contractor in Collier County, that the minutes can read that we're going to try to go through some chain of commands here so we can try to get someone to approve getting someone on the board from either City of Marco or City of Naples. If that can't be done, and if they don't find anyone, possibly we can go into the Collier County area and try to find someone to replace the members on the board. We do need a full board. And if there's no one available to serve from those two cities, then I think it would be good to try to get someone in the county. MR. OSSORlO: I know that -- I did get a communication from the City of Naples, and they are going to recommend or they have recommended reappointment of Eric Guite' to the licensing board, and then it gets final approval from the Board of County Commissioners. I know that the City of Naples has been working very hard on getting a consumer for a replacement of Ann Keller. That has failed, in my opinion. It's been over six months. Page 6 l"I."'A- February "(8,2809 , MR. JOSLIN: Or longer. MR. OSSORIO: I was hoping to get some guidance from Pat Neale or Robert Zachary and see if we can divert it and maybe send a letter to the City of Naples and see if they can't find it, maybe they defer to us so we can advertise it through Collier County and see what we can catch. CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: Does that sound like something that, Mr. Neale, you could handle for us, or at least start the process rolling? MR. NEALE: Sure. MR. L YKOS: I'll also have-- MR. NEALE: I'll contact the City of Marco as well. City of Naples and City of Marco. MR. OSSORIO: Please. MR. L YKOS: I'll also have an e-mail go out to all the CBIA members, there's obviously a collection of contractors there, and I'll make sure we get the word out to CBIA. MR. OSSORIO: I think that getting a replacement for, you know, a contractor is going to be very simple. I mean, I've already had communication with six or seven contractors who want to get on this licensing board. So we'll work it through it. CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: It appears to be that the consumers is a problem, or the area that we're short on. MR. L YKOS: If I understand right, the consumer cannot have any affiliation with our industry, correct? MR. OSSORIO: That's correct. CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: Right. Okay, moving right along then, open new business. Is there a Damarys Silva here? (No response.) CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: No. Okay, I'm going to just table this for a moment and then I'll put it on the back page and maybe she'll show up in the future. Maybe traffic. Page 7 How about a Michelle Ughi? MS. UGHI: (Indicating.) CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: Would you please come to the podium, please, and be sworn in. (Ms. Ughi was duly sworn.) CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: Ms. U ghi, it appears that you were given a citation here some time ago and you are contesting the fact of why you received it? MS. UGHI: Yes. CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: Would you like to bring the board-- advise and explain what your situation is? MS. UGHI: I tried to summarize my position in a letter. I'm not sure if you have received it. But basically I had -- I'm new to contractor license. I had renewed -- I had been given notification in the mail and renewed my business license and thought that that included everything. And on the day that I found out that that wasn't the case, because I received a letter from the Contracting Licensing Board that my license would be suspended because I hadn't renewed with them, I immediately went in to the office to find out what paperwork I needed to file. At the same time that I was doing that, a painting job that I had, had gotten the citation. And you'll see with the dates that the same day that I went to the contracting office -- I was able to get all my paperwork together and by that afternoon I was able to submit everything and they cleared my license. I think that would be the expression, cleared my license. So I was just respectfully asking if I could be excused from paying the ticket. CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: Okay. This is a pressure washing and painting license; is that correct? MS. UGHI: Yes. February 18,2009 161'1"A7~ Page 8 Februat ~8!!: ~ 7 CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: Okay, at this time, it looks like Karen Clements, you were the one that issued -- officer that issued the citation. Would you come up, please, and explain what went on that day. MS. CLEMENTS: Yes, I was on my patrol and came across -- THE COURT REPORTER: I'm sony, may I swear you in first, please. (Speaker was duly sworn.) MS. CLEMENTS: I saw the Classic Painting van and so I stopped and put it into my computer and it came back that the license was canceled. I went up to the door and talked to the gentleman that was doing the painting, let him know that the license was canceled. And at that point I gave the citation. CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: On that note, did -- you mentioned that someone else was doing the work other than Mrs. Ughi, correct? MS. CLEMENTS: Right. It was Reuben Rivera. CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: Is this a license, staff, that would nominally have to have insurance of some type in order to cover someone's pressure washing? MR. OSSORIO: If your painting's considered construction, you would need workers' compo or have to have an exemption of 10 percent ownership of the company. I believe there -- she does have a workers' compo policy. CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: You do? MS. CLEMENTS: But however-- MS. UGHI: I'm exempt, and I have a policy. MS. CLEMENTS: At the time it wasn't in effect. There was only a workers' compo So when I saw that there was someone else, and I checked on sunbiz.org, found out that he wasn't 10 percent of the company, there was a violation there also. I could have given two citations, I only gave him one. Page 9 Februa~~,.~ 7 CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: So at the time of the citation, then, there was no real workmen's compo policy in effect; is that the case? MS. UGHI: Possibly it wasn't on file, but it was in effect. MS. CLEMENTS: I actually a few weeks later in the same area found the same van again and stopped, and there still was no workers' compo in the system. I stayed at the job site about a half an hour to 40 minutes, waiting for it to get faxed over and it didn't. I did give Mr. Rivera the citation for not having workers' compo insurance, but since has been faxed in to us, so I voided that citation, the second one. CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: On the policy that you did finally receive, did it relate back to the date that the first ticket was issued? MS. CLEMENTS: Yes -- well, it was November 28th of2008. It just hadn't been in our system. CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: Okay. Just hadn't been placed in your system then. So technically then she did have insurance. MS. CLEMENTS: Right. MR. L YKOS: So this citation is for the license having gone suspended. MS. CLEMENTS: Right. It should have been renewed by September, and it lapsed. And I found them January 23rd, and the license had been canceled. Because after December they cancel all licenses that are not renewed. MR. L YKOS: So this license had been suspended for three months, four months, and canceled by the time that you visited the job site and found the workmen. So it doesn't appear that there's any problem with the workmen being covered by workers' compo or anything like that, this is really just an issue about the licensing having not been renewed and gone suspended at the time that you were on the job site and found the workmen. MR. OSSORIO: Mr. Lykos, you're mixing the terms. You have to renew your license September. October, November, December Page 10 t"., A 71 Februa~ ~,12~9 ' you're considered delinquent. Come January 1st, you are suspended. And then you have 12 months of suspension. And then the following January you're considered null and void. She wasn't properly registered, that's why we've issued her a citation. We've taken a proactive stance. And we didn't need to send out a suspension letter, but we did because we wanted to make sure everyone has the opportunity to renew the license, because there's lot of issues when you get null and void. She got the letter. She came right in. It's just one of those things that Karen was out there and saw them working without the license, and she was in the process of getting a license back. And it's one of those things, it happens. CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: Any suggestions from staff as far as the citations as it stands? MR. OSSORIO: Well, we like to be consistent. This is not uncommon. We've issued, I don't know, probably 20 or 30 citations for this very similar citation for a very similar violation, and they've all complied, so we take a neutral stance to this issue. MS. CLEMENTS: I was concerned because he was pressure washing a tile roof, and when I saw the license was suspended or canceled and no workers' compo insurance, that's a big red flag. CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: Sure, I can totally understand that. Ms. U ghi, you are aware now that as well as your business and tax license, you also have to register with Collier County to actually make your license valid. Your business tax is just a tax. MS. UGHI: Uh-huh, I'm -- CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: You're aware of that now? MS. UGHI: -- aware of that now, yeah. I honestly did not know that my license was in any other status other than active the last quarter of 2008. I thought that when I renewed my business tax, I was taking care of everything. And that's why as soon as I got the letter I went in to try to resolve it. Page 11 Febru!AJ. II A 7 CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: How many years have you had this license? MS. UGHI: Just about maybe a year and a few months. This would have been my first renewal period. CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: Your first renewal period. MR. OSSORIO: Mr. Chairman, just to let you know, every person that receives a certificate through our office, they get a letter from me personally explaining to them what they need to do every year. And it explains the difference between a business tax and when you have to renew your certificate with us. So every new contractor who gets a certificate gets a letter from me highlighting what they need to do every year. So she probably received it. Maybe she didn't read it or -- MS. UGHI: Yeah. MR. OSSORIO: -- something's happened, but we try to give them a heads-up and let them know when they need to renew their license. And plus on the license itself it has you have to renew it. CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: Yes. MR. L YKOS: Well, I'd be more lenient if this was something that happened right after it was suspended, so I'm going to make a motion that we uphold the citation. COMMISSIONER HORNIAK: Second, Horn. CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: I have a motion and a second on the floor. Is there any discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: I would just like to say, okay, first year in business and the first time that someone renews their license, sometimes there are bases that are missing. Sometimes there are things that you aren't aware enough to do it like the old seasoned people that have had their licenses for many years, you know what you have to do. Page 12 Februl~J~cA 7" There's no excuse, I understand, but I'd just like to have the board take into consideration that it is her first time being under penalty . And she did have workmen's compo insurance in place and it was just a matter of paperwork and not going down and paying the fee that it took to renew it. MR. JERULLE: I agree. In these economic times, I think we sit back and look at some of the circumstances surrounding some of these citations. Not saying that the citations are inappropriate at all. I think it's appropriate, I'm just wondering if we could look at the amount of the citation. Who sets the amounts? CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: I don't believe so. Mr. Neale, I believe you could-- MR. NEALE: The problem is -- not the problem, but the situation is that the statute prescribes that if the board finds the citation to be valid, that the minimum penalty that can be prescribed is the penalty set out on the citation. MR. JERULLE: So we cannot adjust it. MR. NEALE: You can adjust it up. MR. JERULLE: Then let me ask a question not pertaining to this. Who sets the amount of the citation when it was given? MR. OSSORlO: Under the contracting licensing ordinance, it says the first offense is a $300 fine. Second offense is 500. MR. NEALE: And the maximum under Florida statutes is 1,000. MR. JERULLE: So there's nothing we can do there. MR. BOYD: Did she not also pay an extra fee for renewing the license while it was suspended? MS. UGHI: Yes. MR. OSSORlO: Yes. She had to pay her fee and then she had to pay her penalties and then she came into compliance. Page 13 16P1"'A ~ February ~~009 MR. BOYD: So there is a penalty for -- MR. OSSORIO: There's a reinstatement fee. MR. BOYD: -- renewing late. MR. OSSORIO: There is a $10.00 fee per month for the first three months, which is a late fee. And then come January it's called a reinstatement fee. So it's not a penalty. It's not necessarily called a penalty under the fee schedule, it's just a reinstatement fee. MR. GUITE': Was she actually at the -- you know, with Maggie, trying to correct this when they issued the citation? As far as her letter goes, that's what I get out of it. MR. OSSORIO: I believe it's true. Because you just don't -- when you are suspended, it doesn't -- you just don't automatically come in and renew. There's steps you need to take. And she very well knows, you have to get a credit report on you and your business, fill the application out and reinstate. So you're absolutely right, she knew she wasn't in compliance of the day that there was the painting, but again she was trying to come into compliance, so -- CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: Okay, I've got a motion on the floor that Citation No. 4448, issued to Michelle Ughi, be upheld to the $300 fine. All those in favor of the motion, signify by saying aye. MR. HORN: Aye. MR. L YKOS: Aye. CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: All opposed? MR. BOYD: Aye. MR. GUITE': Aye. CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: Aye. THE COURT REPORTER: Mr. Jerulle? MR. JERULLE: I'm still thinking. To me this is a tough issue. They gave her a fine because she had a suspended license, and that's true and accurate. But she was down Page 14 ~~larl~ i~ .~ there the day, trying to make it right when she got the fine, correct? MS. CLEMENTS: She wasn't at the office at the time the citation was given, because I did call down to Maggie, and Maggie verified that the license was not active. MS. UGHI: I was at the office. I might have stepped out to call the credit company, but you could -- I'm not sure if I provided you with the backup, but I got in touch with the credit company on that day and then they were able -- they told me it was going to be a couple hour delay and they were able to process it for me on a rush, and it was done that afternoon. But the women in the office had explained to me that they could not take my application and put it on file until I had the credit application and all of the paperwork that need to be collected. MR. NEALE: If! may, just for the Board's guidance. 489.127 is the applicable statute here. And it's -- probably the one that's most applicable to this point is Subsection 2.D.3, which regards the hearing on citations of this type. And it says, if the person who issued the citation or his or her designated representative chose that the citation is invalid or that the violation has been corrected prior to appearing before the enforcement or licensing board or designated special magistrate, the enforcement or licensing board or designated special magistrate may dismiss the citation, unless the citation is irreparable or reversible. So there's a may in there that the board may dismiss. It's not mandatory that the board dismiss the citation, if it's shown that it is invalid or corrected. But the board has that latitude in the situation. CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: So at the moment, in favor, one more time. All in favor of this motion, signify by raising your hand. MR. JERULLE: (Indicating.) MR. HORN: (Indicating.) MR. L YKOS: (Indicating.) CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: Three in favor. Page 15 lklry~gJ 7 All of those opposed? MR. BOYD: (Indicating.) MR. GUITE': (Indicating.) CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: (Indicating.) Three opposed. MR. NEALE: Motion fails. CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: Motion fails. MR. OSSORIO: Mr. Chairman, I just wanted to clarify, the motion was to uphold the citation? CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: Correct. MR. OSSORIO: So it fails. So in other words, it stands as is-as MR. LYKOS: No. MR. OSSORIO: -- versus dismissing it. CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: Dismisses it. MR. L YKOS: Right. MR. NEALE: Dismisses it. CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: Right. Okay, you're free to go, and your citation has been released. MS. UGHI: Thank you very much. CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: Okay, the next case is a James F. Case. Are you present? MR. CASE: Yes. CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: Would you please come to the podium and be sworn in, please. (Speaker was duly sworn.) CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: Mr. Case, it appears that you are trying to qualify a second entity. MR. CASE: Yes. CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: You are -- own now Case and Sons, Inc.; is that correct? MR. CASE: Yes. Page 16 16 JeXa; Ai!OO\J CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: And you want to qualify your son, I assume. MR. CASE: Yes. CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: First question I have for you, how many sons do you have? MR. CASE: Two. CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: Two, okay. Would you please give us a little insight as far as why you're going to do this and what's going to -- MR. CASE: Relatively simple. The economy's terrible. My son lost his job. He needs work. I don't want to see him leave Naples. He's well known, well educated, ready to do the work. So we're trying somehow to get him to get going here in Collier County. I thought I could just simply put him underneath my license to prove that -- well, he's still on our Case and Sons directory board, my son and my wife and myself. But he wants to do a business on his own so that he doesn't implicate me. And he wants me to be a part of it but I can't do that until we're sure that it's okay with you guys that he works, and then we'll work out some kind of percentage down the road as we get gomg. So that's where I'm at, just trying to get him work. CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: What percentage of the new company are you going to own? MR. CASE: That's debatable right now, but I think we discussed 25 percent of it. I want him to have the bulk of it. MR. L YKOS: Mr. Ossorio, I didn't see any red flags in this packet when I went through it. Is there a recommendation from staff? MR. OSSORIO: Yeah, I recommend you approve Mr. Case's land -- are you unrestricted landscaping or restricted? MR. CASE: It's an unlimited -- MR. OSSORIO: Unlimited. Page 17 1 ~elJ~ j,1009 MR. CASE: -- license. Yeah, I've had it for 25 years or so. MR. OSSORIO: And that means your son will be unlimited as well. MR. CASE: Yes. So he can diversify if he needs to landscape or ifhe needs irrigation or whatever we have to go through permitting-wise. MR. OSSORIO: And within 24 months under your direction he can apply for his own license -- MR. CASE: Yes. MR. OSSORIO: -- and take the exam. MR. CASE: Yes. MR. OSSORIO: I have no problem. CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: I've looked at the packet. I see nothing. The credit app. is impeccable and the man seems to be in pretty good shape. I just need a motion. MR. L YKOS: I make a motion that we approve the request to qualify a second entity. MR. QUITE': I'll second. CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: I have a motion and a second. Any discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: No discussion, I'll call for the vote. All those in favor of granting this request to qualify the second entity, signify by saying aye. MR. BOYD: Aye. MR. GUITE': Aye. MR. JERULLE: Aye. CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: Aye. MR. LYKOS: Aye. MR. HORN: Aye. CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: Any opposed? (No response.) Page 18 161 '.A7'~ February 18, 2009 CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: So moved. Motion carries. MR. CASE: Thank you very much. CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: You're in business. Next we have a Wayne W. Womack. Request to reinstate the license without retesting. Corne up to the podium and be sworn in, please. (Speaker was duly sworn.) CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: Mr. Womack, you are (sic) a electrical contractor at some point? MR. WOMACK: That's correct. CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: And you are trying to reinstate your license without taking a new test. MR. WOMACK: That's correct. CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: It says here on our packet that you haven't used your electrical license since 2003. MR. WOMACK: That's correct. CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: And did you not put your license dormant or -- MR. WOMACK: Not to Collier County competency card. I kept my state part of the license up, I kept insurance. I didn't keep my workmen's compo because I was working under someone else's license. And just failed to keep the Collier County part up or put it on dormant. CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: This packet has a lot of flags in it. How long have you worked for the other company that you're working for now? MR. WOMACK: I'm not now. I'm laid off. I had worked for them for almost five years. CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: Does the board have any other questions regarding any other items in the packet? MR. JERULLE: If! understand this right, he wants to renew his license without taking the test? Page 19 1~' ''''1'7 ' ~ebrUary 1t,12009 CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: Correct. He was licensed as far back as 2003 and since then he hasn't been licensed in Collier County. MR. JERULLE: And we've had some code changes? MR. OSSORIO: What -- typically what happens in our -- in this particular case is that you have 18 months to renew your certificate. If you don't renew your certificate and you haven't taken the exam within three years, you have to reexamine and retest. But typically when we deal with state registration, pool, electrical, mechanical, whatever, state registered contractors, they tend to renew their license, their certificate with Tallahassee, their registration, and they have what you call continuing education. So if this is true, if his license is current with the state, his certificate, then he has done all the continuing educations, what he needs to do to be licensed for us. And this is not uncommon. We've seen four or five of these this year and last year. And we've granted them reinstatement without taking the exam, due to the fact that they have kept their state registration up current and active and kept their credit hours up. MR. NEALE: And Mr. Ossorio's making a point that this board has in the past where they've maintained their continuing ed. through the state have typically granted -- really what you're doing in this instance is you're not granting the license, what you're doing is waiving the requirement to retake the test. MR. GUITE': Have you taken your continuing education? MR. WOMACK: Yes. Yes. And there was a lot of those code changes in that continuing ed. As a matter of fact, that's about all there was this time. CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: It appears that when you had your license originally that you operated as Unique Lighting Design -- MR. WOMACK: That's correct. CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: -- is that correct? MR. WOMACK: That's correct. And I had gotten rid of that Page 20 16 f t.q A 7'-' february t 8, 2009 company name, the tax I.D. and everything. So I just wanted to bring it back under my name and, you know, just by myself without a company name. CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: Okay. In looking at the packet, I see a credit report here for Unique Lighting Design. MR. WOMACK: Yes. CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: That is most recent as January of'09. There are several items on your credit report reflecting some collections. MR. WOMACK: Okay. Are you looking at the alias name down there that Tallahassee gave me? Is that one of them? CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: I'm looking at Clyde W. Womack, under Unique Lighting and Design. MR. WOMACK: Okay. And the credit card? CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: Well, I've got three of them. One for Conserve for $625 -- $763 now. Gulf Coast Collections and Kansas Counselors. Professional Adjustment Company. You want me to go on? There's several. In '03 it appears that you had an original American Express that was current back in '03, '02, '05. These are showing up as recent, unless I'm reading this incorrectly. MR. WOMACK: I didn't bring it with me. CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: Are you aware of this, that it's on your credit report? MR. WOMACK: Some of that that's on my personal, one of them is I had a conflict from an apartment complex that we had over on the other coast that we moved out early on, we gave them the letters, all that kind of stuff. That one I know. A couple other ones were stemming from medical issues that, you know, our insurance said they paid, medical facilities says they was outstanding balances back and forth on that. And there's one against Unique Lighting and Design, a credit card, which the company Page 21 16 f .,. ~'" A 7 +-ebruary 18,2009 never had a credit card. And I wasn't aware that showed up till I got that credit report. Because the only credit I had when I was in business before was just with supply houses. CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: The biggest one that I see is a problem is one forNCO Financial for $13,000, almost. MR. WOMACK: I've got to the research that one, because right off the top of my head I don't know that one. That was on my personal, correct? CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: It's on the same application or it's on the same report under Unique Lighting or under Clyde W. Womack. Were you operating -- back then you were probably operating as a sole proprietor, is that what it was? MR. WOMACK: I started out that way. And the tax adviser said, you know, as I was bringing on more guys, that I needed to do an S Corp., so we did that. Like I said, the company never had any -- other than just working with supply houses, I never went and borrowed money; I never had any credit cards. CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: Pleasure of the board? MR. L YKOS: Well, you know, I always like to, when we get these credit reports, look and see what's going on with the mortgage. The mortgage is current. So it doesn't look like he has any real financial problems. He has a few items that looks like ifhe put his effort to it he could probably clean it up. But it looks like his primary credit accounts are current. And based on historical information, seems like we approve these based on the fact that he's kept his license current with the state. So I'll make a motion that we approve reinstating the license without testing. MR. GUITE': I'll second. CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: We've got a motion and second on the floor. Any discussion further? Page 22 16 ", "'" Il ~'1 F~rully 18, 2009 (No response.) CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: I'll call for the vote. All those in favor? MR. BOYD: Aye. MR. GUITE': Aye. MR. JERULLE: Aye. CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: Aye. MR. L YKOS: Aye. MR. HORN: Aye. CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: Any opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: Motion carries. You're all set. MR. WOMACK: Thank you, sir. CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: You're welcome. Try to get that cleaned up, though. That would be good for you to get that off your record. MR. WOMACK: Yeah, I definitely will check into that. Anything else? CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: That's all. You're free to go. A Mr. Robert Hammond, are you here? (No response.) CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: Mr. Hammond is not present. How about -- I'm sorry, how about Ms. Damarys Silva, are you here? MS. SILVA: Uh-huh. CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: Let's go back to this one. Okay, this is the first one. Would you come to the podium and be sworn in, please. (Speaker was duly sworn.) CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: Ms. Silva, you're here today to qualify your license or appeal for a license being approved due to your credit report? MS. SILVA: Yes. CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: You want to give us a little insight on Page 23 16 I ,,~", I 71 Fe'orua!)' 18, 2009 what's -- MS. SIL VA: Okay, my credit report. I have an investigator working on it. When I applied for the -- when I tried to apply for the license the first time, I went and took the test. Then they, in the package, told me that I had to ask for a credit report. I did. And I had three credit cards, which is the ones that come up in the collections, which is Victoria Secret, Capital lC. Penney and Target National Bank. And owe one of them, which is lC. Penney. Victoria Secret, I don't know what happened, I have been working on it. And Target National Bank also. When I pulled the first credit report in 2007, November 16th, I had a score of 481. I have had that investigator working on it since. And now the credit score went up. He's been able to take some stuff off that doesn't belong to my credit and it went up to 641. The two that I have left, you know, he hasn't been able to do anything. They haven't found any payments, any checks, nothing from myself, so I'm going to have to pay for it. And I'm willing to pay for it. The rest, it's just showing what I had before. And I had a car with my mom. We -- unfortunately we had to give it in. I lost my job and she went bankruptcy (sic), so they took that off. Which says P&L write-off. The only thing that shows on the second page, it's showing the balances for the other accounts that were closed. If you can see, Macy's was closed. I don't owe anything on that. They put zero, closed by credit granter. You know, it doesn't belong to me. And, you know, my credit's gotten better since I got that investigator working on it. And the other three cards that they can't do anything about it, I'm just going to have to pay for that. CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: The license that you hold right now is a cabinet license; is that correct? MS . SILVA: I'm sorry? Page 24 lRJu~~A~9 CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: The license that you have now is a cabinet license? MS. SIL VA: That's the one that I'm applying for, a cabinet license, installation, which falls on the granite. Because the main thing that we're going to do is a granite installation, which is granite tops, granite countertops. MR. OSSORIO: She's applying for a cabinet installation contractor, which is a -- also does countertops. She doesn't have her license, she's applied for one. And under the code, if a licensing supervisor is unable to come to a conclusion and the license seems to be in question for many different reasons, it gets forwarded to the licensing board. I did check her reference and that seemed to be fine, so the experience is there. But she does have some questions. Since she has no business credit, she has some issues with her personal credit, which gets forwarded to the board. CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: On this packet you have before us from Yera's Investigation Corporation, how long have they been researching this credit problem you have? MS. SILVA: Since 2007. Since I apply for the license and I discover that I needed a credit report, then when I pulled the credit report is when I noticed what was happening. So he started working on it and he's been doing a great job. The three that are in the front, those are the only ones that I'm going to have to pay for, because there's no way we can fix that. And I know that I owe J.e. Penney, but Target and Victoria Secret, I don't. But they've sent me letters. You know, they don't have any proof of me making payments on those cards. I never received a bill. So they have to fix it. And he's still working on it. But if we can do that, and if I have to pay for it in order to get my license and to become clear, then that's what I'll do. But I need the license, because we need to work. And, Page 25 161PA? F'~b-htary 18, 2009 you know, this is -- we've been trying to do this since '05, and now it's finally becoming, you know, a dream come true. CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: Any recommendations from staff? MR. OSSORIO: I recommend we approve it and six-month probation and then in six months let's see her credit. And if she pays off lC. Penney's within six months, I'll be fine with it. CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: Okay. Pleasure of the board, or is there a discussion? MR. L YKOS: Just a little thing, but the letter from Yero's Investigation Corporation, that letter's not dated. And I don't like a business that sends out a letter without a date on it. For all we know that's a two-year-old letter and there's no more effort being done to investigate your credit history. So I think whenever you come in front of the board again, I'd like to see some verification that this is an actual ongoing investigation -- MS. SILVA: Yes. MR. L YKOS: -- okay? MS. SILVA: Yes. CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: I think I would like to see it sooner than that. Probation, if we do grant this license for a six-month period, it would be six months before she appears before us again. And this she says has been ongoing since '07. So I'm sure that Yero's would have no problem in dating this letter to show that they have been investigating this since '07. MS. SILVA: I can have him fax it to the county, if he has to. CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: Okay. Any other discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: I'll make a motion that we approve her application for this license, Unique Marble and Granite Corporation, and for a six-month period to be brought back for a credit review, to be brought back before the licensing board or given to staff. If staff Page 26 1 ~Lt~~~9 finds any discrepancies or anything that's negatory towards it, that you come back before the board. And also to have at least that one paper from Yero's faxed to the staff -- MS. SILVA: I'll have it faxed tomorrow. CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: -- when it's done. And if that's presented, then they can go ahead and proceed with your license. So that's a six-month probationary license, gentlemen. MR. GUITE': I'll second that. CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: One last thing to the motion. If in that six-month period, if she does adhere to all the things that we've asked, then it will become a permanent license after that time. MR. GUITE': I accept. CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: Motion and a second. Any other discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: All those in favor? MR. BOYD: Aye. MR. GUITE': Aye. MR. JERULLE: Aye. CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: Aye. MR. LYKOS: Aye. MR. HORN: Aye. CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: Any opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: Motion carries. MS. SILVA: Thanks. CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: Good luck. Okay, who are we missing still? All right, we have a Robert Hammond still. Have you come in yet, Mr. Hammond? (No response.) CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: No. If it appears that Mr. Hammond was Page 27 161 i~"7' Febl"l!clrj18,2009 given a -- contesting a citation that was given to him by Mr. Jackson? MR. JACKSON: That's correct. I have some information if -- I'd like to be sworn in. CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: Yes. (Mr. Jackson was duly sworn.) MR. JACKSON: For the record, Ian Jackson, Contractor Licensing. Mr. Hammond called me late last week, Thursday or Friday, stating that he was most likely going to pay the tickets, rather than show up for the hearing today. I had a complainant in this case that showed up this morning to testify where she was given a copy of the check that Mr. Hammond had supposedly mailed to the county. So I believe that's why he's not here. The check should be at the county and be processed. So I do believe he paid it. CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: So the contesting of this citation is really invalid, we don't even need to hear it then, do we? MR. JACKSON: Correct. CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: Okay. Do we need to put that in the form of a motion or we just take it off the table? MR. NEALE: (Shakes head negatively.) CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: Okay. That seems to be everything for new business. One other last item. On here it says order to pay civil penalty. Mr. Ossorio? MR. OSSORIO: Mr. Chairman, how we doing today? CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: Just fine, how are you? MR. OSSORIO: Excellent. I'd like to go ahead and put into evidence the civil penalties of citations, 44 of them. CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: Okay. Make a motion that we put the order to pay civil penalties into evidence. Page 28 1 ~ ,'-1'" I ? ~'"i ~bruary n, ~009 MR. JERULLE: Second. CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: Motion and a second. Any discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: All in favor? MR. BOYD: Aye. MR. GUITE': Aye. MR. JERULLE: Aye. CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: Aye. MR. LYKOS: Aye. MR. HORN: Aye. CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: So moved. MR. OSSORIO: Mr. Chairman, this is an ongoing issue that the county attorney and myself and the board's attorney has been working on for several months, and we are finally coming to the end. We do have a process for the paying civil citations, we have letters sent out, and we are in the final stages since -- if it pleases the board, that we are ready to have the chairman sign off on the final order. I have the orders here. Those are the individuals that have not paid. And with that, I would like to go ahead and submit that they have not paid and proceed with the chairman to sign off on the final orders of those individuals. CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: Are these individuals out here that haven't paid these penalty fees, or are these contractors or licenses? MR. OSSORIO: I would say that probably most of them are not contractors. Most of the people that we've issued tickets to that are contractors have paid. Or if the contractors are unlicensed, then they come into compliance and they pay. So these are probably the unlicensed contractors within the last year. But we should be caught up. And you'll see this periodically in the future but with less names, obviously, because I think we're getting Page 29 16Jut 7~A~9 I a really good robust turnaround. Karen Clements heads up our citation process and it has been working extremely well. So this is just playing catch-up. And this is 44 orders here ready to be signed, so we just needed approval from the board to do so. MR. NEALE: What will be done is I'll draft an order for your signature, for the chairman's signature. That order will then be -- I'll transmit it to the staff. Staff will then record that order in the county -- in the public records of Collier County. And it will then constitute a lien on all of these people's property. So if the title search is done, say if they're selling their house or anything else, that that order will show up on the public records. And so, you know, we've got the orders here and they're just going to be recorded. And when they're recorded, it's done, you know. And so the good news is if somebody does try to sell a house and -- you know, of that name, at closing, in order to get a clear title, they're going to have to pay the lien. CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: We'll get our money then. MR. NEALE: Yeah. MR. JERULLE: This is from 2008, Michael? MR. OSSORIO: These are for the last year, yes. And we really didn't have a process in play to send out letters reminding these consumers that they need to pay their penalty. And so hopefully in the future you won't see this many. But the first time unfortunately that we need to play catch-up, and this is what we're doing. We've had the orders, they're ready to be signed under approval of the board and the board's attorneys. We're ready to go. MR. NEALE: Mr. Joslin and I will be signing 44 orders. CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: Today? I just need a motion. MR. GUITE': I make a motion to approve. Page 30 16 JerrA 7,2009 CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: And a second? MR. JERULLE: Second. CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: We've got a motion and a second. All those in favor, signify by saying aye. MR. BOYD: Aye. MR. GUITE': Aye. MR. JERULLE: Aye. CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: Aye. MR. L YKOS: Aye. MR. HORN: Aye. CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: Any opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: Motion carries. MR. OSSORIO: Thank you. CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: All right, moving right along. One thing in old business we have, Mr. Courtney's been so patient. Mr. Calvin Courtney, would you please come to the podium and be sworn in one last time, please. Hopefully. (Speaker was duly sworn.) CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: Mr. Courtney, I remember you well. I know you've gone through some hoops, but obviously you're here today, so I'm quite certain you probably have your things in order. MR. COURTNEY: Yes. CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: You were ordered to come back and show us paperwork I believe Mr. Lykos wanted to request to hear, which was end of year profit and loss statement. MR. L YKOS: And a balance sheet. CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: And a balance sheet. Did you have those items that you can present to us? MR. COURTNEY: I do. I wasn't exactly sure which date to make the balance sheet effective, so I did it as ofthe 15th of February. Page 31 16 r Pf'" A 7 ~'.. February 18,2009 The profit and loss I presented in mid-December. You guys gave me a bye at the meeting in January because of a death in the family. So what you have, what Ian has over there, has the balance sheet for Southern Exterior Enhancements as of February 15th. It's a humble and quiet sheet. The death in the family has changed my priorities since mid-December and the company is not doing much. But he has it there and it's okay. It's better than some people, I'm sure, but it has very little activity compared to the half a million dollars in revenue between April and December that I presented to you. It has dropped to nothing, as I have not been in Naples. But Ian has the information. CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: Mr. Jackson, you want to put those into evidence? MR. JACKSON: I think Mr. Ossorio took that. CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: He's going to do that for you. Okay. He's Johnny-on-the-spot today. MR. COURTNEY: There's one other piece of information contained in this, and it's the workmen's compo and liability search that you asked for, Mr. Joslin. I had a large number in my casual labor in the P &L and you wanted to see that I was using a correct entity. So if you'd like me to, I can walk you through this balance sheet very quickly. MR. L YKOS: Yeah, if you would explain the details behind all the line items, that would be great. MR. COURTNEY: Okay. The cash is cash earnings. There's some of this -- I don't have it in here earmarked for the federal income tax liability. We estimated about $4,000 for the fiscal year '08. There is in that cash line of $13,700 a $2,200 customer deposit. The pavers have been purchased. You can see the inventory on the bottom. It's about a 15 percent deposit on a 12,000 to $13,000 contract that's to be installed with a right-of-way permit having been issued next Monday. Accounts receivable. I have some customers that owe me some Page 32 1 €tJru~~, 1069 money. I had to leave town quickly because of the death. So I'm back now, so those will be settled. There's some people that owe me for some paperwork. Inventory. I have some flowering trees and paver bricks that are paid for that are sitting in inventory. Fixed assets: Hand and office equipment, typical things for paver brick, landscape contractor. You know, there's computers, there's compactors, there's augers. It goes on and on. It's a pretty long list. Rolling equipment: Our 30-ton trailers, dump trucks, pickup trucks, crew trucks that I own, they're all clear and free. There's no notes on anything. Liabilities and net worth: My current liabilities, I owe $3,200 to a tree broker in Homestead, Florida. Fixed liabilities: My notes payable is a customer, former customer that you guys are aware of. I think your office actually structured that note. And I'm in the process of paying that. And it's current, by the way. So, very simple. MR. L YKOS: You stated that part of your cash was a deposit from a client? MR. COURTNEY: It is. MR. L YKOS: Well, that's actually a liability. You understand how that works? Because if you didn't do the job, for whatever reason you couldn't do the job, you'd have to pay that money back. MR. COURTNEY: If the inventory is paid for, is it a lia-- MR. L YKOS: You have a deposit from a client, it's a liability. You just stated that there was a death in your family so you haven't been able to work. If you have a deposit from a client -- MR. COURTNEY: All right. MR. L YKOS: -- and for any reason that job could not be performed, or up until the date that you start that job, that's a liability, Page 33 "~A7 16 I 1 February 18,2009 okay? It isn't -- it might be cash in the cash flow report, but it isn't -- in terms of a balance sheet, it's not cash, it's a liability. MR. COURTNEY: Because it's owed to another, I see what you're saying. MR. L YKOS: You should have an offsetting line item for that liability, okay? My concern is that your current assets, your current liabilities, that you end up creating debt again like you did before. MR. COURTNEY: Uh-huh. MR. L YKOS: So without having your true current liabilities listed and your true current assets listed, we can't see if that trend starts to develop, okay? So my concern is that your ongoing operation, rather than being profitable, is doing the opposite, you're creating debt again. And then we'll end up with jobs that you can't finish because you don't have the money or jobs that you get done and then you have vendors that you can't pay. That's how your last problem got started. So we wanted to make sure that doesn't happen again. So the comment I made to you last time was you had enough money to hire an attorney to get to the point where you got your license back. I would like to see a P &L and a balance sheet that are audited so that we can verify that your ongoing business is truly profitable. MR. COURTNEY: Okay. My question -- my recollection, Mr. Lykos, was I asked if you wanted that last time and you said it wasn't necessary. And I thought we even went to the point that we discussed I was using a very simple software program and that I would have to create it, and I thought that was okay. If that's what you request, I will spend that money, and I'd like to get it all behind us. MR. L YKOS: I understand. But seeing this report and your explanation of it, I have a better understanding of what your Page 34 16 J ':aA ~, 2009 understanding is of a financial statement, so I think I'd want to see that. And -- MR. COURTNEY: And I don't by any-- MR. L YKOS: -- I want you to work with somebody that understands that a customer's deposit is a liability. MR. COURTNEY: Okay. MR. L YKOS: Okay? We really want to see the profitability of the ongoing operation, okay? CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: This is the only job that you have done? The job that you have the deposit on now is the only job you have underway at this particular moment? MR. COURTNEY: Yes, it is. That will change. I'm back in Naples, so that will change. And I felt like I was in a pretty good position. I understand your concern. And I would have done that the first time, had I known the -- MR. L YKOS: Just-- MR. COURTNEY: -- requirement. But I am not an accountant-- MR. L YKOS: I'm not holding it against you, I just want you to understand what it is that we're looking for. The other thing is your rolling equipment, you list it as $38,000. We don't know what the value of that is. I mean, market -- street value of that. You might have real street value of that equipment right now. It might be 10 percent of what you show. MR. COURTNEY: That's right. MR. L YKOS: Okay? The balance sheet is very critical, because that's where we see, not only from the P&L, but that's where we see if there's debt being created. I would like to see a true current ratio for you, which is your current assets and your current liabilities. I don't want to see your fixed assets covering your current liabilities, okay? Page 35 16 I JbruAY7~o09 And when you take out your customer deposits out of your cash, that may be the case. And since we don't know what that math is, I don't want to see your fixed assets covering your current liabilities. That means your ongoing operation isn't profitable. Okay? MR. COURTNEY: Gotcha. MR. L YKOS: So if you talk to an accountant, it might -- it doesn't have to be a CPA, but if you talk to somebody with -- I don't want to recommend any companies specifically, but In Balance is a company that understands a financial statement. I don't know if they're CP A's or not, but they'll be able to separate out current assets and current liabilities so that we can see their ongoing operation is profitable. Okay? MR. NEALE: Mr. Lykos, just so that he's -- Mr. Courtney's clear and we're all clear, are you actually calling for a fully audited statement with an auditor's opinion on it, or are you calling for a statement that's essentially a review statement that's done by a professional and submitted as a professional? Because obviously an audited statement's going to cost Mr. Courtney a pretty fair chunk of money. MR. L YKOS: Yeah, I'm not looking for an audited statement. I'm looking for a statement done by a third party that can produce a financial-- a balance sheet and a P&L with generally accepted accounting principles. CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: So a licensed CPA would be something that would be -- MR. L YKOS: Well, that's probably overboard. You don't need to be a licensed CPA. There are people that perform accounting servIces -- MR. COURTNEY: Bookkeepers. MR. L YKOS: -- that are not licensed CPA's. CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: Right. MR. L YKOS: And I said the -- I just lost the name of that Page 36 1 ~etn1~ 18,A~9~ company. MR. COURTNEY: In Balance. MR. L YKOS: In Balance. I know that they perform that service and they're not CPA's. And I'm not recommending them as a company, I'm just saying that's an example of a company that can do that for you. Especially with not a lot of business, they could probably go through your transactions to come up with that relatively easily. Okay? CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: As far as the insurance portion of what I asked you for, Mr. Courtney, that seems to be in line as far as the carrier that you have now. One other thing, though, going back to this balance sheet. Is this something that we need to have him do immediately, within the next meeting, or do you want to give him some time to put all this together, as long as it's presented. Right now his license is active, is that correct, and he is working? MR. OSSORIO: That's correct. And my assumption is, is that if he comes to the board next month, these numbers would change drama -- change. CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: Right. MR. COURTNEY: Yeah, I hope so. CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: So does 30 days or next meeting work for you as far as being able to bring this information to us? MR. COURTNEY: I have no problem. I could simulate it much quicker than that, but I think that Mr. Ossorio's bringing a valid point, that in 30 days with me being back in Naples, in Collier County, that you'll see more activity. I'd love to do it the simple version. You guys probably want the good one. MR. L YKOS: I'm fine with the fact that there's more activity. I want to see numbers that represent your business -- MR. COURTNEY: I thought that's what you'd look for. The one question I have is that I'm on probation, and I frankly Page 37 16 I 1..~ 1M ..'7 "' Fetruarylt8( 2009 have forgotten and gotten a little confused in the process. I don't remember if it was six months or a year, maybe Mike does. And I didn't know, if I satisfy this, does the probation terminate? CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: Yes. MR. NEALE: Urn-hum. MR. COURTNEY: Okay. So my hope was ifthat can be true, not that I anticipate any problems, but just conventional wisdom, can I give this to Mike or does it have to be a full board review? Or can I give it to Mr. Lykos between now and the next meeting date? CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: No, I think that's something I think this board needs to review as a board, not so much as putting that responsibility onto either Mr. Ossorio or onto one of the members of the board. As a board, we need to hear this as a board. And then we have also guidance from our board attorney -- MR. COURTNEY: I understand. CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: -- if there's a problem. It would be better in your interest and in ours if you'd do that that way. MR. OSSORIO: Your problem is with the licensing board, not with the contractor licensing office. So probation starts here. MR. COURTNEY: Anything else from me? CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: No. If you feel that this can be done within the next meeting, then we'll go ahead and put you on the agenda again for next month. MR. COURTNEY: I would love that. CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: Okay, we'll try to get this-- MR. COURTNEY: And you want it as of what date? You want the balance sheet and the profit and loss as of what date? MR. L YKOS: The balance sheet is typically done -- well, you're not going to be producing it with your own software. So if you do the balance sheet as of the end of business on February -- at the end of February, is that the 28th, then the P&L, do it the same day. So you're both -- Page 38 16 ~elaryA~19 MR. COURTNEY: That's closer to the meeting day. MR. L YKOS: -- you're done through February. MR. NEALE: And his probation runs until May of this year. CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: Of May. MR. NEALE: It was imposed May of 2008, so it runs until May of this year. CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: Okay. MR. COURTNEY: Thank you. CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: Thanks. All right, that ends pretty much old business that we have going today. There is one public hearing. Do we need a break of any kind? THE COURT REPORTER: No, thank you. CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: No. So moving right along. Okay, this is public hearing in the order of Case No. 2009-04, which is Raymond Berube, d/b/a Berube Brothers, Incorporated. I assume that staff is going to present this case? MR. OSSORlO: That's correct. Allen Kennette. CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: Mr. Kennette, would you come up and be sworn in, please? MR. NEALE: Is Mr. Berube even here? CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: No. Not yet. (Mr. Kennette was duly sworn.) MR. KENNETTE: My name is Allen Kennette, Contractor Licensing Compliance Officer. This case is involves Berube Brothers, the actual -- it involves Berube Brothers, Incorporated, doing a pool. You'll hear testimony from the complainant, Mrs. Janet Vanroden, who's the owner of the property of a signed contract and what was expected of the pool contractor to do. We will also give testimony that a proper notification was served Page 39 16111 III Februar1l12009 to Berube Brothers Incorporated, Raymond Berube, the qualifier of the company, with no response from him at all. CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: All right. Before us we have a packet here with Case No. 2009-04 for a Raymond Berube, d/b/a Berube Brothers, Incorporated. His license no. is CPC 1456893. I need a motion to put this packet into evidence. MR. L YKOS: So moved, Lykos. MR. GUITE': Second, Guite'. CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: Moved and seconded. Any discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: All those in favor? MR. BOYD: Aye. MR. GUITE': Aye. MR. JERULLE: Aye. CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: Aye. MR. L YKOS: Aye. MR. HORN: Aye. CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: Any opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: Motion carries. One last item here. Mr. Neale, if you could help us. Mr. Berube apparently is not present at this meeting for the case. We can proceed? MR. NEALE: The only thing that you have to make sure that you get on the record is the fact that he was properly served, that he received proper notice, and that he essentially ignored that notice. CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: Okay, then let it be known that Mr. Raymond Berube with License No. CPc1456893 was properly notified to be at this meeting and has chosen to not be here. MR. McNALL: Well, what you need is testimony from county staff as to how the service was accomplished and -- CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: I'm sorry. Okay. MR. KENNETTE: Yes, testimony -- my testimony is that we Page 40 16IFl~arAl~9 mailed two certified letters on January 14th of '09: One to the residence of business, which was checked. The residence of business was evacuated, there was nothing left in the office. The second letter, certified letter return receipt was sent to his home address at 3561 17th Ave. Southwest, with no response. Two calls were made to relatives of his with no return response back from either call. CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: Are those the official use receipts I see on Page E-16 of the packet? MR. KENNETTE: Yes, they are. CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: So it is obvious that he was served properly -- MR. KENNETTE: Yes, they were. CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: -- in two different locations? MR. KENNETTE: Right. CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: Neither one you got a response on? MR. KENNETTE: The only one that was returned with address unknown we got after the packets was delivered. That came back to the office finally, which was 30 something days that we finally got it back unopened and returned. The other one we haven't received yet. And this was the one for the Mannix Drive, which would be the address of the business itself, Mannix Drive, Unit 513. Return to sender unclaimed, unable to forward. CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: Okay. Mr. Kennette, then if you want to have some opening statements as far as what actually transferred and what happened here, what the case is about? MR. KENNETTE: Okay, did you want to hear from the homeowner first or did you want me to -- CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: If you would like to call the homeowner as a witness, you may. MR. KENNETTE: Yes, I would. I'd like to have the homeowner, Page 41 1611 A7~ February 18,2009 Mrs. Janet Vanroden be sworn in and give a brief statement. CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: What's the name again? Sorry? MR. KENNETTE: Her last name is Vanroden. V-A-N-R-O-D-E-N. First name is Janet. CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: Ms. Janet Vanroden, would you corne up to this other podium please and be sworn in. (Ms. Vanroden was duly sworn.) CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: Mr. Kennette? MR. KENNETTE: Mrs. Vanroden, just give the actual followings of what happened when you hired the company to do the pool for you and what transpired and where we're at now. MS. V ANRODEN: Back on March 17th of 2008, we hired Berube Brothers Pool Company to construct a pool for us. The pool was partially constructed and we've not been able to get in touch with Mr. Berube since the end of October. So we have to hire somebody else to finish the pool. CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: Did you observe this pool or this area? MR. KENNETTE: I went over to the residence and they were not home at the time I was there, so I did not go into the back to observe it. CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: How much of the pool was actually done? MS. V ANRODEN: I would say 95 percent of the pool. So-- CHAIRMAN JOSLIN : Was there water in it? MS. V ANRODEN: Urn-hum. CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: What portions of it weren't done? MS. V ANRODEN: Well, we failed a couple inspections at the end of it. There's some electrical issues that need to be finished, some finishing issues that -- we've received a claim of lien. He's not paid his subcontractors, so we received notice of the liens. We received some notice of liens and we've received some intent, or at least one intent to lien, one claim of lien. Page 42 l'611Feb~"2009 MR. JERULLE: How much was the contract? MS. V ANRODEN: The contract was for $27,500. MR. JERULLE: And how much did you pay the Berubes? MS. V ANRODEN: All but 2,000 of that. MR. JERULLE: So you paid them 25? MS. V ANRODEN: Urn-hum. MR. JERULLE: And how much were the liens? MS. V ANRODEN: Right now, well, the liens haven't -- there's actually I believe one lien on the property for somewhere in the range of $1,200. And we've received intent to lien in the range of 3,500. We're expecting another. I mean, I believe -- I don't understand -- totally understand the lien laws, but I expect we'll receive others as well. MR. L YKOS: When did construction stop on the pool? MS. V ANRODEN: We were not in town, so that's a little hard to say. But I believe nothing has been done on the pool since the end of October. We were in town the end of October, somebody showed up, and that was the last that we believe anybody was on the property. MR. GUITE': You only have 45 days, right? MR. L YKOS: Right. Probably a lot of those liens won't be valid. MR. GUITE': Right. MS. V ANRODEN: We're hoping. MR. JOSLIN: No, that's not correct. You have 45 days to file your notice to owners and 90 days after the last material's on the job to file a lien. MR. GUITE': Is it 90 days? CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: It's 90 days. THE COURT REPORTER: Could you please repeat that? CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: Yes, you have 45 days to file your notice to owner after the first material on the job, and you have 90 days after the last material on the job to file a lien. MR. JERULLE: Have you got any prices to complete the work? Page 43 1611Feb~"2009 MS. V ANRODEN: Right. We have someone who is -- I believe he's filed to take over the permit or filed a separate permit. And that is going to be, we believe, in the range of $1 ,200 to complete. MR. JERULLE: To complete. MS. V ANRODEN: Urn-hum. MR. JERULLE: So the contract was 27, you paid him 25,000. MS. V ANRODEN: Urn-hum. MR. JERULLE: And right now there's a lien of 1,200. MS. VANRODEN: Right. MR. JERULLE: And there's another 1,200 to complete the work. MS. V ANRODEN: Right. And then there's -- wait a minute, let me get my -- MR. JERULLE: And there's an unknown of whatever liens. MS. V ANRODEN: There's a -- there's a copy of a claim oflien that's been filed against our property in the amount of $3,811.48 by Hajoca Corporation. MR. L YKOS: What's the date of that lien? MS. V ANRODEN: January 7th. MR. JERULLE: So there's no $1,200 lien, it's a $3,800 lien. MS. V ANRODEN: So there'll be -- right. Two liens. And then we received a second -- or a third notice of lien that -- notice to owner. But nothing has been done on that. That was for the finishing of the pool. Baker Finishing. CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: But as of this date you haven't gotten a lien yet? MS. V ANRODEN: No. CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: Nothing's been recorded. Have you checked the county records to see if it has been recorded? MS. V ANRODEN: No. MR. JERULLE: So just bear with me. The contract was 27-five. MS. V ANRODEN: Right. Page 44 161 ':Jl18,2009 see exactly what was being drawn off the main panel from the house. MR. OSSORIO: And you can clearly depict the section of the Florida Building Code. Can you read that in the record, please? MR. KENNETTE: I'm sorry, where are you? MR. OSSORIO: It's -- I'll read it. The section of the Florida Building Code is 680.26( e), 680 .26(b). And those are the applicable Florida Building Codes. At this time do you know if they've been corrected? MR. KENNETTE: No, they haven't. MR. OSSORIO: So it's your opinion that there's still code violations at this house? MR. KENNETTE: Yes, there is. MR. OSSORIO: And it's your opinion that you sent him notice under 4.2.2 that he violated the Florida Building Code? MR. KENNETTE: Yes, I did. MR. OSSORIO: And you've given him all reasonable notice that you tried to make contact with him personally by phone and by certified mail? MR. KENNETTE: That was done properly, yes. Even at the business. Even though there was nothing in the office, I posted on the door. MR. OSSORIO: And with that, the county rests its case. CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: Ms. Vanroden, if you'd like, you can have a seat, please. Since Mr. Berube is not here to either cross or present any side of the case, due to his own efforts of not being here, then we can move right along to closing statement. The case has been presented as far as the evidence. All the evidence has been presented that's going to be. Mr. Ossorio, or Mr. Kennette, if you want to make a closing statement on this -- MR. OSSORIO: I will. Page 47 . .. -----,------""._...'.....-----~..-._,'_...~--"-.,~-~--.~,_..._,,--...~----~_.----_." .. -~ ..~_...~..~~"-_.__._--~- 16 I t~~Jll~~ 2009 CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: -- and then we'll close the public hearing. MR. OSSORIO: It was heard today in testimony that Raymond Berube Brothers did enter into contract to build a single-family pool. It was also clear on the record that he violated the specific state statute, and he also violated Florida Building Code and also violated Count I of 4.2.2, willfully violating the applicable building codes of laws of the state, the city and the county. We recommend you find Mr. Raymond Berube guilty of violating the Florida Building Code and guilty of 4.2.2 of willfully violating the applicable building codes of the laws of the state, city and Collier County. CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: Thank you, Mr. Ossorio. Once again, Mr. Berube is not here to respond, unfortunately. So at this time I think we'll make a motion to close the public hearing, unless the staff has any other evidence they want to bring before us before we do that. (No response.) CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: No. Motion? MR. L YKOS: I make a motion that we close the public hearing. MR. GUITE': Second, Guite'. CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: Motion and a second to close the public hearing. All in favor? MR. BOYD: Aye. MR. GUITE': Aye. MR. JERULLE: Aye. CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: Aye. MR. LYKOS: Aye. MR. HORN: Aye. CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: Any opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: Motion carries. This is -- gentlemen, and guests in the audience, this is when we Page 48 161 1H\,"." I ~ ' . ~ebru~ 18,2009 go into deliberation ourselves to decide whether or not this crime or this case is found guilty or not guilty of the penalty that he's being charged with. MR. L YKOS: It's pretty straightforward. CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: It doesn't need a whole lot of discussion on this one, I don't think, huh? MR. NEALE: With the board's permission, I'm not going to go through the whole charge to the board, because I think the board members are fully apprised of what their responsibilities are in this matter and can handle it without that. CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: Read it to the record for us, though, or a little bit of it, what we can do. MR. NEALE: Sure. Just that in this case the board shall consider evidence presented solely at this hearing in consideration of the matter. It shall exclude from its deliberations any irrelevant, immaterial or cumulative testimony. It shall admit and consider all evidence of a type commonly relied upon by a reasonably prudent person in the conduct of their affairs. In this case hearsay may be used to explain or supplement other evidence, but by itself is not sufficient to support a finding in this or any other case. The standard established for a case such as this, which is one where it does not directly affect the license of the license holder, because this board does not have the power to revoke his license, is a preponderance of the evidence or basically one grain more than 50 percent. The standard in evidence to be weighed is solely as to the charge set out in the complaint, which is Section 4.2.2 of the Collier County ordinance, which has been read into the record already. In order to support a finding that the respondent is in violation of this, the board must find facts that show the violations were actually committed by the respondent, and they must show to a preponderance Page 49 _.^-,----"";.,.,."'----,~.....".;--~~~._"--;-_.~.~.__."._., 16 J !f~b~~ il 2009 of the evidence standard the legal conclusion that the respondent was in violation of the relevant sections. That charge is the only one the board may decide upon, as it's the only one to which the respondent could have prepared a defense, had he decided to show. Any damages really may not be imposed by this board, other than the sanction of removing permit-pulling privileges because of the fact that this is a state certified contractor. The decision made by this board shall be stated orally at this hearing as effective upon being read by the board. The respondent, if found in violation, has certain appeal rights to this board, the courts and the State Construction Industry Licensing Board. The board shall vote upon the evidence presented on all areas, and if it finds the respondent in violation, adopt the administrative complain as presented. The board shall also make findings of fact and conclusions of law in support of the charges set out in the complaint. So the board can proceed ahead to find whether he's in violation or not. CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: Okay, that's the next step. Any other discussion, gentlemen, or I need a motion to find the charges guilty or not guilty. MR. GUITE': I'll make a motion. CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: Okay. MR. GUITE': I make a motion that we find Raymond Berube, d/b/a Berube Brothers, guilty of Count I, 4.2.2, willfully violating the applicable building codes of ( sic) laws of the state, city or Collier County. That we find him guilty. CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: I got a motion finding Mr. Raymond Berube guilty on Count 1. I need a second. MR. JERULLE: Second. Page 50 16 I IFebr411~ 2009 CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: Motion and a second. Any further discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: No? All those in favor of the motion, signify by saying aye. MR. BOYD: Aye. MR. GUITE': Aye. MR. JERULLE: Aye. CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: Aye. MR. LYKOS: Aye. MR. HORN: Aye. CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: Any opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: Motion carries six to none. All right, now into the penalty phase, Mr. Neale. MR. NEALE: Since the respondent was found in violation, it must decide on the sanctions to be imposed. As noted previously, since this is a state contractor, the only sanction which may be imposed is to deny the issuance of Collier County or city building permits or require the issuance of those permits with specific conditions. In setting out the sanctions, the board shall consider the gravity of the violation, the impact of the violation, actions taken by the violator to correct the violation, previous violations committed, and any other evidence presented at the hearing by the parties relevant as to the sanction that's appropriate for the case, given the nature. The board also shall issue a recommended penalty to the State Construction Industry Licensing Board. That penalty may include a recommendation for no further action, recommendation of suspension, revocation or restriction of the license, or a fine to be levied by the State Contractor Licensing Board. MR. L YKOS: Well, I know for sure we need to pull his permit Page 51 16 "lF~1a~18,2009 privileges. CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: Penalties for what's recommended or what has happened here as far as the liens that are going to be placed, the liens that the homeowner's going to have to payoff is something that we can't really dictate on how much. We can just recommend that to the state board they take the maximum action against him for the liens that have been in place. MR. L YKOS: Michael, do you guys have a recommendation on this? MR. OSSORIO: I recommend that we make a recommendation to the State Construction Licensing Board that, $10,000 fine and suspend his license through the state to practice throughout the State of Florida. Since we're a closed public hearing, this is just one of several. CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: This is the only case that made it before us today? MR. OSSORIO: Some of those cases are very similar. And-- but this one was the issue with the code violation when you deal with electrical, so this was the first one. And then we'll probably forward all the others to the state, since we did what we could here. CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: This is the same contractor, correct? MR. OSSORIO: Same contractor. CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: And will we have to hear all these other cases that are coming before you? MR. OSSORIO: My recommendation would be no, since we did what we could do for the industry. We pulled his building permit privileges, and now it's really up to the state to get these complaints, forward them down to the Fort Myers office to do their investigation, what they need to do. MR. JERULLE: Does he have another license -- MR. OSSORIO: Not that I know of, no. MR. JERULLE: -- in the county? Page 52 16 J 1~-17"'" Februarf't , 2009 MR. OSSORIO: Just he's a state certified pool contractor. MR. GUITE': And no second qualifier on Berube Brothers? MR. OSSORIO: No. MR. JERULLE: Surprised. CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: Another question. Do we reciprocate at all? Or does reciprocity enter into the factor ifhe was to move into another state? MR. NEALE: Not that I know of. MR. OSSORIO: We could take our findings and bring them to Lee County Licensing Board for their review and to see if he's doing work up there. And I will be communicating with the surrounding counties to see if he's doing other work up in Lee or Charlotte or Sarasota of some type. Because our finding of facts can be forwarded to their other licensing board for their full review, if they want to -- CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: But as far as to go like to another state, say it be Texas or Louisiana or any of the other states, we have no recourse to transfer any information there because of what's going on here? MR. OSSORIO: No. But I have a fair estimation that the state will do their due diligence when they're doing their state licensing investigation. CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: I gotcha. Okay. MR. L YKOS: So we need to revoke his permit privileges in Collier County. MR. NEALE: Really, the board needs to -- you can either do it as a combined single motion or as two separate motions. One is to impose the sanction of revoking his permit-pulling privileges here in Collier County and in the other areas that Collier County has jurisdiction over, which is City of Marco and City of Naples. And then either as part of that motion or as a separate motion, then make the recommendation to the state of whatever penalties you Page 53 ...~ 16 I J;bruary~, 2009 believe the State Construction Industry Board should impose when they hear this case. And then obviously, as Mr. Ossorio says, they're going to forward the information they have on this contractor on all the other cases to the state for their review as well. MR. OSSORIO: By statute we have 15 days from the board hearing to notify the State Construction Licensing Board of what we did here today. So after this meeting we have 15 days to bring it to the director of the Licensing Board in Tallahassee so they can take action. MR. L YKOS: Two more questions, Mr. Neale. Can we invoke a fine? And if we can-- MR. NEALE: No. MR. L YKOS: -- is it worth it in this case? CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: No. MR. NEALE: You can't. The only power the board has in the case of a state contractor is to revoke permit-pulling privileges. The only thing the board can do is recommend to the state, as Mr. Ossorio suggests, the maximum fine amount, which is $10,000. MR. JERULLE: And what about the homeowner, can she-- anything we do help her apply for the state fund? MR. OSSORIO: When you deal with a state certified pool contractor -- and the chairman can probably tell you a little bit about it as well -- it's not Tier 1 contractor, so there is no recovery for a homeowner who contracts with a non Tier 1 contractor, which would be general building or residential. But the state will try to go after some assets, if they could, and they'll try to mitigate it. But this is a long process for this homeowner, and there's a serious code issue on that property, so we need to get it fixed. CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: This is something that we'll-- she'll have to do civilly, more civilly than anything else, but at least our input and our findings will help the case, no doubt, and when she does have to Page 54 16 ~~~rAllo09 go to court against it. When a Tier 1 contractor is a specialty -- swimming pools are specialty contractors. As much as I hate it. MR. L YKOS: All right, I will make a motion that in the case of Board of County Commissioners versus Raymond Berube, d/b/a Berube Brothers, Incorporated, Case No. 2009-04, License No. CPC1456893, having found Raymond Berube, d/b/a Berube Brothers guilty of Count I, willfully violating the applicable building codes or laws of the state, city or Collier County, that the Collier County Licensing Board revoke -- permanently revoke permit-pulling privileges from the license holder. MR. GUITE': I'll second that. CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: And one motion? MR. L YKOS: Well, I was going to do a second separate motion for the state. CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: Okay. A second? MR. GUITE': I'll second. CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: Motion and a second. Any discussion on it? (No response.) CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: All those in favor, signify by saying aye. MR. BOYD: Aye. MR. GUITE': Aye. MR. JERULLE: Aye. CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: Aye. MR. LYKOS: Aye. MR. HORN: Aye. CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: Any opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: Motion carries. MR. L YKOS: I just wanted to make sure I got it right with the state. We're going to recommend to the state that they revoke his permit privileges and levy the maximum fine. Page 55 16 I l' e, 4 7" February 1~, 2009 MR. NEALE: And I believe what Mr. Ossorio suggested, and the board can recommend this, is that the state not revoke his permit-pulling privileges but revoke his license. MR. L YKOS: His license. CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: And impose the maximum fine. MR. NEALE: And impose the maximum fine. So you can recommend both of those things. MR. L YKOS: Well, I will make a motion that we recommend to the state that the Berube Brothers, Raymond Berube d/b/a Berube Brothers license be revoked and that they invoke the maximum penalty. MR. JERULLE: Second. CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: Motion and a second. All those in favor, signify by saying aye. MR. BOYD: Aye. MR. GUITE': Aye. MR. JERULLE: Aye. CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: Aye. MR. L YKOS: Aye. MR. HORN: Aye. CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: Any opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: That motion carries. Okay. Now, for the fun part. MR. NEALE: You have the summary there? CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: No. I haven't got it yet, remember? MR. L YKOS: Are you going to do the long version? MR. NEALE: I'm getting the short version up here. This cause came on -- for public hearing before Contractor Licensing Board on February 18th, 2009 for consideration of the administrative complaint filed against Raymond Berube d/b/a Berube Brothers, Incorporated, License No. CPC1456893. Service of the Page 56 16 J FlruarA1ll09 complaint was made in accordance with Collier County Ordinance 90-105, as amended. This board, having at this hearing heard testimony under oath received evidence and heard arguments respective to all appropriate matters, thereupon issues its findings of fact and conclusions of laws and order of the board as follows: That Raymond Berube, d/b/a Berube Brothers, Inc., is the holder of License No. CPC1456893. That the Board of County Commissioners of Collier County, Florida, is the complainant in this matter. That the board has jurisdiction of the person of the respondent, and that Raymond Berube was not present at the public hearing and was not represented by counsel at the hearing on February 18th, 2009. All notices required by Collier County Ordinance 90-105, as amended, have been properly issued and were personally delivered. Respondent acted in a matter that is in violation of Collier County ordinances and is the one who committed the act. That the allegations of fact as set forth in the Administrative Complaint as to Count 4.2.2, willfully violating the applicable building codes or laws of the state, city or Collier County. And ordinance Section -- whoops -- are found to be supported by the evidence presented at the hearing. The conclusions of law alleged and set forth in the Administrative Complaint as to the Count 4.2.2 are approved, adopted and incorporated herein to wit: The respondent violated Section 4.2.2, willfully violating the applicable building codes or laws of the state, city or Collier County. As amended (sic) in the performance of his contracting business in Collier County by acting in violation of the sections set out in the Administrative Complaint with particularity. Order of the board: Based upon the foregoing findings of facts and conclusions of law, and pursuant to the authority granted in Chapter 489, Florida Statutes, and Collier County Ordinance No. 90-105, as amended, by a vote of six to zero -- I'm sorry, six in favor Page 57 16IFJ!:;Ai2009 and zero opposed, a majority vote of the board members present, and the respondent has been found in violation as set out above. Further, it is ordered by a vote of six in favor and zero opposed, a majority vote of the board members present, that the following disciplinary actions and related order are hereby imposed upon the holder of Contractor Certificate No. CPC1456893. That he's been found guilty of Charge 4.2.2. That his permit privileges (sic) in Collier County be immediately suspended or revoked, and that, number two, the information is forwarded to the Florida State Industry Licensing Board for maximum penalties, and that his license there be also immediately revoked. And it is so ordered, Mr. Lykos. It's always sad to take someone's license, you know. But unfortunately this is something that has to be done. There's not too many licenses that we've taken over the years, and we're starting to see an influx of more of this coming about. Not a good thing. All right, anything else? Any other reports anyone wants to give or say or recommend? (No response.) CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: Ifnot, Mr. Ossorio? MR. OSSORIO: Nothing further. CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: Our next meeting date will be Wednesday, March 18th, 2009, right here in the same building. And I just need one last motion. MR. L YKOS: Motion to adjourn. MR. JERULLE: Second. CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: Motion to adjourn. All in favor? MR. BOYD: Aye. MR. GUITE': Aye. MR. JERULLE: Aye. CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: Aye. Page 58 . .__..~_......"".;_...'_. "",,,",,,,-,,,,,,,,~"~'-'-'*--,.,,,","----,,,,,.,._.,'-~"",,,---~'-*'.....-._......._..~._,,"..'.,-,.. 16 , J;:'r:A ~,~09 MR. L YKOS: Aye. MR. HORN: Aye. CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: Any opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: Motion carries. See you next month. ***** There being no further business for the good of the County, the meeting was adjourned by order ofthe Chair at 10:41 a.m. COLLIER COUNTY CONTRACTOR ~ENSING BOARD f,! . 6' (;j;,). &~~ . RICHARD JOSe , Chairman These minutes approved by the board on presented or as corrected as Transcript prepared on behalf of Gregory Reporting Service, Inc., by Cherie' R. Nottingham. Page 59 16 J 1 I ~L A 8 February 4, 2009 / v' MINUTES OF THE MEETING OF THE COLLIER COUNTY ({ft.. DEVELOPMENT SERVICES ADVISORY COMMITTEE Fiala J'Yll!~ RECEIVED Halas - /) \to . . Hennin9- d~?.~ -= Naples, Flonda, February 4,2009 MAR 1 1 2009 coyle -~ _ Coletta ~._- BOJre of County CommISSioners LET IT BE REMEMBERED that the Collier County Development Services Advisory Committee, in and for the County of Collier, having conducted business herein, met on this date at 3:00 P.M. in REGULAR SESSION in Conference Room #6 lOin the Collier County Community Development and Environmental Services Center, 2800 N. Horseshoe Drive, Naples, Florida, with the following members present: CHAIRMAN: William Varian Charles Abbott James Boughton Clay Brooker Laura Spurgeon Dejohn Dalas Disney David Dunnavant Marco Espinar Blair Foley (Excused) George Hermanson (Excused) Reed Jarvi Thomas Masters Robert Mulhere Reid Schermer Mario Valle (Excused) ALSO PRESENT: Joe Schmitt, Administrator, CDES Judy Puig, Operations Analyst, CDES, Stair Liaison Catherine Fabacher, LDC Manager, Zoning & Land Development Review Phil Gramatges, Interim Director, Public Utilities Ed Riley, Fire Code Official Date 0 Nick Casalanguida, Director, Transportation/Planning Bob Dunn, Director, Building Review & Permitting Mise Corres: \'J 16' 1::ruaA,S09 I. Call to Order The meeting was called to order at 3:04 PM by Chairman William Varian and a quorum was established. Chairman Varian read the procedures to be followed during the Meeting. II. Approval of Agenda Chairman Varian made the following changes: . Item VI, "Old Business" was moved to follow Item IV, "Public Speakers" . Under Item V, "Staff Announcements," Update categories "c" and "D" were reversed Reid Schermer moved to approve the Agenda as amended. Second by Thomas Masters. Carried unanimously, 10-0. III. Approval of Minutes - January 7, 2009 Meeting Reid Schermer moved to approve the Minutes of the January 7,2009 Meeting as submitted. Second by Thomas Masters. Carried unanimously, 10-0. IV. Public Speakers (None) VI. Old Business A. LDC - discussion of cancellation of workgroup meeting on 01/28/09 - Catherine Fabacher Ms. Fabacher reported the previously scheduled workgroup meeting was cancelled due to possible violation of the Sunshine Laws. She stated someone should take official minutes of the rescheduled meeting and a Chairman should be appointed. She understood handwritten notes could be taken since it was a "workgroup" and not a Subcommittee meeting. It was noted that all meetings must be completely recorded to preserve the proceedings as a verbatim record, as well as (abbreviated) minutes taken. Ms. Fabacher stated she was unsure ifMr. Schmitt will hire someone to do that. She stated the Sign Code revisions should be completed by the end of March, as required by the lawsuit settlement agreement. The Amendment Review Committee will commence its meetings in March to cross-vet. The official deadline for Amendments is June 1st, but she has asked for Amendments to be submitted as soon as possible for review by the LDR Subcommittec. Shc suggested the March, April, and May LDR Subcommittee meetings could bc hcld as part of the DSAC meetings and also suggested the meetings could start at I :00 PM. The alternative was to hold LDR Subcommittee meetings on another Wednesday during each month. A handout was distributed to the Committee outlining which Amendments were approved, which were deferred during the last Cycle, and the proposed 2009 Cycle. Chairman Varian stated DSAC intended to draft an Amendment to help assist the process.. "big picture items" -- because the members refer to the Land Develop-ment Code on a regular basis in their businesses. 2 1611 Ara 4, 2009 Catherine Fabacher reminded the Committee that Mark White is reviewing the LDC to move as much as possible into the new Administrative Code. She suggested waiting until the new Code was completed because it will be a much simpler process to amend. A Committee member stated two separate issues were being discussed: LDC Amendment Review and DSAC's Amendment Ouestion: "When is DSAC going to meet to draft its Amendment? (Clay Brooker arrived at 3:15 PM.) Ms. Fabacher stated she did not have staff available to record the meeting or take Minutes. Tom Masters, Chairman of the LDR Subcommittee, suggested holding an LDR Subcommittee meeting in March to review Amendments and then drafting the DSAC's Amendment during the May LDR Subcommittee meeting. Judy Puig stated the meeting had been scheduled for February 25, 2009 at 3:00 PM. Ouestion: It is "legal" (ie., allowed)filr the Subcommittee to tape record the meeting and to have the Subcommittee take minutes? It was noted Florida Statutes did not specify who is to take meeting minutes. Catherine Fabacher stated she will handle the public notice aspect of the meeting. There was further discussion about the meeting procedures and whether or not a previously-held workgroup meeting was in violation of the Sunshine Law provisions. Chairman Varian confirmed the LDR Subcommittee meeting will be held on Wednesday, February 25th at 3:00 PM, and the topic will be the DSAC Amendment The Chairman of the Subcommittee will determine who will take the Minutes and record the proceedings. The Subcommittee will also discuss the proposed 2009 LDC Amendment Cycle and produce a tentative schedule of dates/times for DSAC to consider at their March meeting. V. Staff Announcements/Updates A. Public Utilities Division Update - Phil Gramatges . The Enginecring Department in Public Utilities has becn changed to "Public Utilities Planning and Project Management" . The 20 10 budget is in the planning stage B. Fire Review Update - Ed Riley . The Monthly Report was distributed to the Members . 740 revicws were conducted last month (less than prcvious month) Mr. Riley statcd Fire Review's budgct has two years' of Operating Expcnses in reservc and is still solvent. Thc funds are generated from Plan Review fces. 16 I , ~rlS2009 (Robert Mulhere arrived at 3:25 PM) D. CDES Update - Joe Schmitt, Administrator . Further reduction in staff - 17 positions will be eliminated; 3 more have been frozen (10 positions from Fund 113 and \0 from Fund 131) . There will be an impact on the operations due to the lack of revenue . 84 land use petitions are waiting to be reviewed by the Board of County Commissioners . The Planning Commission meetings may be reduced to one per month to save costs . Personnel will be notified of status on February 17,2009 . The proposal of a four-day work week could not be implemented because some employees were paid from the "General Fund" and would still continue to work on Fridays so the building could not be completely closed for one day per week Ouestion: What is the average staff'costfor the Planning Commission's meetings? Mr. Schmitt stated Tindale-Oliver was completing an analysis of the cost to "shepherd" a land use petition through the required process. Components include County Attorney staff time, COES staff time and verbatim minutes at an estimated cost of $4,000 per meeting. The County charges a fee of $3,000 for a land use petition and $6,000 for a re-zoning petition. The fees do not cover the costs. He stated the public process is expensive and not always efficient, but it is necessary. A Committee member stated the analysis may confirm the Planning Commission meetings are more expensive than currently estimated. [A PUO petition fee is $6,000 plus an additional $25.00 per acre.] He suggested the examining the process. Mr. Schmitt stated he is not earning enough in fees to pay for petitions to go through the process because the revenuc generating petitions (PUOs and Plats/Plans) are no longer being submitted. He further stated fees in general may be increased. Ouestion: Could Ihe process he Slopped allhe Planning Commission? It was noted decisions by the Planning Board could be appealed to the Board of County Commissioners. Mr. Schmitt stated he would support the concept of utilizing a Hearing Examiner if OSAC decided to recommend it to the BCe. A suggestion was made to eliminate the Environmental Advisory Committee ("EAC") by appointing one or two EAC members to the Planning Commission. Mr. Schmitt stated DSAC could recommend consideration of the proposal to the Board of County Commissioners. Chairman Varian askcd for an updatc regarding Municipal/City View. . Code Enforcement passed it and payments have been made . The first round of the Planning and Zoning component flliled but is being revised for re-submission 4 16' 11!b~A809 Mr. Schmitt reported the 24-hour Contractor Hotline to report unlicensed work or unlicensed Contractors is operational. Discussion ensued about what exactly Tindale-Oliver was assessing. . Time tracking . Staff was interviewed concerning job responsibilities, how much time was spent in meetings, etc. . The number of hours involved to take a specific project through the process Also under analysis is a review of the split of funds into 113 and 131 - an audit will be completed. (Charles Abbott arrived at 3:41 PM.) Public Speaker: Chris Straton, President, League of Women Voters of Collier County, stated she had three questions for the Committee: Were the verbatim minutes being takenfor the Planning Commission's meeting required by Florida Statutes? Joe Schmitt stated verbatim minutes had been eliminated in 2006 and summary Minutes were taken, but the Planning Commission requested the Board of County Commissioners reinstate the process and the Board complied. The cost is $6.00 per page. Robert Mulhere stated he understood if a Petitioner wanted a copy of the meeting transcript, he was required to pay for it. Mr. Schmitt confirmed and stated he would try to pass the cost for verbatim minutes to applicant/petitioners in the future. Who provides staff to the EAC? Mr. Schmitt stated two members from the Engineering and Envirorunental Staff attend the EAC meetings as well as members from Comprehensive Planning and a representative of the County Attorney's Office. A history of the creation of the EAC was outlined -- EAB and Water Management Advisory Board were combined. It was created prior to the Planning Commission and there was some duplication of responsibilities. He suggested the issue should be brought before the Board of County Commissioners. Ms. Straton stated Advisory Boards are regularly reviewed to ascertain if they are etl"ectivc and meeting community needs. I, the Review utilized as a vehicle to determine if the EAC isfillfilling its duties as assigned by the Ordinance? Mr. Schmitt stated the Planning Commission's Five-year Review will be conducted in March, 2009. Comments can be made as part of the review. 5 16' t:b~uA8009 C. Transportation Division Update - Nick Casalanguida Regarding DSAC's previous question concerning the construction costs ofthe pedestrian bridges for Santa Barbara and Vanderbilt Drive: . Vanderbilt Drive (2 bridges) - approximately $603,000 of which $510,000 was paid from State and Federal funds . Santa Barbara - approximately $422,000 of which 50% was paid from State and Federal funds . Vanderbilt Drive Bridge - a new bridge will be built costing approximately $5.7M with matching funds of approximately $1.7M in local money from Signature Properties. Traffic will be re-routed for five to six months after construction begins in 2009. Re: Transportation Impact Fees (presentation to Bee on February 10.2009) Nick Casalanguida stated the Board of County Commissioners directed Transportation to review different options concerning how Fees would affect the fiscal environment and the Five- Year Plan. . Revenue trends in general are lower than in previous years . Impact Fees will generate less income ($24 to $25 M vs. $38 to $70 M) . Short-falls will be paid from the General Fund . Transportation will recommend that the BCC adopt the Study conducted by Tindale-Oliver . BCC also asked Transportation to work with the development industry to determine what other methods could be developed to assist during the economic down-turn . A new payment schedule will be suggested: instead ofa 50% down payment, spacing payments out during a five-year period (20% per year) - this would reduce the initial capital outlay and carrying costs for developers . Urban capacity and the Board's request to not defer capacity to building permits will not be supported by Transportation without vetting through DSAC A Committee member noted the BCe's lack of support for inclusion of trip length factoring into Tindale-Oliver's recommendation. Elimination of factoring would yield a 20% reduction in proposed Impact Fees. Mr. Casalanguida stated with or without the trip length factoring, the Five- Year Plan will be financially feasible according to Transportation's research. The trip length study primarily affects residential homcs. Hc clarified the Bec requested information on four categories: the current rate, with trip length, without trip length, and rollback together with the fiscal impact for cach figure. Ouestion: Why are there mast arms at every intersection on Vanderbilt Beach Road except at the intersection with Logan Road? Mr. Casalanguida stated he will research the reason. Question: llthe BCC approves the Five-Year Payment Schedule, can a developer submit an SDP with 2IJ% down and still be vested~ (, 16 , 1Ietr:a4909 Mr. Casalanguida replied affirmatively but explained that the Building Permit fee will still be paid in full at the time of application. Other proposals to defer payments over time will be presented to the Board. VII. New Business A. Collier County Corridor Management Program - Nick Casalanguida A PowerPoint presentation entitled Collier County Corridor Management Program was made. Tonics: . Project Background . What is/is not Corridor Management . Why create a Corridor Management Program? o Provide advance notice o Meet long-range needs o Achieve mobility o Promote orderly development . Collier Corridor Management Program o Data Collection - Phase I o Implementation - Phase II Nick CasaIanguida noted one of the offsets or credits ofImpact Fees is Right-of- Way Acquisition, i.e. the more that is paid for ROW acquisition, the more it reflects in the Impact Fees. Under Corridor Management when a building permit is pulled, if the lot is within a Corridor that will be developed, the land owner/developer will be notified to contact the Transportation Department. The goal of Corridor Managemcnt is to work together with a developcr/land owncr on the project. Mr. CasaIanguida stated Transportation is working with NAB OR ("Naples Area Board of Realtors") to make the LRTP ("Long-Range Transportation Plan") and the Corridor Management Plan available as a disclosure to a potential buyer. A comment was made that the LRTP and Corridor Management will affect market value since land will be lost, or takcn, even though it was privately owned. Mr. CasaIanguida stated location of the property is a key element and the type of road that a house or development is on will affect the property values more than the widcning of the road. The presentation was also made to the Productivity Committee and the Ordinance is being drafted. A public meeting will be held in late April and the adoption process will continue through April and May. A Workshop was held in December, 2008, with thc BCC and attorneys from Broward, Paso, and West Palm Beach Countics, as well as the Planners who manage the projects, to discuss implemcntation of their programs and the mistakes that wcrc madc in order for Collier County to avoid such situations. 7 ~~-~__~"_____"_._ _, ..- ...___,____....._.~"""_~~~__-~_...__.."._~_.,.~_...c_."'...........~ 1611Illlh" AS F ruary 4, ~O Ouestion: Will it be possible to give credits[or Road Impact Fees to properties located on known corridors? Mr. Casalanguida stated the issue is under examination. Reed Jarvi moved to recommend approval of the Corridor Management Program to the Board of County Commissioners. Second by Tom Masters. Clay Brooker stated he could not support the motion without first reading the proposed Ordinance that implements the Program. Bob Mulhere concurred. His concern was whether or not potential legal issues had been addressed. Reed Jarvi amended the motion to approve the concept of the Corridor Management Program subject to DSAC's review of the Ordinance and/or Land Development Code changes at a future date. Second by Tom Masters. Carried unanimously, 13-0. B. Presentation of the new Florida Building Code/Fire Prevention Code - Bob Dunn . The new Florida Building Code will be effective on March 1,2009 . There will be a presentation of the new Code, as well as an overview of the newly adopted Fire Prevention Code, on February 17,2009 from 12:00 Noon to 3:00 PM at the North Collier Regional Center . Notices were sent to design professionals and contractors - the response has been significant . Residential and commercial contractors are welcome to attend Ed Riley stated the new Fire Prevention Code became effective on January I, 2009, and copies of the changes to will be distributed to attendees (Chapter 43 of the Fire Prevention Code and an update to 101). There are significant changes which will impact the remodeling industry. He stated his office will forward the changes, via email, to any member who requests it. Mr. Dunn reported the Contractor Hotline number is 800-252-5607 and comments are routed directly to the Supervisors' office. VIII. Committee Member Comments Chairman Varian reminded the members that updates to Ethics and the Sunshine Law were included in their information packets for their review. DSAC Meeting Dates: March 4, 2009 at 3:00 PM April I, 2009 at 3:00 PM May 6, 2009 at 3:00 PM 8 16 I )e~a~~09 There being no further business for the good of the County, the meeting was adjourned by order of the Chairman at 4:35 PM. DEVELOPMENT SERVICES ADVISORY COMMITTEE G-' William Varian, Chairman These Minutes~proved by the Board/Committee on as presented , or as amended . 3~{ () f 9 ~/~- Fil1~a ~/" L Halas - ~ Henning'--:c :::: Coyle ~ ~~ = Coletta l)~t! 4.~l;~' A 9 ~ RECEIVED MAl? 0 4 2009 Board r:d Counfy Commissioners MINUTES OF THE MEETING OF THE COLLIER COUN'rY ENVIRONMENTAL ADVISORY COUNCIL Naples, Florida, February 4, 2009 LET IT BE REMEMBERED, that the Collier County Environmental Advisory Council in and for the County of Collier, having conducted business herein, met on this date at 9:00 AM in REGULAR SESSION at Building "F" of the Government Complex, Naples, Florida, with the following members present: CHAIRMAN: William Hughes VICE CHAIRMAN: Dr. Judith Hushon Noah Standridge David Bishof Nick Penniman Michael V. Sorrell Dr. Llew Williams Quin Kurth (Excused) Ninon Rynerson ALSO PRESENT: Steve Williams, Assistant County Attorney Susan Mason, Principal Environmental Specialist Stan Chrzanowski, PE, Engineering Manager Summer Araque, Sr. Environmentalist Specialist Chris D' Arco, Environmental Specialist Stephen Lenberger, Sr. Environmental Specialist Kay Deselem, Principal Planner Corby Schmidt, Principal Planner Mise Corres: Date:.Q-i--:H-ft :!em~Jfelu~ ~G;Jles to 1611 A9~' Ichrl",rl'i.JOO'! I. Call to Onlu Chairman Hughes called the meeting to order al 'J:OOArvl. H. Roll Call Roll call was taken and a quorum was established. HI. Approval of Agenda Dr. Williams moved to approve the Ilgenda. Second by Mr. Sorrell. Carried unanimously 6-0. IV. Approval of January 7, 2009 meeting minutes Dr. Williams moved to approve the minutes l!lthe January 7,2009 Meeting, subject to the following "clarification:" Page 8.. Hogan Island Quarry Condition #3 - trom "Flashing caution lights and signage be posted on the east and west ends of Camp Keais Strand to warn drivers of thc eminent danger of Panthers crossing the road. Said sign and lights subject to the applicant receiving the appropriate permits" be amended as follows: 3. "Flashing caU/ion lights and signage be posted on the east and west ends olCamp Keais Strand (west of the mine entrance road and east of Camp Keais Strand) to warn drivers olthe eminent danger of Panthers crossing the road Said sign and lights subject to the applicant receiving the appropriate permits. ,. Robert Mulhere, RW A, Inc., who represented the applicant at the hearing was present and confirmed, "this was the intent onhe condition proposed by the applicant. " Second by Mr. Sorrell. Carried unanimously 6-0. V. Upcoming Environmental Advisory Council Absences Summer Araque, Environmental Specialist noted there would be a day added to the Environmental Advisory Council's review of Section 2 of the Rural Lands Stewardship Area's Review Committee (if necessary). Thc date will be February 27, 2009. Mr. Lehmann has resigned Irom the EAC due to a conflict with his employer on appointments to County Advisory Boards. Mr. Penniman arrived at 9:09AM VI. Land Use Petitions A. Special Treatment Permit ST-2008-AR-13958 (Fast Track) North Naples Fire District Station #48 Section 13, Township 48 South, Range 25 East The presenters ~ve"e sworn in. 2 1611 A9 IThrum)' 4, 2009 Bruce Layman ofWilsonMillu provided an overview of the Petition: . The project is lill' construction of a 2-story Jirehouse and related improvements on 3.4 acres. . The parcel is located on I ,ivingston Road, % mile south of Mediterra. . The Petition is for construction in a Special Treatmcnt Overlay Zonc (ST). . There are two ST's on sitc (#13E and #13F) . The use is an allowed use in thc Zone. . The ST identifies areas of euviroruncntal or archeological significance. . The scientific area of concern is a cyprcss dome. . The project preserves ST l3E in the northwest corner of the property. . ST l3F will be impacted but does not contain any of the original cypress identified. . The construction of Livingston Road ncgatively impacted ST-13F by bisecting it. Summer Araque stated staff recommends approval of the Petition. Dr. Hushon moved to approve the Petition Special Treatment Permit ST-2008- AR-13958 (Fast Track) North Naples Fire District Station #48 Section 13, Township 48 South, Range 25 East. Second by Dr. Williams. Carried unanimously 7-0. B. Planned Unit Development PUDZ-2004-AR-6829 "Davis Reserve PUD" Section 8, Township 50 South, Range 26 East The presenters were sworn in Robert Andrea, Coastal Planning and Engineering provided an overview of the Petition: . The Petition is a proposed rezone of22.8 +/- acres to mixed use residential and commercial uses. . The project wiII provide dwelling units and commercial/office use. . Affordable housing is proposed. . The Preserve is located in the Southeast portion of the sitc incorporating the highest quality wetlands found onsite. . It will have two access points. . A sample of a similar project would be "Bayfront (along the Commercial/Mixed use area)." A discussion ensued rcgarding the density issue raised by Staff on Page 3 of II of the Staff Report. Corby Schmidt, Comprehensive Planning, noted there is a disagreement between the applicant and staff over the interpretation of afTordable housing density (# of dwelling units allowed under the regulations). 3 16 I, 1 A 9 '1 h-LJrll:ll'} ~:O()!) I he issue will be rcsolved by the Collier Coullty Planniug Commissiou and/or the J30nrd oj' ('ollnty l~(Jl1llll issioners. Robe,.t Andrelluoted at the advice of the Applicants legal counsel, thcy object to the discussion orthe density issuc. Discussion followed rcgarding the parametcrs of the stonnwater system design and its relation to possible impacts on the quality of the proposcd prcserve and existing wetlands. It was noted the Report provided by thc applicant indicated the dischargc elevation would be 6-12 inches below the wetland elevation. James Brian DeLony, PE, Coastal Planning Engineering noted conceptual designs have been completed and thc project will discharge above seasonal high- water level. The exact seasonal high water elcvation has not yct been determincd. The intent is to treat the water before it enters the wctland. The scasonal high water elevation will be determined when thc Storm water application (Environmental Resources Permit) is prepared for submittal to the South Florida Water Management District (SFWMD). Concern was voiced by the Council, without the seasonal high water elevation determincd and related design completed, it is difficult to make an informed decision on what impacts the project may have on thc quality of the wetland (quality of water discharged into wetland and overall hydration of the wetland). Discussion cnsued if the application should be recessed until elevation has been determined. Ninon Rynerson arrived a/9:42AM Stephen Lenberger, Sr. Environmental Specialist noted staffreviewed the project and found it consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. The water management system details will be determined upon submittal of the stormwater application to SFWMD. Stan Chrzanowski, PE, Engineering Manager provided an overview of the L1DAR map for the area and noted SFWMD will probably determine the seasonal high water elcvation based on adjacent projects. The project will need to conform to SFWMD standards. Barry Goldmcier, Advance Housing Corporation, (landowner) noted the proposal is in the stages of conceptual drawings and they arc not required to provide dctailed engineered drawings at this point. Further designs will not be completed until the density issue is resolved with the County and the project will be designcd in conformancc with all codes and regulations. 4 1611 A9 hhruary 4. 200') It was notcd that it is the Environmcntal Advisory Council's (EAC) duty and rcsponsibility to ensurc the project does not create detrimental atTects on prescrve areas. Discussion took place in relation to possible permit conditions including approving the Petition subject to the applicant submitting the design of the storm water system to the EAC for review when it is complcted (before Site Development Plan approval). Mr. Bishof moved to approve the project (Petition Planned Unit Development PUDZ-2004-AR-6829 "Davis Reserve PUD" Section 8, Township 50 South, Range 26 East) subject to the following stipulation: 1. After rezoning, the applicant submit a specific Site Plan to the EAC for review which demonstrates the hydrology of the Preserve area is maintained or enhanced and the stormwater system does not discharge below the seasonal high water elevation. Second by Mr. Standridge. Carried unllnimous(y 8-0. Break: IO:1OAM Re-convened: lO:22AM C. Planned Unit Development Rezone PUDZ-2007-AR-12046 "Mirasol PUD" Section 22, 10, 15, Township 48 South, Range 26 East The presenters were sworn in Dr. Hushon stated she has spoken with the "Conservancy" Mr. Penniman disclosed he has spoken with Brad Cornell and Ellen Keller, Collier County Audubon Society; Charles Patterson of the Everglades Coalition; Nathaniel Reed, Friends of Florida; Nicole Ryan, Jennifer Hecker and Andrew McElwaine of the Conservancy of Southwest Florida; Nancy Payton and Manley Fuller of Florida's Wildlife Federation; private individuals and the general public; and received an email from Nicole Ryan regarding the petition. With his rclationship through the Conservancy of Southwest Florida, he did not recuse himself, but may at a later point. Rich Yovanovich, Attorney for the Petitioner provided an overview of the project: . The projcct is located on lmmokalee Road (East ofl75) and originally approved in April 2002 for a 799 unit residential development with two 18- hole golf courses on approximately 1500 acres. . On May 8, 2007 the Board of County Commissioners approved the developer contribution agreement to install transportation related improvements. 5 16 '1IJuil~Y 4A(~l1 . The improvements were installed and the project "vested" as its approval was approaching "sun setting." . Prior to May Xiii. 2007. many environmental groups ineluding the r:nvironmental Advisory Coullcil requested the projcct be re-reviewed under the existing requirements of the Comprehensive Plan. . He presented two project maps for review: "loxisling pun ('onceplual lv/asler Plan" and "Proposed PI!f) ('onceplual Masler Plan" The proposed developed area of the site is on the southern portion, the preserve is on the northern portion. · The project is cssentially the samc as proposed in 2001 with the major change being the removal of the proposed flow way at the request of environmcntal groups who originally were in favor it. . The project proposes, "density blending" which allows the density requirements to be addressed within the project as a whole (a portion of the land is Urban Area and a portion is Rural Area). · Thcre is a greater Preservation Area proposed than originally approved. . The South Florida Water Management District Environmental Resource Permit (ERP) and the US Army Corps of Engineer Permit has been approved. · There was a challenge to the SFWMD ERP permit which was upheld in the petitioners fllVOL . The USACE permit is valid. but under appeaL . The project is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and requests the EAC provide a recommendation of approval of the revised project to the Board of County Commissioners. Summer Araque, Sr. Environmental Specialist stated the following: · All levels of Staff completed a thorough review of the application and requested changes which were incorporated by the applicant. · The Petition is consistent with Growth Management Plan and staff recommends approval of the petition with the conditions outlined in the Staff Report. Stan Chrzanowski provided an overview of the LlDAR mapping for the region. Speakers Nicole Ryan Conservancy of Southwest Florida submitted a copy of Section 2.1 of Conservation and Coastal Management's Element f()r consideration noting the following: · The objectives in Section 2.1 were not in effect during the period of original review in 200 I. . Objective 2.1 details how the County will implement storrnwater management plans, whieh provides for a holistic approach on how projects may impact an entire watershed area. (, 16 leiary\ 4,1)(9 . The project is 011 thc southcrn cnd of the Cocohatchee Slough, an area identified as a High Priority for Historic Restoratinn for thc Evcrglades Restoration proposed in Southwest Florida. . No degradation of thc quality ofthe waters is permitted under State and Federal I ,aws. . Although the State and Federal (rovernment's activities cannot be controlled by Collier County, thc County has thc responsibility to protect the water quality in the area. . Section 2.].d requires "all development located within areas identified on Figure J (the project is located within the identified area) shall be evaluated to determine impacts to natural wetlands, flow ways and sloughs. " She also provided a historic map of the Slough, which documents it drains into the Cocohatchee Canal, which drains into the Cocohatchee River and into the Wiggins Pass Estuary. The project interrupts the connectivity of the Cocohatchee Slough as it drains south into the Cocohatchee CanaL She outlined the characteristics of a Slough required for evaluation under Section 2.] .d. The characteristics qualify the project area as being located in the "Slough." Section 2.I.d states, "The County shall require the applicant to avoid direct impacts to these natural wetlands, flowways or sloughs or, when it is not possible to ensure direct impact is minimized and compensatedfbr by providing the same conveyance capacity lost by the direct impact." The project does not avoid direct impacts to wetland areas by impacting 46 percent of wetland areas and is not consistent with policy 2.I.d. She recommends denial ofthe project for the following reasons: . The project is within a High Priority Restoration Area. . The failure to avoid and minimize wetland impacts (as outlined above.) Brad Cornell, Collier County Audubon Society concurred with the Conservancy of Southwest Florida position and addressed wildlife habitat: . The site is characterized by short hydro period wetlands (inundated less than 6 months of the year).which are important for biological and ecological functions such as water recharge areas and habitat for the endangered Wood Stork. . Areas with short hydro-periods (wet from October through December) are critical during the nesting season for the Wood Stork. When the wetlands dry out, the Wood Stork must move to less advantageous feeding areas . The amount of wetlands in the area will be reduced with the construction ofthe project. He provided historic maps which showed the location of area noting longer hydro-period wetlands have been preserved, yet the short hydro-period wetlands have been prime areas for conversion to other uses (agricultural, residential, etc.) 7 16 I lhlil:lry ~)2() . Reduction in J(,raging area has a direct impact on l1cdgling production. storks thatl1edgc in Novemher/llccember greatly out produce storks who fledgc in January - MarciL The loss of short hydro-period wetlands are the main htetor in the reduction of the Wood Stork population. . Development of the project will greatly diminish primarily an area or tClraging habitat t()J" the Wood Stork. · The new Policies in Section 2.1.d of the Coastal Zone Management Elemcnt empower the County to protect the wetlands (above the requirements orthe SFWMD and lJSACE). · Ill' strongly supports a recommendation of denial of the Petition. Rich Y ovanovich noted the issues have been presented in great detail to Agencies with expert Staff and thc arguments prevailed in favor of the Petitioner. He noted: . The project is not in an area of "High Priority for Restoration." . The requirements cited in Section 2.I.d do not prohibit development of the areas, but provide standards to develop. Stafl has concurred. . The Petitioner has complied with the standards. Discussion ensued on the status of the County's Watershed Managcment Plan. Robert Wiley, Engineering and Environmental Services noted the Plan is slated for completion by 2010. Rick Barber, Agnoli, Barber and Brundage, Inc" provided an overview of the on-site Water Management System: · The proposal for the llowway was withdrawn as the US Army Corps of Engineers determined it was a "public project" and requested it be removed from the application. · The current llowway does not operate as it did in historic times due to its constriction by a berm along the Cocohatchee Canal. . The only current discharge into the Canal from the Mirasol Property is via 2 culverts. The culverts will be removed and a single discharge point will be provided. . The project will propose a north to south "flow through system" via a series of interconnected lakes. which will ultimately discharge into the Cocohatchee CanaL · Water will enter the north end of the developed area via an int10w weir set a specific elevation to maintain the water elevations as currently exists. . The lakes arc not part of the on-site storm water management system (they only manage the water that cnters the north end of the developed area as it transverses between lakes via underground pipes for dischargc into the canal). . The north end of the developed area has a berm. . In his opinion, the water quality within the existing natural systcm will be improved by construction of the project. x 16 'lellary A2' . He is a Civil Engineer involved in water managemcnt Ii)!" ovcr 35 ycars. . The system was analyzcd for trcatmcnt capabilitics utilizing thc cntire lakc system, (not individuallakc by individuallakc). Tim Hall, Turrell, Hall and Assoc. providcd an ovcrview ofwctland habitat: . There is no ncsting or gcstation of Wood Storks on the site. Wood Storks forage in deeper areas of shallow wctlands. They have been sited on the site in man-made agriculture ponds. The current opportunity for Wood Stork foraging on site is very low. . The wetlands do produce fish on site, inf1uenced by the parameters of the year-to-year rainy season. . The site is infested with Melaleuca . The Fish and Wildlife Service who issued 4 diffcrent biological opinions for the project concurred that the site enhancement will improve the existing opportunities for Wood Stork foraging. . The project will not affect any listed species, (Indigo Snake, Wood Stork, etc.) . In minimizing secondary impacts to preserves, golf courses are more amenable than housing. . No stormwater from the golf courses will enter the preserves; there will be required buffer areas between the preserve and golf courses. Steve Walker, Attorney for the Petitioner, provided an overview on the status of Everglades Restoration outlining the priorities in the area. At this point, there are no authorizations by Congress for expenditures in Southwest Florida. Chairmall Hughes moved to approve the Petitioll with the stipulatiolls provided by Staff alld the applicallt performs a water quality essay every 6 mOllths 011 the output of the property. Secolld by Mr. Stalldridge. It was confirmed by Mr. Wiley that there is no "Interim Watershed Management Plan"; the regulations are provided in the Conservation and Coastal Management Element. Mr. Penniman noted the project completely ignores 6.2 - "The County shall protect and conserve wetlands and the naturalfimctions of wetlands" and 6.5 - The County Shall Protect the natural reservations fi"om the impact of surrounding development" of the Growth Management Plan (GMP), Conservation and Coastal Management Element. He questioned how staff could find differently. Summer Araque noted staffreviewcd thc project and found it consistcnt with the Growth Management Plan. Discussion ensued between the Council and the Petitioner's representativcs on thc wording of the motion regarding monitoring rcquircments/water quality and what 9 16Jml\ 'f i A),9 standards Illl' the t"sting would h" utilized (lcPA. FUEl'. d".). Furth",., how thl' ICOnditioll would he entc)rced on"c the project is completed. Chait'man Hughes noted the intenf oCthe motion - iCthcy are not in compliance with applicable water quality standards, the applicant will be requiwdto re- mediate the situation at their expense. It was noted the South Florida Water Management District Environmental Resourcc's Permit contains a condition (#33) for water quality monitoring which could be incorporated into the approvaL Mr. Penniman noted the project complctely ignores the following goals of the Growth Management Plan, Conservation and Coastal Management Element: 6.2 "The County shall proteel and conserve }vetlands, and the natural/unctions o/wetlands. ,. 6.4 - "The County shall protect and conserve ecological used communities shared with other State and local (Jrll'ernments looking up to the northeast" 6.5 . The ('minty Shall Protect the natural reservationsji'om the impacl ol surrounding development. ,. He stated the project destroys 650 acres or wetlands and bisects the natural tlowway. The natural now or the Slough at the southern end will be interrupted into perpetuity. Chairman Hughes amended the motion to approve the Petition (Planned Unit Development Rezone PUDZ-2007-AR-12046 Mirasol PUD Section 22, 10, 15, Township 48 South, Range 26 East) subject to the following conditions: I. The recommendations contained in the Staff Report. (1. The project is proposing impacts to 586 acres of wetlands. The project has identified 515.2 acres of586.2 acres (88%) o.(the required wetland mitigation acreage. The remaining 71 acres of off- site mitigation shall be identified prior to SDP approval.) (2. The minimum preserve acreage shall be maintained. Additional preserve acreage shall be added onsite or offsite to compensate for any clearing needed for private access to out parcels within the preserve.) 2. Incorporation of condition #33 of the South Florida Water Management District Environmental Resource Permit (SFWMD, ERP) #11-02031-P dated September 13, 2007 in'ued to l.M. Collier, ./. V. (Mirasol) (which states "The Permittee shall implement the Mirasol Water Quality Monitoring Plan, attached as Exhibit 6. Any deviation from these testing and monitoring procedures will require prior approval ji'om the District Environmental Compliance Staff. Such request must be made in writing and shall include (I) reasonjiJr the change and (2) an outline o/the proposed change 'J into this approval. 10 16 ~(~tl#ir~9()l) 3. The results of the Water Quali(I' Monitoring referenced above be mbmitted to Collier Coun(I"s Director ()f Engineering and Environmental Services. 4. If the Petitioner is not in compliance with stlllldards in condition #2 (condition #33 of the SFWMD, ERP referenced above), remediation shal/ occur at the Petitioners expense. Second by Mr. Standridge. Motion carried 6 'yes" - 2 "no." Mr. Penniman and Dr. HusllOn voted no. Dr. Hushon voted "no" as the Petition is inconsistent with the following Sections of the GMP, Conservation and Coastal Management Element ~ 2.1.d, 6.2, 6.4 and 6.5. She expressed concern the rules currently in place are not being implemented. Mr. Penniman voted "no" as the Petition violates the Goals 6.2, 6.4 and 6.5 of the GMP, Conservation and Coastal Management Element as outlined above. He also objected that public comment was closed, but negotiations continued with the Petitioner's representatives. Break: 12.40PM Re-convened: 1:32PM Dr. Williams and Ms. Rynerson did not return D. Conditional Use CU-2003-AR-3725 "NGALA" CU Section 30, Township 49 South, Range 27 East The presenters were sworn in Mr. Sorrell disclosed he has visited the site. Rich Y ovanovich, Attorney for the Petitioner and Robert Mulhere of RW A, Inc., provided an overview of the Petition: . The Petition is for the approval of 3 distinct conditional uses. . Due to the code changes and related policy determinations, there is confusion between Staff and the applicant on how to list the categories for the proposed conditional uses. Numerically, they are CU#5, CU#23, and CU#25. . The uses triggering a Conditional Use are exotic aquaculture (raising of Koi and Cichlid) (CU#5); Educational, Recreational and Cultural Facilities (CU#23) and breeding of exotic animals (CU#25); . The public (corporate events and school class trips, etc.) attends events on site and arrives at a pre-appointed schedule by bus or van. This activity has triggered the code enforcement action and the Conditional Use application. . A South Florida Water Management District permit is required for the site. II 16 Ll"y 4Ao9 Donovan Smith, owner' of NGALA noted the fl)lIowing: · Thc operation is regulated by 5 Govcrnment Agcncies including llnitcd Stales Fish and Wildli'" Service. 1"loriela hsh anel Wildlife Conservation Commission, Centers /()r Disease Control, etc. · The operation has all necessary licenses. which address safety and health regulations, ownership and exhibition of the animals. · Some of the animals sequestered on the site are rare, and more suited to a private setting than a zoo setting for reproduction purposes. . The events fund the operation and care of animals. The Council voiced concern a precedent of changing the definition of "agriculture" may bc set if the application is approved. Corby Schmitt, Principal Planner noted the general animal activity falls under the State definition of agriculture; the main aspect that requires thc Conditional Use approval is the "attraction" aspect of the operation. Rich Y ovanovich noted guests arrive by pre-determined appointment by bus or van. The gencral public is not allowed to arrive by individual vehicles. A general discussion occurrcd between thc Council and Staff over the exotic fish regulations within the County. It was recommended 'Tilapia" restrictions be removed from the applicablc Code. The Council directed Staff to prepare a letter for signature by the Environmental Advisory Council which requests the Board of County Commissioners direct Staff to prepare language to remove the "Ti/apia" restrictiomIrom applicable codes. Chris D' Arco, Environmental Specialist stated the following: Staff recommends approval of Conditional Use CU-2003-AR -3725 "NGALA" with the following conditions: As noted on sheet 3 of the conditional use site plan, if nofurther permitting/or all existing improvements is required, then the below mentioned conditions 0/ approval shall be required prior to conditional use approval. lfa site development plan (SDP) application is to be submitted in thejiiture/iJr the current impacts. then the/allowing conditions of approval will be required at the time of SDP submittal. Stormwater Manaeement: This project must obtain an Environmental Resource Permit trom the South Florida Water Management District. Environmental I) Provide a Preserve Management Plan on the Site Plan including methods of exotic vegctation removal and maintenance along with Florida Blaek Bear and Big Cypress Fox Squirrel Management Plans, 12 1611 J'ehruary 4. 200t) A9 2) Fulfillment of any Florida Panther mitigation as required hy eithcr the United Statcs Fish and Wildlife Scrvicc or the Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation COlll111ission. 3) Provide a legally sufJicient title opinion and conservation easement The Conservation Easement shall he recorded within 90 days of the determined final Development Order. Discussion ensued regarding the Site Plan, which indicates arcas of "future expansion." Rich Y ovanovich, noted construction of additional improvements on the site or new uses would require additional review by the County. Mr. Penniman moved to recommend approval (by the Board of County Commissioners) of the Petition Conditional Use: CU-2003-AR-3725; NGALA CU Section 30, Township 49 South, Range 27 East subject to the following stipulations: ]. Page 9 of 12, paragraph 3 of the Staff Report be amended to read "As noted on sheet 3 olthe conditional use site plan, ilnofurther permitting for all existing improvements is required, then the below mentioned conditions of approval shall be required prior to conditional use approval. If a site development plan (SDP) or Site Improvement Plan application is to be submitted in the future for the current impacts, then the following conditions olapproval will be required at the time olSDP submittal. ., 2. The staff conditions listed above by Chris D'Arco. 3. That no more than 1,000 guests be on-site at any given time. 4. Environmental Advisory Council recognition - "This application seeks approval of the existing uses on this property on 21 +/- acres including a large native area; a private preserve; and farm for breeding, raising and training of animal; a wildlife sanctuary; wildlife education and personal development lecture, presentation, and meetings facility with one or more tents and accessory buildings; a wilderness and personal development training facility; and food service from an off-premise state licensed caterer in accordance with state guidelines. Alcoholic beverages may be served on premise at these events via caterers in accordance with Florida State Law. These permitted events may include the use of temporary tented structures. It is the requested that these tented structures are permitted to remain in place for up to ten (10 months, at anyone time during any calendar year. Tents shall be disassembled in case of an issuance of a hurricane warning." 5. Staff and the applicant determine the appropriate Conditional Use Categories the permit will he issued under. 13 1611 A 9 h:'hl'lt;lI :] I(}C' Seeolld by Cllllirll/all f!ughe.\'. Carried II/ll1llill/ol/s(J' 6-0. VII. New Business None VIII. Old Business A. IJpdate members un projects Summer Araque notcd the "Kecwaydin Project'" is on the Board of County Commissioners agcnda on February] 0.2009. It was recommended an LAC member attend the meeting to provide comments on the Council's position on the matter. Mr. Penniman noted he has submitted a letter on the issue to each of the County Commissioners. IX. Sub-Committee Reports None X. Staff Comments None XI. Council Member Comments The Environmental Advisory Council will meet on February 5, 2009 to continue review of the Rural Lands Stewardship Area Review Committee Phase [] Report. XII. Publie Comments None There being no further business for the good of the County, the meeting was adjourned by the order of the Chair at 2:55 PM. COLLIER COUNTY ENVIRONMENTAL ADVISORY COUNCIL UA'f IJ,. QnA-/- Chairman William0fughes These Minutes were approved by the Board/Chairman on \'1!:Ai2{1r+._ '-l~ 2oC) ~ as presented__""/__. or as amcnded . . 14 Fiala ~ Halas '\i'. Henning -\" v / Coyle ~ ~ Coletta ~ L- / 16Pl AlO November 21, 2008 RECEIVED MAR 1 B 2009 I ;_>~ard of C(j\infy Comrnissicnors MINUTES OF THE MEETING OF HIE COLLIER COUNTY HABITAT CONSERVATION PLAN ADVISORY COMMITTEE Naples, Florida, November 21,2008 LET IT BE REMEMBERED, that the Collier County Habitat Conservation Plan Advisory Committee in and for the County of Collier, having conducted business herein, met on this date at 9:00 A.M. in REGULAR SESSION at the North Collier Regional Park, Naples Florida, with the following members present: CHAIRMAN: Dr.Judith Hushon VICE CHAIRMAN: Amber Crooks Roslyn (Roz) Katz Dr. Christian Mogelvang Jeffery A. Carter (Absent) Adoni Kokkinos (Excused) Jon Staiger ALSO PRESENT: Steve Williams, Assistant County Atty. Kirsten Wilkie, Environmental Specialist Misc. Corres Date1l1:f~:J:l item 11 llaIL~l ~ - f';!~~ tf: 1 b I 1 ' A 10 November:> I, 2008 1. Call Meeting to Order Chairman Hushon called the meeting to order at 9: 19 AM. II. Roll Call Roll call was taken and it was noted a quorum was not present. Steve Williams, Ass'istant County Attorney noted it was his understanding the Board of Coun(v Commissioner,,' will allow discussions with no ,!({icialactions at an Advisory Board meeting without a quorum. The following members were present for discussion until a quorum was established at 9:45 AM. - Chairman Hushon. Mr. Staiger, Ms. Katz and MI'. Crooks. Steve Williams stated Resolution 2()()]-55 Section 6, (which governs all Advisory Commiffees) does not require a Commiffee 's recommendation/or the BCC to appoint a new member to an Advisory Board The following items were noted: . The Board of County Commissioners (BCe) has reduced the Habitat Conservation Plan Advisory Committee (HCPAC) to a 9 member Committee in which the Committee will sunset in September 2009, . Tad Bartareau's application for membership to the HCPAC was reviewed. . The BCC has re-directed the HCPAC to focus on an HCP for Red Cockaded Woodpecker (RCW). . The Committee has received a letter of support for a local HCP from the Florida Fish and Wildlife Commission in a letter dated November 13, 2008 from Elsa M. Haubold, PHO. Section Leader, Species Conservation Planning. A local HCP would assist in speeding up the development process in the area of conservation. Chairman Hushon will continue discussions with Fred Thomas of the Immokalee Master Plan and Visionary Committee regarding the benefits and feasibility of an HCP in the lmmokalee Urban Area. Chairman Hushon noted this area of discussion was intended to update the Committee member" on the status of the HCPAC subsequent to the Board of County Commissioners re-directing the focus "fthe Committee on Red Cockaded Woodpeckers. The following was noted regarding HCP's for Red Cockaded Woodpecker (RCW). . The document "North Belle Meade Overlay Habitat Recovery Planfor the Red Cockaded Woodpecker" prepared by Southern Biomes lnc, for the Collier County Board of Commissioners, dated December 10, 2003 was reviewed. :> .. 16 fll A 10 .. , . ... Novcmbcr 21, 2008 . The document is available for download on the internet ( http://www.collier~ov.net/lndex.aspx ,?pa~c~3 36) . A Mcmorandum Ji'OlTI Mac Hatchcl', Sr. Environmental Specialist to Kirsten Wilkie, Environmental Spccialist datcd November 20,2008, subject "HCPAC North Belle Mcade RCW Compliance Plan" was reviewed by the Committee. . The United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) Staff has advised the Committee a RCW HCP must include the species Indigo Snake and Florida Panther. Dr. Mogelvang arrived at 9:45AM and a quorum was obtained . Discussion ensued on the feasibility and ramifications of establishing a RCW HCP in North Belle Meade, . Amber Crooks will review any necess~ry Florida Panther data relating" , :) to the area:h ~4J if 'Ii..uJ-.c tcU tu.Lj (tMJi'A (fJ W./LlLLJ rea" HD.M,U1 "" ,U-t iJ'j-Ujt<plhf~, 'A/,.u1J pr(~,A/ 11rd),J4J. Steve Williams, Assistant County Attorney r6commended the Committee focus on the directive by the Board of County Commissioners, prepare an RCW HCP, present it to the BCC and request permission to submit it to the United States Fish and Wildlife Service for a decision. The Committee will have tilled the directive of the BCC and may re- iterate their concerns regarding the feasibility ofthis type of HCP (not including the Florida Panther and Indigo Snake). . Discussion followed noting there is existing data available to prepare an RCW HCP for the subject area in North Belle Meade, . Dr. Hushon will identifY any major stakeholders (landowners, etc.) in the North Belle Meade area affected by a proposed HCP. III. Approval of Agenda Ms. Katz moved to approve the agenda. Second by Mr. Staiger. Carried unanimously 5-0. IV. Approval of Minutes: Ms. Crooks moved to approve the minutes of the August 27, 2008 meeting. Second by Ms. Katz. Carried unanimously 5-0. Ms. Katz moved to approve the minutes of the September 24, 2008 meeting. Second by Mr. Staiger. Carried unanim()u.~ly 5-0. V. Old Business None VI. New Business a. Welcome New Member: Jon C. Staiger Jon Staiger was welcomed to the Committee. 3 1611 A 10 November 2 I. 2UUX h. Review anll Recommendation of Memhel' Application (Tall Bartareau) Ms. Crooks mOl'ed to recommend to the Board o{County Commissioners, the appoimment o{ Tad Bartareallto the Habitat Conserl'ation Plan Adl'isory Commillee. Second by Ms. Katz. Carried unanimoll..ly 5-0. e. New Focus - RCW Sec discussions above and the Committee dctermined the following: o Chairman Husholl will provide URL's (website addresses) of an approvcd RCW HCY o Kirsten Wilkie will provide the guidelines for an HCP required by USFWS to members for review. o Committee members should review any applicable documents on the HCPAC web site. o The Committee will prepare a RCW HCP for review by the BCC and request authorization for its submittal to the USFWS. d. Set new meeting dates for 2009 -2"" Thursday, 4'" Thursday, or 2"" Tuesday It was recommended the meetings bc set for the second Tuesday of the month starting in January. 2009. Kirsten Wilkie will confirm room availability. VII. Subcommittee Reports a. RCW Subcommittee The minutes of the Habitat Conservation Plan Advisory Subcommittee "Options Subcommittee" were circulated for review. It was noted the date of the meeting on the minutes should be corrected from August 13, 2008 to October 22, 2008 at their next Sub-committee meeting. VIII. Public Comments None. IX. Committee General Comments Mr. Katz noted the dialogue with the Immokalee Master Plan and Visionary Committee should continue. X. Staff Comments Kirsten Wilkie provided an email from Ray Loraine, Project Scientist for Biological Research Associates (BRA) who enclosed a document "Habitat Conservation Plan Development, Working with Strategic Pathways and Innovative Solutions" prepared by Enfrix Environmental Consultanfs. XI. Setting Next Meeting Date a. December 10,2008 at CDES 4 1611 A 10 November 21, 200X There heing no further business for the good of the County, the meeting was adjourned by order ofthe chair at 10:46 A.M. Habitat Conservation Plan Advisory Committee These minutes approved by the Board/Committee on as presented or as amended .,/' . ~ de;: dOO 1 / ' 5 Fiala ~f/(f;; 16 I 1 I A 10 Halas -- Henning ~ ~/ December ]0, 200RECEf\lED g~r~~ 4 " MAR 1 8 2009 MINUTES OF THE MEETING OF THE COLLIER COUNTY" OJ <Ouniy CommiSSioners HABITAT CONSERVATION PLAN ADVISORY COMMITTEE -// Naples, Florida, December 10, 2008 LET IT BE REMEMBERED, that the Collier County Habitat Conservation Plan Advisory Committee in and for the County of Collier, having conducted business herein, met on this date at 9:00 A.M. in REGULAR SESSION at the Collier County Community Development Services Conference Room #609/610, 2800 N. Horseshoe Drive, Naples, Florida, with the following members present: CHAIRMAN: Dr. Judith Hushon VICE CHAIRMAN: Amber Crooks Roslyn (Roz) Katz Dr. Christian Mogelvang (Excused) Jeffery A. Carter (Excused) Jon Staiger Adoni Kokkinos (Excused) ALSO PRESENT: Steve Williams, Assistant County Atty. Kirsten Wilkie, Environmental Specialist Misc. Corres: Date: ilem#_-- ;upies to 161 fJ~'A to December 10, 2008 I. Call Meeting to Order Chairman Hushon called the meeting to order at 9: 13 AM. II. Roll Call Roll call was taken and no quorum was present. (There are 2 vacancies on the Committee.) (Notes were taken with the following discussion by the member's present.) Discussion Discussion was held with the following items highlighted: . Review of a document "Comparison of HCP (Habitat Conservation Plan) Categories and Information Available jor RCW (Red Cockaded Woodpecker) Collier County Section 24" dated 1211 0/2008. . The document may be used by individual members to assist in incorporating existing documents, data, etc. into a proposed HCP for RCW. . Request Statfto provide an update in the future on the Status of any ongoing litigation in Section 24. . Updated Bryan Mackenzie of B.H. Mackenzie, Inc. on the status of the Committee. . Possibly initially focusing on Section 4 and 5 of the Table of contents ("Potential Biological Impacts" and "Conservation Program - Measure to minimize and mitigate impacts "). . Possibility ofre-focusing on alternatives of an HCP (Land Development Code Amendments, etc.) . Discussion of panther habitat and telemetry data. . Ms. Crooks noted any Panther data reviewed is to establish if there are any areas in which RCW habitat i.~ not overlapping with Panther habitat. . The Committee should identilY affected landowners and review parcel data (sizes, land uses, etc.) for Section 24. . The Committee should review audio/video recording of September 2006 Board of County Commissioner meeting. . Overview ofre-Iocation process for RCW. . Review of available meeting dates. The discussion ended at 10:45AM Habitat Conservation Plan Advisory Committee 2 . Fiala ~\lf &:iv~ Halas K ~ Henning- V ~ Coyle - Coletta - 1611 A 10 ~ January 13 2009 ,C~ '') " "..,.... /viAl< 1 Ii 2009 (;CiardofC ~()Ull!y C...ommissioners MINUTES OF THE MEETING OF THE COLLIER COUNTY HABITAT CONSERVATION PLAN ADVISORY COMMITTEE Naples, Florida, January 13,2009 LET IT BE REMEMBERED, that the Collier County Habitat Conservation Plan Advisory Committee in and for the County of Collier, having conducted business herein, met on this date at 9:00 A.M. in REGULAR SESSION at the Collier County Community Development Services Conference Room #609/610, 2800 N. Horseshoe Drive, Naples, Florida, with the following members present: CHAIRMAN: Dr. Judith Hushon (Excused) VICE CHAIRMAN: Amber Crooks Roslyn (Roz) Katz Dr. Christian Mogelvang (Excused) Adoni Kokkinos (Absent) Tad Bartareau Jeff Carter ALSO PRESENT: Steve Williams, Assistant County Atty. Kirsten Wilkie, Environmental Specialist MISC COfTes Dale:_______. Ie.." II ,_",,,,,_,,,_"_'" f..': 161. AlO ! January I ~09 I. Call Meeting to Order Vice Chairman Crooks called the meeting to order at 9: II AM. II. Roll Call Roll call was taken and no quorum was present (There are 2 vacancies on the Committee.) (Notes were taken with thefilllowing discussion hy the memher's present.) Discussion Discussion was held with the following items highlighted: · A copy of the video of the October 10,2006 meeting of the Board of County Commissioners (BCC) discussions on item X.A relevant to a Habitat Conservation Plan is available from Kirsten Wilkic. It will be viewed by the Committee when a quorum is present . The Minutes from the above meeting have been posted on the Habitat Conservation Plan web-site for Committee members to review. . Ms. Crooks has been assembling available data and maps on existing Red Cockaded Woodpeckcr (RCW) locations, habitats. potential habitats, etc. . Mr. Carter has assembled articles on relevant issues associated with the Committee and submitted them to Kirsten Wilkie for posting on the HCP web-site. . Discussion on the status or the Committee and the most feasible way to procecd. . Mr. Bartareau has access to additional maps and resources which will assist in ensuring the data utilized in an HCP is as accurate as possible. . Discussion on the scope of the Committee. in relation to the new directive of the BCC (restricting the Committee to focusing on a County wide HCP lor RCW). . Discussion on how, (or if it is possible) to achieve the directive given the limited resources and funding. . Mr. Bartareau will provide the location of any existing data and resources to Kirsten Wilkie rix disfribution. . Kirsten Wilkie will contact County StalTto determine the status of any existing GIS maps applicable to the Committee's directive. . For logistic purposes. a member should he a "custodian" of the data bases generated. . Discussion on re-approaching the Board of County Commissioncrs with a proposal and requesting the resources to complete the directive. . For the next meeting. Mr. Bartareau will draft a brief strategy on how the Committee should achieve the goal of developing the HCP. The discussion ended at \0:55AM .~fI).~ U rei> ~ dOoj 2 \6 Fiala ~:k, t> 11 A 1Q Haias _ I. , FebrJ;Jy~, 09 Henning~ __ '~i'\ fED Coyle =7. J t" ( v.- ..' , .I I.~ ." Co!etta _ ,l' )\MlmUTES OF THE MEETING OF THE COLLIER COUNTY .J:-IA.BH',!,\'T CONSERVATION PLAN ADVISORY COMMITTEE / Naples, Florida, February 25, 2009 LET IT BE REMEMBERED that the Collier County Habitat Conservation Plan Advisory Committee, in and for the County of Collier, having conducted business herein, met on this date at 9:00 AM in REGULAR SESSION at North Horseshoe Drive, Conference Room 610, Naples, Florida, with the following members present: Chairman: Vice Chairman: Dr. Judith Hushon Amber Crooks Tad Bartareau Jeffrey A. Carter Roslyn (Roz) Katz Adoni Kokkinos (Absent) Dr. Christian Moge1vang ALSO PRESENT: Steve Williams, Assistant County Attorney Laura Roys, Sr. Environmental Specialist -. CoIrtI: 011I: ,'em II 1611 A 10 February 25. 2009 I. Call to Order Chairman Hushon called the meeting to order at 9:07 AM. II. Roll Call Roll call was taken and a quorum was established. III. Approval of Minutes a. November 21, 2008 Chairman Hushon suggested the following clarification: [Refer to Page 3] . '"Amber Crooks will review any necessary Florida Panther data relating to the area to establish if there are any areas in which RCW ("Red Cockaded Woodpeckers 'JHabitat is not overlapping with Panther Habitat." RosJlyn Katz moved to approve the Minutes of November 21,2008 as amended. Sedond by Jeff Carter. Carried unanimously, 6-0. b. Notes of December 10, 2008 and January 13,2009 Otl1cial Minutes were not taken since a quorum was not established at either meeting. The Notes for each were reviewcd and accepted. V. Old Business a. Welcome Tad Bartareau Chairman Hushon welcomed Mr. Bartareau to the Advisory Committee and asked him to outline his duties at Fish and Wildlife. Mr. Bartareau stated he is a biologist with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service in the Naples office and oversees the day-to-day acti vities in the Big Cypress Preserve, as well as the Bear Program. IV. Approval of Agenda Tad Bartareau moved to approve the Agendafor February 25,2009. Second by Ros(!yn Katz. Carried unanimously, 6-0. I VI. New Business a. RCW BCC Meeting - October 10,2006 - Video The Committee reviewed a portion ofa video of the meeting of the Board of County Commissioners that pertained to the implementation of the Red Cockaded Woodpecker ("RCW") Compliance Plan presented by Dr. Maureen Bonness. a membcr of the HCPACs RCW Subcommittec. The RCW Compliance Plan consists of three components: (1) regulatory - issuance of County permits; (2) monitoring or habitats: and (3) outreach. Starrrccommended. irthe BCC approved the Plan. to include it in the 2007 LDC Amcndments. :" ':";' ~~ ","<,I '(h~ Hoard directed Staff and the HCPAC to: ',"". linc-tunc thc dclinitions. 2 1611' ,Jl t February 2!'210 · identify specific areas (only North Belle Meade or the entire County), · determine compensation for landowners The Board directed Staff to return with a report that detailed all applicable options. VII. Subcommittee Reports Chairman Hushon stated there was a second meeting during which a number of land owners testified and recalled the definitions were clarified, She suggested Staff obtain a video of the follow-up meeting for review by the Committee. Roz Katz stated there was discussion of a Memorandum of Understanding ("MOU") concerning Burt-Harris Claims. Assistant County Attorney Jeff Wright sent a Memorandum to the Board of County Commissioners in November, 2006, on the Burt-Harris implications ofRCW Compliance Plan and describing the benefits ofan agreement with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Services. The agreement or Letter of Declaration was not obtained Laura Roys reminded the Committee of the Board of County Commissioners' Resolution 2008-307, dated October 14.2008, which stated. in part. "... tile Habitat Conservation Plan Advisory Committee is IIereby directed to sllift tile focus and direction to tile sole task of completing a Habitat Conservation Plan for tile Red Cockaded Woodpecker. Tile Committee sllall IIave until tile currently sclleduled natural termination of tile Committee, September 12,2009, to complete tile Habitat Conservation Plan for tile Red-Cockaded Woodpecker." On April 1,2007. an Executive Summary was approved by the BCC expanding the scope of the HCP - it was broadened to include areas other than North Belle Meade, but not County-wide. Chairman Hushon stated the Board has refocused on the RCWs. The only way is to obtain an MOU and through LDC Amendments. It was stated it is within the Committee's scope to provide alternative suggestions to the BCC in September. Chairman Hushon askcd if RCWs and cavity trees are located on land and the owner wants to clcar the land to build a nursery, what does the County do? Laura Roys stated if the land qualities for an Agricultural Clcaring Notification. the County can not withhold a permit. All affected agencies are copied to inform thcm an endangered species is located on the land. It is then in the hands of the agencies to ensure compliance. The agencics must contact the landowner directly. Assistant County Attorney Williams stated the "Right to Farm Act" prevents thc County trom holding pcrmits. Copies of Dr. Bonness' comments and points to be addressed (written after thc BCC meeting) wcre distributed to the members. 3 lLI1"~ A 10 . "te~ru~ 25, 200r Discussion continued on the RCWs and their habitat There are areas in the County (i.e., Conservation Collier lands and land at Picayune) where birds can be moved. It is unlikely that RCWs wil inhabit an area unless there were mature trees infected with 'red heart' disease. Chairman Hushon asked County Attorney Williams to research if an MOU would give the County the right to issue a "take permit" Jeff Carter stated one of the purposes of an HCP is to protect the County and reducing its liability. He further stated the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service will not agree to a single-species HCP. Chairman Hushon suggested the solution could be to create the RCW portion of a multi-species HCP and approach U.S. Fish and Wildlife to speak to the Commissioners. Tad Bartareau agreed the multi-species framework was appropriate but stated an HCP would also need to "link in" with Zoning and development footprints. A plan should provide options if a landowner wanted to build in a foot-printed area, i.e., opportunities for off-site mitigation. Jeff Carter said the Committee's purpose is to convince the BCC of the necessity for an HCP to be created. The Committee cannot produce an entire HCP. One objective mentioned is to schedule public meetings with residents of North Belle Meade to answer their concerns. In order for an etlective RCW HCP to be written, a determination must be made regarding what areas should be targeted for protection. Tad Bartareau stated an HCP gives guidance to County Staff concerning how to address applications for permits in the HCP-targeted areas. He stated it is in the County's intcrest to develop an HCP as a mechanism to facilitate development approval for stakeholders in targeted areas. He suggested the Committee become pragmatic and offcr constructive suggestions to the BCC. Every individual landholder's needs cannot be addressed in one HCP. Chairman Hushon suggested obtaining copies of other HCPs trom Fish and Wildlife. Thcrc was discussion of the biology involved and whether it was at thc agency level due to the scale. The Committee should suggest what should be done - not how to do it. Chairman Hushon referred to a map on Page 7 of thc Data Analysis Rcport (10-18-06). Shc noted there was a RCW eluster located on Scction 24 of North Belle Meade which is owncd by Conscrvation Collier. Therc was discussion of whether or not the BeC want cd a fullllCP prcsented and ifthc information contained Grant Application prcpared for Immokalee could bc utilized. Consensus was that the B( 'C cxpected to scc a complete documcnt in Septcmbcr. 4 16 I ~1aty ~ 21!() A point was made that having Federal support was important to eliminate being caught in the "Right to Fann" laws and in "Burt-Harris" claims. Laura Roys reminded the Committee the BCC had given them a new direction. It did not mean that everything from the past should be ignored, but there is an updated Resolution to consider. BREAK: 10:50 AM RECONVENED: 11:00 AM A copy of Dr. Maureen Bonnes' notes entitled "HCP Concerns and Issues for the RCW Compliance Plan" was distributed to the Committee. A question was asked what would happen to the entire issue if, in September, the BCC was totally dissatisfied and disbanded the Committee? Chairman Hushon suggested drafting a document for the Bec that outlined information about the habitats for RCWs, indigo snakes, panthers and Scrub Jays with the needs of each species and the specific recovery plans for each, and then piggy-back it onto the RLSA HCP being drafted by Wilson-Miller. Amber Crooks asked if Staff could help clarify if the BCC wants to see a final document in submission form or simply a formal recommendation from the Committee. She also referred to the RCW issue and asked about the Habitat Suitability Index. Jeff Carter stated the individual landowners' issues must be addressed, as well as the panther issue, in order to satisfy the BCC's concerns for its constituents and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. He suggested holding an educational workshop with the BCC and the Belle Meade landowners - a tandem approach to educate both groups. Other suggestions: . Focus on creating a task list to create an RCW Plan with clear objectives · Determine what information needs to be obtained or created · Adaptive management strategy is key to maintain and grow the species . Define the area and identify thc resources . Idcntify major advocacy groups -- what services can he donated from them . Hold meetings with North Belle Meade stakeholders -. obtain community support o Explain existing U.S. Fish and Wildlife rules o Explain the habitat to be protected with visual aids - explain the process of is and is not allowed o Address issues - what was not discloscd to a landowner by a scller at the time of purchase and the County's efforts to solvc the problem o Show where they can build or not build on their land . Draft a "skeleton" HCP 5 1611 FeAa1Q 2009 o Phase I ~ distill down to common ground. present a clear concise message, and address stakeholders concerns o Prepare a grant application to fill in the holcs of the Hcr Additional suggestions: . Explain "mitigation" " definc credit needs and point out where opportunities exist . Identify contacts to obtain RCW-specific biological information Discussion continued and a suggestion was made to focus on the RCW population that is not on public land. There was discussion of whethcr the County would issuc invitations. Laura Roys stated the Committee members will have to assume that responsibility. She suggested obtaining a list of the property owners and their residence addresses to limit postage to the individuals who live in thc arca. Tad Bartareau suggestcd the following task list: 1. Clearly define project area. objectives, and select target species 2. Establish projcct team and delegate specific duties and responsibilities 3. Develop GIS-HSlmodcl and produce draft HCP 4. Review draft IICP among stakeholders 5. Approve HCP 6. Adopt HCP There was consensus to limit the HCP to RCWs in the North Belle Meade area, not enlarge the focus area, and to "keep it simple." Amber Crooks stated she will contact the Fish and Wildlife Service and obtain copies of the RCW HCP Plans from other areas in the State. (JettCarler lefi al ll./IJ AM) Chairman Hushon asked Tad Bartareau to refine the task list to more easily identify the steps to be taken. Chairman Hushon stated thc objcctive is to complete as much as possible of an RCW HCP and potentially complete the bare bones of a grant application to identify the tasks to be completcd and the money required to accomplish them. Thcre was a discussion of the necessity for Subcommittee Meetings which must be publically noticed but will not requirc the attendance of a represcntative from the County Attorncy's ofticc. Chairman Hushon refcrrcd to "subcommittcc working sessions," Assistant County Attorney Williams cautioncd if onc or more membcrs of thc Committcc mcct to discuss anything regarding issucs befiJrc the Committee, the meeting must bc publically noticed. (Gcncral rule: 2 busincss days noticc). Chairman Hushon statcd thc Subcommittcc mcctings do not rcquire a quorum and will bc noticed by I.aura Roys. She further stated she will provide a tape recorder for the seSSIOIl. (, 16 I 1 FebaarJ292009 There will need to be public access for the meeting. Various locations were suggested, such as an office or conference room. She asked the members to consult their calendar and inform Laura. VIII. Public Comments - None IX. Staff Comments - None X. Next Meeting Date The next meeting of the Habitat Conservation Plan Advisory Committee will be on March 17,2009 at 1 :00 PM. There being no further business for the good of the County, the meeting was adjourned by order of the Chair at 12:00 Noon. COLLIER COUNTY HABITAT CONSERV AnON PLAN ADVISORY COMMITTEE c.)... t<:ic.:u /11 /-Jtt'iYIL{).----' ;<JUdith Hushon, Chairman ~- These Minutes were approved by the Board/Chairman on as presented _ , or as amended ./ 3-10 / , ,2009, 7 IMMOKALEE eRA lL I Community Redevelopment Age jJ i The pl21ceto C2111 Home' A 11 ./ 1 ~\'\IE.D CRA Gomoii.i.I:i9 b l'U'U~ EZONE MEETING AGENDA .. ut-,'il. \ etS CommISSlOne~"\ {{\\s.""Oil Donna Fiala _ "oli Co", State Enterprise Zone Development Agency Chair; ,,(00' L .,.)~". Fiala Halas Henning Coyle Coletta Commissioner Tom Henning Commissioner James N. Coletta Commissioner Fred W. Coyle Commissioner Frank HaJas State Eoterorise Zone Oeveloomeot Allencv Board lEZDA) Fred N. Thomas, Jr. Chainnan Edward "Ski" Olesky Bernardo Barnhart Michael Facundo Capt. Tom Davis Robert Halman Ex-ofticio Julio Estremera Kitchell Snow Floyd Crews Ana Salazar Richard Rice James Wall Rick Heers Eva Deyo CRA Staff Penny Phillippi Executive Director 239.252.2310 Bradley Muckel Projc{.1 Manager 239.252.5549 Christie Betancourt Administrative Assistant 239.252.2313 February 18, 2009 - 9:30 to 9:45 AM Career and Service Center of Collier County-lmmokalee 750 South 5th Street lmmokalee, Florida, 34142 A. Call to Order. B. Roll Call and Announcement of Ouorum. c. Adoption of Agenda. D. Communications. E. Consent Agenda. 1. Approval of Minutes a. Regular Meeting - January 26, 2009 (Enclosure I) 2. Seats on the EZDA Advisory board a. Edward "Ski" Olesky - BCC appointment and orientation. b. Michael Facundo - BeC appointment and orientation. c. James Wall- BCC appointments. Orientation needed. 3. Enterprise Zone Reports a. Enterprise Zone Activities Monthly Report (Enclosure 2) F. Old Business. G. New Business. I. Presentation (Enclosure 3) Gary Elliott, United Energy Technology Immokalee Solar Energy Citizen Comments. H. I. Next Meeting. March 18, 2009 at 9:30 A.M. J. Adiournment. Misc. Corres: item # 1,- eRA Governinll Board Commissioner Donna Fiala Chair Commissioner Tom Henning Commissioner James N. Coletta Commissioner Fred W. Coyle Commissioner Frank Halas State Enterorise Zone Develooment Allencv Board tEZDA\ Fred N. Thomas, Jr. Chainnan Edward "Ski" Olesky Bernardo Barnhart Michael Facundo Capt. Tom Davis Robert Halman Ex-officio Julio Estremera Kitchell Snow Floyd Crews Ana Salazar Richard Rice James Wall Rick Heers Eva Deyo eRA Staff Penny Phillippi Executive Director 239.252.2310 Bradley Muckel Project Manager 239.252.5549 Christie Betancourt Administrative Assistant 239.252.2313 _,,_ IMMOKALEE eRA 16 , 'I A 11 r:(.t:,-,t.IV~Qr:'Utlity Reclevelopment Agency Fiala MAl< 2 5 2009 I The pl;)ce to (;)11 Home' Halas Henning Coyle Coletta :'-".'i'.t',j Cc,\T1miSSIOnel:'1 >'\(}i'f(ji,f._, - F. G. H. I. J. EZONE MEETING AGENDA State Enterprise Zone Development Agency March 18, 2009 - 9:30 to 9:45 AM Career and Service Center of Collier County-Immokalee 750 South 5th Street Immokalee, Florida, 34142 A. B. e. D. E. Call to Order. Roll Call and Announcement of Ouorum. Adoption of Agenda. Communications. Consent Agenda. I. Approval of Minutes a. Regular Meeting - February 26, 2009 (Enclosure]) b. Special Meeting - February 23, 2009 (Enclosure 2) 2. Enterprise Zone Reports a. Enterprise Zone Activities Monthly Report (Enclosure 3) Old Business. New Business. I. Seminole Indian Class III Gaming Compact with State of Florida a. Proposed actions Citizen Comments. Next Meeting. April 15, 2009 at 9:30 A.M. Adiournment. Mile. eon.: 0lIII: l!em#' . -r.'iAS to' 1r~A/.JA/ IMMOKALEE eRA (omm~nity Re~evelorment Agency iThe rl'1ceto ('111 Home' 1611 A 11 MINUTES Enterprise Zone Development Agency January 26, 2009 A. Call to Order. The meeting was called to order by Fred N. Thomas, Jr. at 9:35 A.M. Roll Call and Advisory Board/EZDA Members Present: Advisory Board/EZDA Members Present: Fred N. Thomas, Jr., Captain Tom Davis, Kitchell Snow, Eva Deyo, Floyd Crews, Richard Heers, James Wall, Bernardo Barnhart, and Robert Halman. Advisory BoardlEZDA Members Absent/Excused: Robert Halman, Richard Rice, Julio Estremera, Ana Salazar, two vacancies. Action: A quorum was announced as being present. lmmokalee Master Plan and Visioning Committee Present: Fred N. Thomas, Jr., Carrie Williams, Floyd Crews, Rick Heers, Estil Null, and Rev. Jean Paul. IMPVC Members Absent/Excused: Clarence S. Tears, Jr., Edward (Ski) Olesky, Richard Rice, and two vacancies. Action: A quorum was announced as being present. Others Present: Bonnie Michaels, Don Peterson, Judy Miller, Charlie Martin, Pam Brown, Eliza Davis, Susi Winchell, Maria Rodriquez, and Michael Facundo. Staff: Penny Phillippi, Bradley Muckel and Christie Betancourt. C. Adoption of the Agenda. Action: Ms. Deyo moved to adopt the Agenda. Mr. Capt. Davis seconded the motion and the Agenda was approved by unanimous vote. D. Communications. - See Joint Meeting Minutes. E. Consent Agenda. Action: Ms. Deyo moved to adopt the Consent Agenda, Mr. Capt. Davis seconded the motion and the Agenda was approved by unanimous vote. G. Old Business. H. New Business. I. Enterprise Zone Logo. Agency Board members discussed the development of a logo for the lmmokalee Enterprise Zone. Action: Capt. Davis made a motion to instruct staff to pursue the development of an EZone logo for advertizing purposes. Ms. Deyo seconded the motion and it passed by unanimous vote. I. Citizen Comments. J. Next Meeting Date. K. Adioununent. B. March18, 2009 at 8:30 A.M. This meeting was adjourned at 9:52 A.M. 16' 1 A 11 IMMOKALEE eRA (ommunity Redevelopment Agency irhe PI'Iceto ('III Hamel Certification of Minutes Approval Form pr~~ by: ! / / pi, Executive ctor e Community Redevelopment Agency ~. Fred N. Thomas, r., These Minutes for the January 26, 2009, CRA Advisory BoardlEZDAlIMPVC Meeting were approved by the CRA Advisory BoardlEZDAlIMPVC Committee on February 18, 2009, as presented. * The next joint Advisory Board/EZDNIMPVC meeting will be held March 18, 2009 at 8:30A.M. at the Career and Service Center located at 750 South 5th Street in Immokalee. ** There is no scheduled IMPVC meeting at this time. Further meetings will be held at 5:30 P.M. at the Career and Service Center located at 750 South 5th Street in Immokalee and will be appropriately noticed and announced in advance of such meetings. All meetings will be publicly noticed in the W. Harmon Turner Building (Building F), posted at the Immokalee Public Library and provided to the County Public Infonnation Department for distribution. Please call Christie Betancourt, Administrative Assistant, at 239-252-2313 for additional information. In accordance with the American with Disabilities Act, persons needing assistance to participate in any of these proceedings should contact Christie Betancourt, Administrative Assistant, at least 48 hours before the meeting. The public should be advised that members of the Immokalee Master Plan and Visioning Committee and the CRA Advisory Board are also members of the other Boards and Committees, including, but not limited to: EZDA, Immokalee Local Redevelopment Advisory Board, Immokalee Fire Commission, and the Collier County Housing Authority; etc. In this regard, matters coming before the IMPVC and the Advisory Board may come before one or more of the referenced Board and Committees from time to time. . IMMOKALEE eRA COr;2.:PJJRitf:Jfe)levelopment Agency pf::\j\l:11e't~~ to elll Home' M/).\<.;'J '(.';'? .. ~'\S~\,)\\".. f\O"'" oM ES . Enterprise Zone Development Agency February 18, 2009 Fiala Halas Henning - Coyle Coletta 1611 A1l1 Enclosure I A. Call to Order. The meeting was called to order by Fred N. Thomas, Jr. at 9:20 A.M. Roll Call and Advisory Board/EZDA Members Present: Advisory Board/EZDA Members Present: Fred N. Thomas, Richard Heers, Floyd Crews, Richard Rice, Ana Salazar, Bernardo Barnhart, Kitchell Snow, Eva Deyo, Julio Estremera, Captain Tom Davis, Robert Halman, Michael Facundo, James Wall, Edward "Ski" Olesky. Action: A quorum was announced as being present. Immokalee Master Plan and Visioning Committee Present: Edward "Ski" Olesky, Fred N. Thomas, Jr., Richard Heers, Richard Rice, Carrie Williams, Rev. Jean Paul, Floyd Crews and Estil Null. IMPVC Members Absent/Excused: Clarence S. Tears, Jr. and Pam Brown . Action: A quorum was announced as being present. Others Present: Peter Boyle, John R. Mark, Monte Lazarus, Denise Handapangoda, Felix Medina, Judy Hushan, Mitch Hutchcraft, Gary Elliot, David A. Torrubiartez, Brooke Gabrielson, and Judy Miller. Staff: Penny Phillippi and Christie Betancourt. C. Adoption of the Agenda. Action: Mr. Crews moved to adopt the Agenda with changes (moving E.2.a., b., c. to D.- Communications), Mr. Olesky seconded the motion and the Agenda was approved by unanimous vote. D. Communications. Seats on the EZOA Advisory Board - Three new members were appointed Feb. ] 0, 2009 a. Edward "Ski" Olesky - BCC appointment and received orientation. b. Michael Facundo - BCC appointment and received orientation. c. James Wall- BCC appointments. Orientation needed. Consent Agenda. Approval of Minutes for the regular meeting of January 26, 2009. Approval of the January Enterprise Zone Monthly Reports. Action: Mr. Crews moved to adopt the Consent Agenda, Mr. Rice seconded the motion and the Consent Agenda was approved by unanimous vote. G. Old Business. H. New Business. I. Presentation by Gary Elliot of United Energy Technology talked about resources for Solar Energy production partnerships in Immokalee. Citizen Comments. Next Meeting Date. Adjournment. I. J. K. B. E. March 18, 2009 at 8:30 A.M. This meeting was adjourned at 9:50 A.M. I. .-.---.-..,.--... ._.____....."____~__,_C__"_,,~~,___..____""_u~___.__.___.._~.___ IMMOKALEE eRA Community Redevelopment Agency iThe Pl~ce to c~1I Hamel 16' 1 A 11 Certification of Minutes Approval Form ,-..---0 These Minutes for the February 18, 2009, CRA Advisory BoardlEzDAlIMPVC Meeting and for the February 23, 2009 CRA/EZDA Advisory Board Meeting were approved by the CRA Advisory BoardlEZDAlIMPVC Committee on March 18,2009, as presented. * The next joint Advisory BoardlEZDAlIMPVC meeting will be held March 18, 2009 at 8:30A.M. at the Career and Service Center located at 750 South 5th Street in Immokalee. ** There is no scheduled IMPVC meeting at this time. Further meetings will be held at 5:30 P.M. at the Career and Service Center located at 750 South 5th Street in Immokalee and will be appropriately noticed and announced in advance of such meetings. AU meetings will be publicly noticed in the W. Harmon Turner Building (Building F), posted at the jmmokalee Public Library and provided to the County Public Information Department for distribution. please call Christie Betancourt, Administrative Assistant, at 239-252-2313 for additional information. In accordance with the American with Disabilities Act, persons needing assistance to participate in any of these proceedings should contact Christie Betancourt, Administrative Assistant, at least 48 hours before the meeting. The public should be advised that members of the Immokalee Master Plan and Visioning Committee and the CRA Advisory Board are also members of the other Boards and Committees, including, but not limited to: EZDA, lmmokalee Local Redevelopment Advisory Board, Immokalee Fire Commission, and the Collier County Housing Authority; etc. In this regard, matters coming before the IMPVC and the Advisory Board may come before one or more of the referenced Board and Committees from time to time. A eRA Governiol! Board Commissioner Donna Fiala Chair Commissioner Tom Henning Commissioner James N. Coletta Commissioner Fred W. Coyle Commissioner Frank Halas eRA Advisorv Board Fred N. Thomas, Jr. Chairman Edward "Ski'" Olesky Bernardo Barnhart Michael Facudno Capt. Tom Davis Robert Halman Ex-officio Julio Estremera Kitchell Snow Floyd Crews Ana Salazar Richard Rice James Wall Rick Heers Eva Deyo eRA Staff Penny Phillippi Executive Director 239.252.2310 Bradley Muckel Project Manager 239.252.5549 Christie Betancourt Administrative Assistant 239.252.2313 d-x:\\I~,Q IMMOKALEE eRA 9- j . . 1\)\)~ Community Redevelopment Agency \,l\t-\\ .\ '(, ,ss,o~e's i The PI'lce to C'1II Home' \; (,o,,\'ti' "~ MEETING AGENDA Community Redevelopment Agency Advisory Committee 16/11 AI? February 18, 2009- 9:45 to 10:30 A.M. Career and Service Center of Collier County-Immokalee 750 South 5th Street, Immokalee, Florida, 34 I 42 Fiala ~ Halas . nrV-- Henning ) /' Coyle ~ Coletta A. B. C. D. E. F. Call to Order. Roll Call and Announcement of a Ouorum. Introductions. Adoption of Agenda. Communications. Consent Items. I . Approval of Minutes a. Regular Meeting January 26, 2009 (Enclosure 1) Seats on the CRA Advisory Board a. Edward "Ski" Olesky -. BCC appointment and orientation. b. Michael Facundo - BeC appointment and orientation. c. James Wall - BCC appointment. Orientation needed. RW A, Inc. a. January Report (Enclosure 2a) b. January Invoice (Enclosure 2h) 4. Commercial Fa~ade Improvement Program Monthly Report (Enclosure 3) Old Business. 1. County Code Enforcement Monthly Highlights in Immokalee, Kitchell Snow 2. Operational Plan Workshop 3. Habitat Conservation Plan - Conference Call 2. 3. G. H. New Business. 1. Land Acquisition I. Citizen Comments. J. Next Meeting Date. March 18,2009 at 8:30 AM K. Adiournment. * The next joint Advisory BoardlEZDA/lMPVC meeting will be held March 18,2009, at 8:30 A.M. at the Career and Service Center located at 750 South 5th Street in Immokalee. ** There is no scheduled IMPVC meeting at this time. Further meetings will be held at 5:30pm at a place fo be announced in Immokalee and will be appropriately noticed and announced in advance of such meetings. All meetings will be publicly noticed in the W. Harmon Turner Building (Building F), posted at the Immokalee Public Library and provided to the County Public Information Department for distribution. Please Christie Betancourt, Administrative Assistant, at 239.252.2313 for additional information. In accordance with the American with Disabilities Act, persons needing assistance to participate in any of these proceedings should contact Christie Betancourt, Administrative Assistant, at least 48 hours before the meeting. The public should be advised that members of the Immokalee Master Plan and Visioning Committee and the CRA Advisory Board are also members of the other Boards and Committees, including, but not limited to: EZDA, Immokalee Local Redevelopment Advisory Board, Immokalee Fire Commission, and the Collier County Housing Authority; etc. In this regard, matters coming before the IMPVC and the Advisory Board may come before one or more of the referencedMls1l\t1lOlM~ommittees from time to time. Date:~ 'em#UO]:( l)A-ld-' RECEIVED MAR ? :3 2009 IMMOKALEE eRA Community Redevelopment Agency i The plClceto CClII Home' 16' l'i , A 12 Fiala ~ Halas . Henning . I \r' Coye 'A;-/ Coletta q r!. ! I'-'Y' Commissioner Donna Fiala Chair CRA Gov~i! Ilfo\ifl'l" V cnm:reR')('MEETING AGENDA Community Redevelopment Agency Advisory Committee Commissioner Tom Henning Commissioner James N. Coletta Commissioner Fred w. Coyle Commissioner Frank Halas eRA Advisory Board Fred N. Thomas, Jr. Chairman Edward "Ski" Olesky Bernardo Barnhart Michael Pacudno Capt. Tom Davis Robert Halman Ex-{)fficio Julio Estremera Kitchell Snow Floyd Crews Ana Salazar Richard Rice James Wall Rick Heers Eva Deyo CRA Staff Penny Phillippi Executive Director 239.252.23 fO Bradley Muckel Project Manager 239.252.5549 Christie Betancourt Administrative Assistant 239.252.2313 March 18,2009- 9:4S to 10:30 A.M. Career and Service Center of Collier County-Immokalee 7S0 South Sth Street, Immokalee, Florida, 34142 A. Call to Order. B. Roll Call and Announcement of a Ouorum. C. Introductions. D. Adoption of Agenda. E. Communications. F. Consent Items. I. Approval of Minutes a. Regular Meeting February 18,2009 (Enclosure I) b. Special Meeting - February 23, 2009 (Enclosure 2) 2. RWA, Inc. a. February Report (Enclosure 3a) b. February Invoice (Enclosure 3b) 3. Commercial Fayade Improvement Program Monthly Report (Enclosure 4) 4. Agreement for Esperanza Place Empowerment Alliance of Southwest Florida (Enclosure Sa) Florida Non-Profit Services, Inc. (Enclosure Sb) G. Old Business. I. County Code Enforcement Monthly Highlights in Immokalee, Kitchell Snow H. New Business. I. BCC Agenda Items a. Annual Report - March 24, 2009 1. Citizen Comments. J. Next Meeting Date. April IS, 2009 at 8:30 AM K. Operational Plan Workshop. (Enclosure 6 - Agenda) (Enclosure 7 - Duties) . The next joint Advisory Board/EZDA/IMPVC meeting will be held April 15, 2009, at 8:30 A.M. at the Career and Service Center located at 750 South 5" Street in Immokalee. .. There is no scheduled IMPVC meeting at this time. Further meetings will be held at 5:30pm at a place to be announced in Immokalee and will be appropriately noticed and announced in advance of such meetings. All meetings will be publicly noticed in the W. Harmon Turner Building (Building F), posted at the Immokalee Public Library and provided to the County Public Information Department for distribution. Please Christie Betancourt, Administrative Assistant, at 239.252.2313 for additional information. In accordance with the American with Disabilities Act, persons needing assistance to participate in any of these proceedings should contact Christie Betancourt. Administrative Assistant, at least 48 hours before the meeting. The public should be advised that members of the Immokalee Master Plan and Visioning Committee and the CRA Advisory Board are also members of the other Boards and Committees, including, bnt not limited to: EZDA, lmmokalee Local Redevelopment Advisory Board, ImmOkal~~miSSion, and the Collier County Housing AuLhority; etc. In this regard, matters c the IMPVC and the Advisory Board may come before one or more of the refere~d Committees from time to time. DIIt:__._u Date !~er'\ tf- IMMOKALEE eRA Comm,^n:ty Redevelopment Agency i The pl<lce to Colli Hamel 16 '~JosJ 112 MINUTES Immokalee LocalJRedevelopment Agency January 26, 2009 A. Call to Order. The meeting was called to order by Fred N. Thomas, Jr. at 9:52 A.M. B. Roll Call and Announcement of a Quorum. Advisory Board/EZDA Members Present: Fred N. Thomas, Jr., Captain Tom Davis, Kitchell Snow, Eva Deyo, Floyd Crews, Richard Heers, James Wall, Bernardo Barnhart, and Robert Halman. Advisory Board/EZDA Members Absent/Excused: Robert Halman, Richard Rice, Julio Estremera, Ana Salazar, two vacancies. Action: A quorum was announced as being present. Immokalee Master Plan and Visioning Committee Present: Fred N. Thomas, Jr., Carrie Williams, Floyd Crews, Rick Heers, Estil Null, and Rev. Jean Paul. IMPVC Members Absent/Excused: Clarence S. Tears, Jr., Edward (Ski) Olesky, Richard Rice, and two vacancies. Action: A quorum was announced as being present. Others Present: Bonnie Michaels, Don Peterson, Judy Miller, Charlie Martin, Pam Brown, Eliza Davis, Susi Winchell, Maria Rodriquez, and Michael Facundo. Staff: Penny Phillippi, Bradley Muckel and Christie Betancourt. C. Introductions. - See Joint Meeting Minutes. D. Adoption of Agenda. Action: Mr. Crews made a motion to adopt the Agenda. with the following changes: (1) item F3d. was added to the Consent Agenda (Updated Scope of Work for Transportation component of the lmmokalee Area Master Plan); (2) item F4 was pulled from the Consent Agenda for discussion and moved G 2; (3) an item H6 was added (COLA for Executive Director). Ms. Deyo seconded the motion and the Agenda was adopted by unanimous vote. E. Communications. See Joint Meeting Minutes F. Consent Agenda. Action: Ms. Deyo moved to approve the Consent Agenda, with changes as noted, Capt. Davis seconded and the Consent Agenda was approved by unanimous vote. G. Old Business. I. County Code Enforcement Monthlv Highlights in Immokalee. Kitchell Snow reported on a new on-going community clean up program scheduled for every six months (on a Saturday) in Immokalee. 2. Commercial Fa9ade Improvement Program. Mr. Martin of the Handy Stores wished to present his F<l9ade Grant Program application for approval by the CRA Advisory Board. Action: Mr. Heers made a motion to authorize the lmmokalee CRA Executive Director to approve applications to the Commercial Faryade Improvement Grant Program and that action is to be brought before the CRA Advisory Board to be ratified and recommended to the CRA Board for approval. Capt. Davis seconded the motion and the motion passed by unanimous vote. 1611 A 12 H. New Business Action: The gavel was passed from the Chairman, Mr. Phillippi. 1. Thomas, to the Executive Director, Ms. Nominations from the floor. Ms. Phillippi announced the Board had received nominations from the Nominating Committee in December 2008. The Committee recommended Mr. Fred N. Thomas, 1r. for the position of Chairman and Mr. Richard Rice for the position of Vice-Chair. She announced that she was accepting nominations from the floor. No nominations were offered from the floor. 2. Election of Officers. Action: Ms Phillippi called for a show of hands for those in favor of Fred N Thomas, Jr. for Chair and Richard Rice for Vice-Chair. All members raised their hands in favor, none opposed and the new officers were elected by unanimous vote. Ms. Phillippi passed the gavel back to Mr. Thomas. 3. News Articles. Ms. Phillippi called member's attention to Enclosure 8 and the 6 news articles referencing the Master Plan. She stated it is her intention to advertise the articles in the Florida Trend Magazine, the Naples Daily News and other regional news papers. She requested feedback from the Advisory Board on the articles. Board members stated they were very pleased with the articles and suggestion they be sent as press releases. Ol'erational Plan Workshop. Ms. Phillippi announced that CRA staff is seeking price quotes to conduct an Operational Plan workshop prior to March 31, 2009. Publish Annual Report. Ms. Phillippi announced that the 2008 Annual Report will be sent to a graphic designer before February 14th and will be printed in conjunction with the Bayshore Gateway CRA Annual Report. Executive Director Annual Evaluation. Mr. Thomas reviewed the Executive Director's annual evaluation (2.7 from Advisory Committee and 2.8 from Commissioner Coletta) and asked for a motion for a COLA increase for the Executive Director. Action: Ms. Deyo made motion to recommend to the CRA Board to provide a 4.2% COLA to the Executive Director. CaOL Davis seconded the motion and the motion oassed bv unanimous vote. 1. 1. K. 4. 5. 6. Citizen's Comments. Next Meeting Date. Adiournment: February 18,2009 at 8:30 AM The meeting was adjourned at 10:20 AM 2 IMMOKALEE CRf\ Community Reclevelopment Agency j The Pl.ce to c.ll Homel 161 1 A 12 Certification of Minutes Approval Form prrr~Y: 1.-' / ,'1-' These Minutes for the January 26, 2009, CRA Advisory Board Meeting was approved by the CRA Advisory BoardlEZDAlIMPVC Committee on February 23, 2009, as amended. * The next joint Advisory BoardlEZDNIMPVC meeting will be held March 18, 2009 at 8:30A.M. at the Career and Service Center located at 750 South 5th Street in Immokalee. ** There is no scheduled IMPVC meeting at this time. Further meetings will be held at 5:30 P.M. at the Career and Service Center located at 750 South 5th Street in Immokalee and will be appropriately noticed and announced in advance of such meetings. All meetings will be publicly noticed in the W. Harmon Turner Building (Building F), posted at the Immokalee Public Library and provided to the County Public lnfonnation Department for distribution. Please call Christie Betancourt, Administrative Assistant, at 239-252-2313 for additional infonnation. In accordance with the American with Disabilities Act, persons needing assistance to participate in any of these proceedings should contacL Christie Betancourt, Administrative Assistant, at least 48 hours before the meeting. The public should be advised that members of the Immokalee Master Plan and Visioning Committee and the CRA Advisory Board are also members of the other Boards and Committees, including, but not limited to: EZDA, lmmokalee Local Redevelopment Advisory Board, Immokalee Fire Commission, and the Collier County Housing Authority; etc. In this regard, matters coming before the IMPVC and the Advisory Board may come before one or more of the referenced Board and Committees from time to time. IMMOKALEE eRA Community Redevelopment Agency,. : \I'E D i The PI~ce to c111 Homel 'h" 16' l' A 1~ Enclosure 1 MINUTES Immokalee Local Redevelopment Agency February 18,2009 Fiala Halas Henning Coyle Coletta A. Call to Order. The meeting was called to order by Fred N. Thomas, Jr. at 9:55 A.M. B. Roll Call and Announcement of a Quorum. Advisory Board/EZDA Members Present: Fred N. Thomas, Richard Heers, Floyd Crews, Richard Rice, Ana Salazar, Bernardo Barnhart, Kitchell Snow, Eva Deyo, Julio Estremera, Captain Tom Davis, Robert Halman, Michael Facundo, James Wall, Edward "Ski" Olesky. Action: A quorum was announced as being present. lmmokalee Master Plan and Visioning Committee Present: Edward "Ski" Olesky, Fred N. Thomas, Jr., Richard Heers, Richard Rice, Carrie Williams, Rev. Jean Paul, Floyd Crews and Estil Null. IMPVC Members Absent/Excused: Clarence S. Tears, Jr. and Pam Brown . Action: A quorum was announced as being present. Others Present: Peter Boyle, John R. Mark, Monte Lazarus, Denise Handapangoda, Felix Medina, Judy Hushan, Mitch Hutchcraft, Gary Elliot, David A. Torrubiartez, Brooke Gabrielson, and Judy Miller. Staff: Penny Phillippi and Christie Betancourt. Action: A quorum was announced as being present. C. Introductions. D. Adoption of Agenda. Action: Mr. Olesky made a motion to adopt the Agenda, changes (moving F2.a., b., c. to E- Communications), Mr. Barnhart seconded the motion and it passed by unanimous vote. E. Communications. Seats on the CRA Advisory Board - Three new members were appointed Feb. 10, 2009 a. Edward "Ski" Olesky - BCC appointment and received orientation. b. Michael Facundo - BCC appointment and received orientation. c. James Wall- BCC appointments. Orientation needed. F. Consent Agenda. Approval of the January minutes (with changes), the RWA Report and Invoices and the Fayade Grant activity report. Action: Mr. Olesky moved to approve the Consent Agenda, Mr. Barnhart seconded and the Consent Agenda was approved by unanimous vote. G. Old Business. 1. County Code Enforcement Monthlv Highlights in ImmokaJee. Kitchell Snow reported on a new on-going community clean up program scheduled for every six months (on a Saturday) in Immokalee. 2. Operational Plan Workshop. Staff reported they had not yet procured the required number of quotes from consultants to move the workshop forward. 3. Habitat Conservation Plan conference call was covered during the IMPVC meeting. Mile. Corref , Dale ~-_. -~,_.~-. eRA Goveninll Board Commissioner Donna Fiala Chair Commissioner Tom Henning Commissioner James N. Coletta Commissioner Fred W. Coyle Commissioner Frank Halas eRA Advisorv Board "'- State EnterDrise Zone Allencv Board Fred N. Thomas, Jr. Chainnan Edward "Ski" Olesky Bernardo Barnhart Capt. Tom Davis Robert Halman Ex-officio Julio Eslremera Michael Facundo Kitchell Snow Floyd Crews Richard Rice Ana Salazar Rick Beers James Wall Eva Deyo Master Plan & Visionioll Committee Fred N. Thomas, Jr. Chairman Edward (Ski) Olesky Clarence S. Tears, Jr. Pastor Jean C. Paul Carrie Williams Floyd Crews Pam Brown Rick Heers Dick Rice Estil Null eRA Staff Penny Phillippi Executive Director 239.252.2310 Bradley Muckel Project Manager 239.252.5549 Christie Betancourt Administrative Assistant 239.2522313 IMMOKALEE eRA 16 I Community Re~evelopment Agency 1 iThe Pl'1ce to c'1ll Homel A 13 JOINT MEETING AGENDA lmmokalee Master Plan and Visioning Committee And Community Redevelopment Agency Advisory Committee February 18, 2009 - 8:30 A.M. Career and Service Center of Collier County-Immokalee 750 South 5th Street, Immokalee, Florida, 34142 A. Call to Order. B. Roll Call and Announcement of a Ouorum. C. Introductions. D. Adootion of A~enda. E. Communications. I. February Public Notices 2. Immokalee Sign Code Violations, Naples Daily News Article 3. Growth Management Legislation 4. Legal Opinion RE: MSTU Expansion 5. Project Innovation Meeting Sign up Sheet 6. Boards and Committee 7. Seminole Press Release F. Consent Agenda. L Approval of Minutes. a. Regular Meeting January 26, 2009 (Enclosure 1) 2. Seats on the IMPVC. a. Pam Brown - BCC appointment and orientation. G. Old Business. I. Red Flag System - Open for Discussion a. Dr. Handapangoda Request b. Dr. Handapangoda Fayade Program Application (Enclosure 2). 2. The Collier County Habitat Conservation Plan (HCP) Advisory Committee conference call. H. New Business. I . Executive Directors Report a. MSTU Report. b. Project Innovation Meeting. c. Streets and Drainage Sub-Committee report from Friday, 2/13/09. d. Immokalee Celebration of Cultures. e. Pedestrian Zone. L Citizen Comments. J. Next Meeting Date. Regular Meeting March 18,2009 at 8:30 AM K. Adjournment Item#: l""c:s to eRA Governioe Board Commissioner Donna Fiala Chair Commissioner Tom Henning Commissioner James N. Coletta Commissioner Fred W. Coyle Commissioner Frank Halas eRA Advisor\' Board l< State Enterorise Zone Al!encv Board Fred N. Thomas, Jr. Chairman Edward "Ski" Olesky Bernardo Barnhart Capt. Tom Davis Robert Halman Ex-officio Julio Estremera Michael Facundo Kitchell Snow Floyd Crews Richard Rice Ana Salazar Rick Heers James Wall Eva Deyo Master Plan & Visioninl! Committee Fred N. Thomas, Jr. Chairman Edward (Ski) Olesky Clarence S. Tears, Jr. Pastor Jean C. Paul Carrie Williams floyd Crews Pam Brown Rick Heers Dick Rice EstiJ Null eRA Staff Penny Phillippi Executive Director 239.252.2310 Bradley Muckel Project Manager 239.252.5549 Christie Betancourt Administrative Assistant 239.252.2313 P EIVED IMMOKALEE eRA 1 6 I '1 A 1 ivI.AR 2 j 20O!Pmmunity Redevelopment Agencr 3 ",""OlC'Ol'O'YCOmmISSionerJThe pl<1ce to (<111 Hamel Fiala ()t:-t;. ~ Halas ~ /04L JOINT MEETING AGENDA Henning Y /, Immokalee Master Plan and Visioning Committee And Coyle / / Community Redevelopment Agency Advisory Committee Coletta --fiZ I,~ ( March 18,2009 - 8:30 A.M. Career and Service Center of Collier County-Immokalee 750 South 5'" Street, Immokalee, Florida, 34142 A. Call to Order. B. C. D. E. Roll Call and Announcement of a Ouorum. Introductions. Adoption of Agenda. Communications. I. March Public Notices 2. Master Plan Review Update 3. CRA web page update, "Projects" section. 4. Advisory Board web Bio and Pictures. 5. Prooffor Fa~ade Grant Sign 6. Seminole Casino Gaming Compact News Article 7. Final CRA Annual Report F. Consent Agenda. I. Approval of Minutes. a. Regular Meeting February 18,2009 (Enclosure I) 2. Red Flag Items a. MDG Capital Letter, Arrowhead Reserve (Enclosure 2) Old Business. I. The Collier County Habitat Conservation Plan (HCP) Advisory Committee conference call and proposed workshop - Sub-Committee Report, Floyd Crews. (Enclosure 3 - Letters from Regulatory Agencies) G. H. New Business. I. LDI presentation of plaza design concept. Citizen Comments. I. J. K. Next Meeting Date. Regular Meeting April 15,2009 at 8:30 AM Adiournment. Mile. CorNe: DIIt: :CllIl!dO'J :tllllll --:.0 I1em "__ -------.- sp',....,'"' ",CI'^) .,;t:!~!$ Ii" !MMOKALEE eRA Community Redevelopment Agency i The Pl'1ce to C'1II Hamel 1611 A 13 JOINT MEETING MINUTES Immokalee Master Plan and Visioning Committee and Community Redevelopment Agency Advisory Committee January 26, 2009 A. Call to Order. The meeting was called to order by Fred N. Thomas, Jr. at 8:45 A.M. B. Roll Call and Announcement of a Quorum. Advisory Board/EZDA Members Present: Fred N. Thomas, Jr., Captain Tom Davis, Kitchell Snow, Eva Deyo, Floyd Crews, Richard Heers, James Wall, Bernardo Barnhart, and Robert Halman. Advisory Board/EZDA Members AbsentlExcused: Robert Halman, Richard Rice, Julio Estremera, Ana Salazar, two vacancies. Action: A quorum was announced as being present. Immokalee Master Plan and Visioning Committee Present: Fred N. Thomas, Jr., Carrie Williams, , Floyd Crews, Rick Heers, Estil Null, and Rev. Jean Paul. IMPVC Members AbsentlExcused: Clarence S. Tears, Jr. Edward (Ski) Olesky, Richard Rice, and two vacancies. Action: A quorum was announced as being present. Others Present: Bonnie Michaels, Don Peterson, Judy Miller, Charlie Martin, Pam Brown, Eliza Davis, Susi Winchell, Maria Rodriquez, and Michael Facundo. Staff: Penny Phillippi, Bradley Muckel and Christie Betancourt. C. Introductions. Each person introduced themselves. D. Adoption of Agenda. Action: The Agenda was adopted with changes (Items G. l. a. was tabled and G.3. was added) after a motion by Mr. Heers and a second by Ms. Deyo. E. Communications. The Committees discussed the draft Interim Land Development Code (LDC) Amendment, sighs and mixed use commercial. Staff was instructed to arrange a special workshop for Committee Members to discuss the commercial mixed use possibilities in Immokalee in anticipation of the Immokalee Specific LDC. F. Consent Agenda. \. Approval of Minutes. December 17.2008. 2. Seats on the IMPVC. Action: Ms. Deyo made a motion to approve the Consent Agenda items, Mr. Crews seconded the motion and the items were approved unanimously. G. Old Business. \. Red Flag System a. Dr. Handapandgoda requested the Fayade Program waiver be moved to the February agenda. Action: Ms. Deyo made the motion to table the request until the February meeting; Mr. Barnhart seconded the motion and the motion passed by unanimous vote. 1611 A 13 2. Update on Immokalee Area Master Plan Review Process/LDC Update Process. Ms. Phillippi offered the three options for getting the Master Plan updated in a more expeditious manner and stated that she has a meeting this afternoon with Joe Schmitt to discuss the various options. 3. The Collier County Habitat Conservation Plan Advisory Committee requested volunteers to conduct a telephone conference call with a HCP in Austin, Texas. Staff was instructed to arrange the call and invite the major landholders to attend. H. New Business. I. Streets and Drainage Sub-Committee Report. Mr. Crews provided a report and update on the efforts to implement the Immokalee Stormwater Master Plan, expand the MSTU, find funding sources and discover the uses of the Collier County Stormwater Tax in Immokalee. Ms. Phillippi requested approval of Work Order #1 for Guardian Community Resource Group to begin finding projects and funds for stormwater issues in Immokalee. Action: The motion (by Mr. Heers) to recommend the Task Order to the CRA Board was seconded by Mr. Null was passed by unanimous vote. I. J. K. Citizen Comments. Next Meeting Date. Adiournment. February 18,2009 at 8:30 A.M. This meeting was adjourned at 9:35 A.M 2 rr-"-~ .' IMMOKALEE eRfRECE\\:t:U Community Redevelopment Amy; 3 2009 iThe pl'1ceto c'1ll Home' ' :,,:UI" 01 C':\Vjl) i\l1lln"SSlnne(~> Fiala Halas Henning Coyle Coletta 16 '\ncloAJ 3 ./ JOINT MEETING MINUTES Immokalee Master Plan and Visioning Committee and Community Redevelopment Agency Advisory Committee February 18,2009 Call to Order. The meeting was called to order by Fred N. Thomas, Jr. at 8:30 A.M. Roll Call and Announcement of a Quorum. Advisory Board/EZDA Members Present: Fred N. Thomas, Richard Heers, Floyd Crews, Richard Rice, Ana Salazar, Bernardo Barnhart, Kitchell Snow, Eva Deyo, Julio Estremera, Captain Tom Davis, Robert Halman, Michael Facundo, James Wall, Edward "Ski" Olesky. Action: A quorum was announced as being present. Immokalee Master Plan and Visioning Committee Present: Edward "Ski" Olesky, Fred N. Thomas, Jr., Richard Heers, Richard Rice, Carrie Williams, Rev. Jean Paul, Floyd Crews and Estil Null. IMPVC Members Absent/Excused: Clarence S. Tears, Jr. and Pam Brown . Action: A quorum was announced as being present. Others Present: Peter Boyle, John R. Mark, Monte Lazarus, Denise Handapangoda, Felix Medina, Judy Hushan, Mitch Hutchcraft, Gary Elliot, David A. Torrubiartez, Brooke Gabrielson, and Judy Miller. Staff: Penny Phillippi and Christie Betancourt. Introductions. Each person introduced themselves. D. Adoption of Agenda. Action: The Agenda was adopted with changes (moving item F. 2. a. to E. 8) after a motion by Mr. Heers and a second by Mr. Rice. E. Communications. \. February Public Notices. 2. Article from the Naples Daily News referencing BCC Sign Violations. a. All new signs must be permitted. b. County bears burden of proof of permit for signs older than 5 years. c. BCC granted relief until the Interim LDC can be promulgated. New Growth Management Legislation. Legislation specifically designed to encourage redevelopment in urban designated areas. a. b. A. B. C. 3. 4. Extends deadlines for local governments to submit CIPs to DCA, creates transportation concurrency exception areas that all or increased development in designated urban communities, and c. removes the DR! process from urban communities. Legal opinion re: MSTU expansion. a. It is not necessary to obtain a 50% plus one petition to expand the MSTU. Project Innovation Sign Up Sheet. ~ones: a. This sheet allows Board Members to review dates and times for events in order to sign up. Please sign up and return sheet to Christie today.---.---- 5. ,I( 16 1 ,~ A 13 IMMOKALEE eRA Community Redevelopment Agency i The P!'1ce to c'1ll Hamel Certification of Minutes Approval Form ,----.. APP~~Y;~- -._:;=.,=:,~-';kL. . '_ . Fred N. Th~~as, Jr., ~~a\ These Minutes for the February 18, 2009, CRA Advisory BoardlEZDAlIMPVC Meeting and for the February 23, 2009 CRA/EZDA Advisory Board Meeting were approved by the CRA Advisory BoardlEZDAlIMPVC Committee on March 18, 2009, as presented. * The next joint Advisory Board/EZDAlIMPVC meeting will be held March 18, 2009 at 8:30A.M. at the Career and Service Center located at 750 South 5th Street in Immokalee. ** There is no scheduled rMPVC meeting at this time. Further meetings will be held at 5:30 P.M. at the Career and Service Center located at 750 South 5th Street in Immokalee and will be appropriately noticed and announced in advance of such meetings. All meetings will be publicly noticed in the W. Harmon Turner Building (Building F), posted at the /mmokaiee Public Library and provided to the County Public Information Department for distribution. Please call Christie Betancourt, Admiuistrative Assistant, at 239-252-2313 for additional information. In accordance with the American with Disabilities Act, persons needing assistance to participate in any of these proceedings should contact Christie Betancourt, Administrative Assistant, at least 48 hours before the meeting. The public should be advised that members of the Immokalee Master Plan and Visioning Committee and the CRA Advisory Board are also members of the other Boards and Committees, including, but not limited to: EZDA, Immokalee Local Redevelopment Advisory Board, Immokalee Fire Commission, and the Collier County Housing Authority; etc. In this regard, matters coming before the IMPVC and the Advisory Board may come before one or more of the referenced Board and Committees from time to time. A IMMOKALEE eRA Community Redevelopment Agency i The Pl'1ce to C'1II Hamel 16 1 1 A 13 Certification of Minutes Approval Form pi, Executive ctor e Community Redevelopment Agency Fred N. Thomas, r., These Minutes for the January 26, 2009, CRA Advisory BoardlEZDAlIMPVC Meeting were approved by the CRA Advisory BoardlEZDAlIMPVC Committee on February 18, 2009, as presented. * The next joint Advisory Board/EZDAlIMPVC meeting will be held March 18, 2009 at 8:30A.M. at the Career and Service Center located at 750 South 5th Street in Immokalee. ** There is no scheduled IMPVC meeting at this time. Further meetings will be held at 5:30 P.M. at the Career and Service Center located at 750 South 5th Street in Immokalee and will be appropriately noticed and announced in advance of such meetings. All meetings will be publicly noticed in the W. Harmon Tumer Building (Building F), posted at the ImmokaIee Public Library and provided to the County Public Information Department for distribution. Please call Christie Betancourt, Administrative Assistant, at 239-252-2313 for additional information. In accordance with the American with Disabilities Act, persons needing assistance to participate in any of these proceedings should contact Christie Betancourt, Administrative Assistant, at least 48 hours before the meeting. The public should be advised that members of the Immokalee Master Plan and Visioning Committee and the CRA Advisory Board are also members of the other Boards and Committees, including, but not limited to: EZDA, Immokalee Local Redevelopment Advisory Board, ImmokaIee Fire Commissiou, and the Collier County Housing Authority; etc. In this regard, matters coming before the IMPVC and the Advisory Board may come before one or more of the referenced Board and Committees from time to time. >."'_n_______.__._._~__.~______" ___..._,~.'____,._.,_.._, '" 1611.~A1 IMMOKALEE eRA RECEIVt:03 eommunity Redevelopment Agency MAR iThe P/'1ce to ('111 Hamel 16 2009 v eRA Governiol! Board 1:!(l;Hl"1 or r;ounty Commissioners MEMORANDUM Commissioner Donna Fiala DATE: March 6, 2009 Fiala \!: I:Jt...tJfL- Halas ~.1ll- - - - Henning=-.:-.L/ Coyle ---;'7--::; - Coletta q.-==-- Commissioner Tom Henning Commissioner James N. Coletta TO: Sue Filson, Executive Manager, BCC Commissioner Fred w. Coyle FROM: Christie Betancourt, Administrative Assistant Immokalee Community Redevelopment Agency Commissioner Frank Halas RE: Agendas, Minutes, and Signed Approval eRA Advisorv Board & State Enterorise Zone Al!encv Board Fred N. Thomas, Jr. Chairman Attached are the Agendas, Minutes, and Signed Approval from January 26, 2009 for your conveyance. Ana Salazar Bernardo Barnhart Michael Facundo Edward "Ski" Olesky Eva Deyo Floyd Crews Kitchell Snow James Wall Julio Estremera Richard (Dick) Rice Richard (Rick) Heers Capt. Tom Davis Robert HaJman (Ex Officio) Thank you. c~ e~/? Master Plan & VisionilU! Committee Fred N. Thomas Jr. Chairman Edward (Ski) Olesky Clarence $, Tears, Jr. Pastor Jean C. Paul Carrie Williams Floyd Crews Richard (Rick) Heers Richard (Dick) Rice Estil Null eRA Staff Penny Phillippi Executive Director Bradley Muckel Project Manager Christie Betancourt Administrative Assistant Misc. Corres: Date: --~_._----~ ,mmokalee Community Re<!evelopment Agency 310 Abchu'l Street, Immokalee, FL 3414-2 239.252.2313 n. 239.252.6725 (FAX) lerpt1: '_._~.._- ..n__._._____,_"_~,__."_._.."..._~.___,,,.._ 1611 Atils ~'C~NE.O Henning \"")'t;. t:- \ Coyle L-.. " \'M~R \) ~ 1'$J9 Coletta iJ'Z-/;rf-.-, CO\"",I..\O""" ISLES OF CAPRI FIRE/RESCUE ,0.,0 01 CO""\'! ADVISORY BOARD MEETING MINUTES FEB. 12, 2009 ISLES OF CAPRI FIRE STATION ./ ATTENDEES: Emilio Rodriguez, Fire Chief Kirk Colvin, Chairman Ted Decker, Advisory Board Member Jim Gault, Advisory Board Member Kevin Walsh, Advisory Board Member Bill Schmidt, Resident Barbara Shea, Minutes Preparer I. CALL TO ORDER Kirk Colvin opened the meeting at 6:35 p.m. II. OLD BUSINESS A. Chiefs Report. B. Jan. 2009 Advisory Board Meeting Minutes. I. Copy of Minutes distributed. 2. Motion to approve Jan. 2009 Minutes by Kirk Colvin. a. Motion seconded by Ted Decker. b. Motion carried unanimously. b. Minutes signed off by Chairman Colvin. C. Capri Cafe Fire. I. Restaurant saved. 2. Cause unknown. 3. Fire originated in a couch. 4. Restaurant expected to reopen on Feb. 16. 5. Minor smoke damage. D. FY09 Budget status report. \. Prepared "FY09 Cost Containment Analysis" for Dan Summers. 2. FY09 projected cost savings expected to be $27,275. a. Personal services = $11,000 savings. b. Operating expenses = $15,275 savings. c. Capital expenses = $1,000 savings. ',:", .,Qnes: :'1t~ ~G:)Z[ ~ E. FYIO Budget expectations. 1611 A 14 \. County Mgr. is expected to mandate a cost reduction of 15% from FY09. 2. Final budget guidance to be approved by BCC on Feb. 24. 3. lCFD expects no large capital expenditures over the next five years. a. NFPA recommends fire truck replacement every ten years. b. We expect our two 2005 fire trucks to have a useful life> 10 yrs. 4. Our total annual debt payments are $39,231 for one of our fire trucks. F. Chief Rodriguez sent a letter to BCC Chairperson Fiala discussing Keewaydin Is. I. City of Naples has an interest in annexing Keewaydin Island. 2. Chief Rodriguez provided fire protection information to Chairperson Fiala. 3. City of Naples is not able to provide an equal level of service to the island. 4. Keewaydin property owners pay fire taxes to District] . 5. lCFD receives a portion of the total District I taxes collected. 6. If the island were annexed, ICFD would still respond & not get compensated. 7. On Feb. 12, ICFD was notified that the annexation would not take place. III. NEW BUSINESS A. New boat motors for Boat 90 are being installed at Cedar Bay Marina. I. The Mercury Optimax brand was chosen for the replacement motors. 2. Price includes repowering of Boat 90. 3. Boat 90 expected to be returned within a few days. B. Update on the construction ofthe new Fiddlers Creek Clubhouse. I. Permit application submitted to the county. 2. Ground breaking expected within a year. C. Update on the Hammock Bay Development. 1. WCI in bankruptcy. 2. Sales office remains open. 3. Chief Rodriguez to obtain update on land donation to lCFD for 2nd station. D. Shoreline stabilization project permitting process continuing on track. E. The ncxt ICFD Advisory Board meeting will be Mar. 5. IV. ADJOURNMENT A. Motion to adjourn the meeting by Jim Gault at 7:15 p.m. I. Motion seconded by Ted Decker. 2. Motion carried unanimously. .,~J Approved: ~-~----- 3/;/Do, t / Date: Fiala Halas Henning Coyle Coletta RECEIVED l~ -I ^ 15 FEB 1 2 2009 aWa~ 1 20lllJ 1./ / 2A/ Board 01 County Commlssioners MINUTES OF THE MEETING OF THE CONSERVATION COLLIER LAND ACQUISITION ADVISORY COMMITTEE Naples, Florida, January 12,2009 LET IT BE REMEMBERED, that the Conservation Collier Land Acquisition Advisory Committee, in and for the County of Collier, having conducted business herein, met on this date at 9:00 A.M. in REGULAR SESSION at Administrative Building "F", 3rd Floor, Collier County Government Complex Naples, Florida with the following members present: CHAIRMAN: Bill Poteet VICE CHAIRMAN: Will Kriz Marco Espinar Wayne Jenkins Michael Delate Tony Pires Jeffrey Curl Mimi Wolok ALSO PRESENT: Jennifer Belpedio, Assistant County Attorney Cindy Erb, Real Property Management Alexandra Sulecki, Conservation Collier Coordinator Melissa Hennig, Principal Environmental Specialist Christal Segura, Conservation Collier Lan<W.~r Annisa Karim, Environmental Specialist Date'~1!:\- --ocr 'tern # 1 b IL \~AJJ) :'OPlt.::'o -'-,..,--_._..._.._...__....""""._.....,~_.__,_"..v~., 16 I 1 A 12ry 12, 2009 I. Roll Call Chairman Poteet called the meeting to order at 9:00AM. Roll call was taken and a quorum was established. II. Approval of Agenda Mr. Espinar moved to approve the agenda subject to the following change: · Making item IVE. Pepper Ranch VI.C with remaining items in this section to follow accordingly. Second by Mr. Kriz. Carried unanimously 7-0. Ms. Wolak arrived at 9:03AM III. Approval of December 8, 2008 Minutes Mr. Jenkins moved to approve the minutes subject to the following corrections . Page 4, item E. Benfield Road, line 2 - from "the parcels conveyance..." to "the parcelsfrom conveyance..." · Pagc 10, item VII., Line 2 - 3 - from "It was determined this should.. .." to "It was suggested this should..." · Page 1 0 Item VII, paragraph 2, line 2 - from "to property owners affected by Management...." To "to property owner's Development Orders affected by Management..." Second by Mr. Delate. Carried unanimously 8-0. IV. Old Business: A. Real Property Management Update - A -list properties Cindy Erb, Real Property Management provided the following updates: Trinh - Closed on 12/15/08 Kave Homes - Closed on 12/1/08 Rivers Road - Closed on 4 parcels in December RJS, LLC. - Offers accepted Winchester Head - 3 agreements for Board of County Commissioners (BCC) approval tomorrow (January 13,2009). Red Maple Swamp - Closed on parcel today; 3 agreements for Board of County Commissioners (BCC) approval tomorrow (January 13, 2009); 3 contracts presented today for Conservation Collier recommendation. Camp Keais - 1 agreemcnt for approval on January 13, 2009 (BCC) agenda. 5 agreements approved by BCC in December 2008. B. Contracts 1. Robinson - NGGE Unit 53 2. Romak - NGGE Unit 53 3. Houghton - NGGE Unit 53 Cindy Erb presented the following Executive Summaries and attached Agreement for Sale and Purchase: 2 _._..._--_..,,~'_.._,--,-~..._~,---..~~,~~,-. --..,---. .=e___...._,__..-____~,.._........... _.~_._,<_.._..~_,.~,.~~~~__ 161 1 A 15 January 12,2009 "Approve for Sale and Purchase for 2.27 acres under the Conservation Collier Land Acquisition Program. at a cost not to exceed $36.800 (Robinson)" dated January 12,2009. Approve for Sale and Purchase for 1.14 acres under the Conservation Collier Land Acquisition Program, at a cost not to exceed $18. 700 (Romak)" dated January 12,2009. Approve for Sale and Purchase for 2. 73 acres under the Conservation Collier Land Acquisition Program. at a cost not to exceed $44.000 (Houghton)" dated January 12,2009. Mr. Jenkins moved to approve all three Executive Summaries. Second by Mr. Delate. Carried unanimously 8-0. C. Pepper Ranch Alex Sulecki, Conservation Collier Coordinator presented the Executive Summary "Request that the Board of County Commissioners provide direction with respect to whether the County should close on the Pepper Ranch transaction. in light of a claim made by an adjacent property owner that they are entitled to access their property through the Pepper Ranch." She provided an overview noting the following: . On November 18, 2008, the Board of County Commissioners (BCC) approved an Agreement for Sale and Purchase of Pepper Ranch for the sum of $32,525,080.02 . A letter dated December 17, 2008 from Baron Collier Investments, L TD (BCI) to thc owners of Pepper Ranch 9Trafford Ranch, LLP was forwardcd to the County. . The letter stated BCl has been accessing its adjacent property to the South of Lake Trafford, LLP lands via Pepper Ranch Road. · The lettcr rcquested "Baron Colliers prescriptive and statutory rights ovcr Pepper Ranch road be fonnally recognized in the Public Records" and "Please let me (BCl) know by December 24, 2008 if the owner of the Property will agree to grant Barron Collier Companies an easement." · The owners of Pepper Ranch and BCI were not able to resolve the issue before the scheduled closing of December 29,2008. . The bond amount for the purchase of the parcel is $13,244,000 +/- · If the property does not transfer to the County, the financial impacts are $44,000 in bond fees and closing costs incurred, $1.5M in interest and a pre-payment penalty of$397,700. · [f the property is not acquired, the County could utilize the bond money to acquire other properties. · Shc rcviewed adjacent maps and land uses to determine ifthere are alternate routes to access the property. 3 "-'''-'--~''''''-''-'---'------'----'' _..,_....._","'_......_-~~"'''-'''-"''"''...,~.,<_...<,..--_.._..__._...- 16 IJJa~y~,loS She noted the parties have agreed to appear today to seek direction for the Board of County Commissioners who is scheduled to review the issue on January 13, 2008. The Staffrecommendation is if the use of the easement is limited to the existing use and it is acceptable to the United States Fish and Wildlife Service for the purpose of the conservation easement, the easement be granted. lfthe use is for the expansion of use of the property, they recommend it not bc granted. Jennifer Belpedio, Assistant County Attorney summarized the 4 Recommendations (options) provided on Page 3 of the Executive Summary which include proceeding with the contract and deal with the issue in the future; proceed with the closing and require the seller to hold the County harmless in future litigation of the issue; before closing attempt to eliminate the issue or rescind the transaction completely. Discussion ensued whether BCl has any rights to use Trafford Oaks Road for ingrcss and egress to the parcel in question. Richard Grant, Attorney for Trafford Ranch, LLP. addressed the Committee noting discussions are on going in an attempt to achicvc a resolution to the issue. Trafford Ranch, LLP. wishes to be the advocate in facilitating the solution betwccn the County and BCL Tim Hains, Attorney for Trafford Ranch, LLP. addressed the Committee noting the landowner first became aware of the issue in 2004. He reviewed the 3 means of gaining an easement in thesc types of cases ("prescriptive rights" claims; a claim of "common law access by necessity" and the "statutory right of access by necessity"). He provided his perspective on the merits of the particular case in its relation to thc 3 means of gaining access. Under Committee discussions, he noted the following: . Thcrc were on-going communications on the issue between the parties in 2004, 2005 and 2006 (I each) where they corresponded to BCI and the landowner did not agree with the basis of the claim. . He has not been involved in any litigation establishing access by rights of necessity. . He was not involved in the details of the application for SSA#7 (Stcwardship Sending Area) processed by Lake Trafford, LLP. · He was not involved in any conversations with the landowner in the disclosing of this issue in preparation ofthc application submitted to Collier County Land Acquisition Committce. Discussion ensued whether an alternate route to the property such as Trafford Oaks Road (with additional easements over Pepper Ranch lands to Pepper Ranch Road, etc.) could be used to access the property in question. Richard Grant noted Lake Trafford, LLP would consider holding the County harmless in any litigation as part of a contingency of closing. 4 16' lnuarA215 Brad Boaz, CEO Barons Collier Investments (BCI) addressed the Committee noting the following: · The property in question is used for ranching and they want to ensure the use has the ability to continue via the access. · BCI is willing to provide compensation for the easement and wishes to ensure the future uses are not eliminated or the value of the property is not affected by the terms of a potential easement . He outlined the potential issues of utilizing Trafford Oaks Road as access (which does not currently serve the property) and constructing an extension of the road to thc property in question (wetlands impacts, etc.) · They do not want to limit their options in the use of the access, but would be open to reasonable restrictions. · He was aware of letters sent out to Lake Trafford, LLP on the issue; the last communication in his file was a proposed draft easement in March of 2005 transmitted to Pepper Ranch (landowners). · He wishes to work with the County to resolve the issue and noted any improvements to the land in question would require approval by the County. . They do not wish to delay thc closing of the Pepper Ranch property. Speakers Susan Caulkins, Friends of Rookery Bay addressed the Committee and preferred options #1 and 2 presented in the Exccutive Summary and urged the County to proceed with the acquisition of the parcel. Elizabeth Nebel, Naples Resident requestcd the Committee to complete the mandate of the public and acquire Pepper Ranch. Amber Crooks, Conservancy of Southwest Florida rccommended the Committee find a swift resolution to meet all party's expectations. They support Staff recommendation #2 and noted options #3 is also viable but are concerned the option may delay the closing. Mr. Kriz rccommended choosing option #3 with the following conditions: . The Collier County Land Acquisition Committee approves the location, terms and conditions of the easement. . The Easement be conveyed prior to closing. . Limit the use of the Easemcnt to the existing agricultural uses. . A promise from BCI that they would not scek to expand use of the casement. · The legal description of the easement be formulated utilizing the concept of a number of feet in width on each side of its centerline. . The amount of the compensation be specified. 5 "'-"~-'-,~_." . ~.~ '-'_"'~"_"~''''~_"'~"R'~'____'__''''.~"._.~__M~__'_'_''__~__".,.'.. __m.__,_, lL "1' A 15 Mulry ~, 2009 Mr. Pires submitted the following documents for the record: · "Conservation Collier Land Acquisition Program Application" from Christopher L. Allen, landowner of Pepper Ranch dated 9-11-07 · "An Appraisal oJThe Lake Trafford Ranch. AKA The Pepper Ranch, Located on the North and South Sides oj Pepper Road. at the Northern End oj Lake Trafford, in Unincorporated Collier Coun~v. Florida" as of March 31 2008 completed by Stephen D. Shaw, MAl of Callaway and Price, Inc. · "Appraisal oj Lake Trafford (Pepper) Ranch, Immokalee, Collier County Florida ,. prepared by Anderson & Carr, Inc. dated June 5, 2008. He expressed concern over the following: . The appraisals provision of disclaimers - if any discrepancies exist in the appraisals, the values may not apply. · The appraisal's assumes no "hidden conditions" and the property is appraised as being "free and of clear title." · The appraisals did not consider any encumbrances or restrictions in the title. . The ability of utilizing the Panther Habitat Credit Units for mitigation purposes may be compromised by the issue. · The original Conservation Collier application indicated "no known easements" and the late provision of the notice of the issue. · According to the Collier County Appraiser's Office, property values are trending downward. · The uncertainty of litigation costs associated to the partics in a potential hold harmless agreement. · Unanticipated Management expenses incurred with the easement. He recommended the closing be delayed, the property be re-appraised, the parties resolve the easemcnt issue, and the County determines if the resolution is appropriate for the intended purposes of the property envisioned in the acquisition. Ms. Wolok stated the County (CLAAC and BCC) has already approvcd purchase of the property and the energy should be spent in rcsolving the issue to the suitability of all parties involved. Mr. Espinar moved to recommend option #3 in the Executive Summary and beJore closing an attempt be made by the parties (Collier County, Lake Trafford LLP. and BCI) to resolve the easement issue. IJthis is not accomplished within 2 weeks, recommends option #2 and require the owners to provide a hold harmless agreement as acceptable to the Collier County Attorney's Office. In addition there be concurrent discussions on both options identified. Second by Mr. Curl. 6 ---~"""~~."---''''-'''''''.''-----''~'' ~"._.c...-__~__,._~,..,._'a_.'~"_'.'_~"______M_~___.___..__..._____ l~antJI2,2A 15 In its negotiations in resolving the issue the Committee recommended the County consider requiring a waiver for the claim of right of access by necessity by BCI and the easement use be limited to its historical usc. The Committee requested Staff provide a draft of any agreement reached via e- mail for Committee member comment. Motion carried 6 'yes" - 2 "no." Mr. Pires and Mr. Delate voted no. Break-lO:43AM Re-Convened - 1 0:48AM D. Conveyance Updates Alex Sulecki provided the following updates Caloosa Reserve - No contact Benfield Road- Spoke with unofficial representative Tom Levangie who noted the properties were withdrawn for financial reasons. Mr. Delate moved to eliminate the requirement of a Phase I Environmental Assessment of the properties to determine if this will assist the properties in moving forward for acquisition. Second by Mr. Espinar. Carried unanimously 7-0. Mr. Jenkins returned at lO:55AM E. Starnes Agreement Melissa Hennig, Environmental Specialist provided the document "Summary of Changes to Starnes Panther Habitat Unit Conservation Bank Exhibits, Appendices and Agreements" for review. She noted Mr. Pires has raised some questions such as language in the document prohibiting incidental structures on the property (kiosks, port-a-potty, etc) via email which are being addressed. Jennifer Belpedio, Assistant County Attorney noted there is no specific authority in the Conservation Collier Ordinance for establishing a Mitigation Bank on their properties, however it is her opinion the uses are within the harnlony of the Ordinance under its Goals, Policies and Objectives. Melissa Hennig is submitting the document to other applicable Agencies for signature and will return it to the Committee for final review. v. New Business A. Presentation: South Florida Water Management District - District Project Priorities Postponed B. AAL - adding existing projects 7 ,.~-, ._-~~-----~---..,~"""._-""'--~~--,-,., 16 lanly 1~0l:5 Alex Sulecki presented the "Cycle 6 Recommended Active Acquisition List ", dated January 27,2009 (dated for future submittal to the Board of County Commissioners) for approval. It was noted if a member abstained from voting on any of the properties throughout the Cycle, they should abstain from the vote. Chairman Poteet moved to approve the List ("Cycle 6 Recommended Active Acquisition List''). Second by Kriz. Carried unanimously 7- Yes with 1 abstention. Mr. Pires abstained due to a conflict of interest with the Su parcel. C. Committee Applications - 3 seats up for an appointment It was noted Mr. Staiger has resigned from the Committee due to relocation; Mr. Kriz and Mr. Jenkins chose not to seek re-appointment to thc Committee. Mr. Delate moved to recommend approval to the Board of County Commissioners the 3 new applicants (Jeremy Sterk, George Wilder and Thomas Sobczak) for appointment to the Conservation Collier Land Acquisition Committee. Second by Mr. Pires. Jeremy Sterk noted on occasion he might have a conflict of interest, which will require him to abstain from voting. Carried unanimously 8-0. D. Florida Forever Resolution Alex Sulecki provided an update on the status of the Florida Forever Program with a decision due by the State of Florida next Wednesday on the fate of the Program. Mr. Delate noted it is his understanding the Program will be suspended for I year. E. Conservation Collier Logo Alex Sulecki presented the new standardized County Logo, which will be utilized for Conservation Collier. It was suggested "For Future and Present Generations" be incorporated, as well as making "Conservation Collier" more prominent in the logo. F. Safe Harbor Agreement - Nancy Payton Preserve Christal Segura, Conservation Collier Land Manager prescnted the document "Safe Harbor Management Agreement for Florida Statewide Red,cockaded Woodpecker Safe Harbor Program." Christina Jackson of the Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission was available via teleconference. She provided an overview of the agreement noting the following: · Conservation Collier is currently managing the site. . The site would become a donor site for Red Cockaded Woodpecker (RCW) 8 '~."-----~-_.'~"._---~-_.'.'^-_.,-".._------~,--",,--,".,,_.-~,_. 161 JuarA21i · The agreement is voluntary and would facilitate Land Management activities and the construction of future improvements. · There is the potential for RCWs to naturally migrate into the site. . The agreement incorporates flexibility in the implementation schedule to accommodate weather, funding, staffing concerns, etc. . The agreement is for 25 years. · A majority of the requirements in the agreement are similar to current management activities. The Committee recommended the Agreement be the maximum time currently allowed of97 years. Mr. Kriz moved to recommend the Board of County Commissioners sign the agreement ("Safe Harbor Management Agreementfor Florida Statewide Red- cockaded Woodpecker Safe Harbor Program ") on the behalf of Conservation Collier subject to the agreement being for a term of97 years adding wording "as funds are available" or similar language to the section addressing the implementation schedule. Second by Mr. Pires. Carried unanimously 8-0. G. Otter Mound Brochure Annisa Karim, Environmental Specialist presented the new brochure for Otter Mound Preserve. The Committee recommended removing the "Bench" identification; adding language for visitors to respect adjacent private properties; Ms. Wolok moved to approve the Otter Mound Preserve brochure if amended as discussed above. Second by Mr. Delate. Carried unanimously 8-0. H. Outstanding Advisory Committee Member Program - Marco Espinar nomination Will Kriz has been selected as the "Outstanding Volunteer of the Year" by the County EOM (Employee of the Month) Committee. Mr. Jenkins moved to approve Chairman Poteet's nomination to the Board of County Commissioners, Conservation Collier Land Acquisition Committee member Marco Espinar as Advisory Committee Outstanding Member. Second by Mr. Kriz. Motion carried unanimously 8-0. I. Coordinator Communications Alex Sulecki provided the following updates: . Staff has been requested to visit and evaluate a parcel ofland north of the County landfill, owned by Citygate for conveyance to Conservation Collier under the Transfer of Development Rights Program. 9 -'"'''''~<__~*_''_~_.~_'''___''__''' ~~_M._,..,.m..'_'",_,,,,,____~_.~,.;..~,,,,,,_____,,,,,o, ~';""""=-'~"-"'~"~.""._'->.~-'-----~-'-,-,-,~-,"-"",~,-~---,--_. 1611 A 15 January 12, 2009 · Staff will be visiting Duette Ranch in Manatee County to gain a perspective on potential management and use activities in conjunction with Pepper Ranch. . The annual CREW meeting will be held on January 23, 2009 with Tony Pires attending. VI. Sub-Committee Meeting Reports A. Outreach - Tony Pires, Chair The Subcommittee continues on the School Outreach Program and will be making recommendations to the main Committee on parcel acquisitions. Ms. Wolok reported she and Christal Segura visited a school in Golden Gate where the Preserve Naming Contest concept was well received. B. Lands Evaluation and Management - Marco Espinar, Chair The Subcommittee had met to discuss the Pepper Ranch activities. C. Ordinance Policy and Procedures - Will Kriz, Chair None VII. Chair Committee Member Comments Mr. Jenkins noted he has enjoyed working on the Committee for the past 6 years and will miss the duties and responsibilities associated with the appointment. VIII. Public General Comments None IX. Staff Comments Staff noted Annisa Karim will be taking a full time job with Lee County. She will not be replaced due to budget constraints. There will be a meeting on January 13, 2009, 6:30PM at Gulf Coast High School to receive comments on the Milano Management Plan. There being no further business for the good of the County, the meeting was adjourned by order of the chair at 11 :47 A.M. Conservation Collier Land Acquisition Advisory Committee 10 ~-""-._--"-~'--~~---'--,-------,'._..........~--...._._-----.~-----"- '~"""'-_._--'~-'-""--'-~'~"'""-'~"'~"~'~'~~-~~'-~~~-'-,,~"_'_--,_._-"--,,"-,- /dA /l {//" ~ Bill Poteet, Chairman These minutes approved by the Board/Committee on as presented or as amended II ,', ,_n_'.. ____"'''_'''.."_....M_~____~____~_..,__~._..,_,.....,,_ ,Y.,."._="H. _.~...".,_,.._<..~_",'_.~_..__._. " 1 ~Juat 12, Ao' 5 c~7ff~r County ,~",w#fI'~.",J'~'-"" 16/ 1 A 15 RECEIVED FEB 1 i 2009 Board of County Commissioners Memorandum To: Suc Filson, Executive Manager, Board of County Commissioners Alexandra Sulecki, Conservation Collier Program coordinator~ February 11,2009 From: Date: Subject: Transmittal of approved signed Minutes from the January 12, 2009 Conservation Collier Land Acquisition Advisory Committee Meeting Please find attached the following: · Approved, signed Minutes from the January] 2,2009 Conservation Collier Land Acquisition Advisory Committee Meeting Please call me at 252-2961 if you have questions. Facilities Management Department Administrative Services Division -'..~ "--"'---"'-'"'"'~~"~,"~-,-, '_~'....'_" ~"~"'""~____'.__'_'~_~~'~'""'''~'''"'=_h'~~' 1611 A 15 February 9, 200</'RECEIVED MAR I 12009 MINUTES OF THE MEETING OF THE CONSERVATION COLLIER LAND ACQUISITION ADVISORY COMMITTEE Board of Co.an~J Ccmr:'lJ:':ioncr Naples, Florida, February 9, 2009 LET IT BE REMEMBERED, that the Conservation Collier Land Acquisition Advisory Committee, in and for the County of Collier, having conducted business herein, met on this date at 9:00 A.M. in REGULAR SESSION at Administrative Building "F", 3rd Floor, Collier County Government Complex Naples, Florida with the following members present: CHAIRMAN: Bill Poteet VICE CHAIRMAN: Will Kriz Marco Espinar Wayne Jenkins Michael Delate Tony Pires (Excused) Jeffrey Curl Mimi Wolok ALSO PRESENT: Jennifer White, Assistant County Attorney Cindy Erb, Real Property Management Alexandra Sulecki, Conservation Collier Coordinator Melissa Hennig, Principal Environmental Specialist -.-..._~._-",--_._._".,.,"-~___...~. .,,_~_. ._._ '~_"""_~"'''''""'''~~__"_''''"''_''"~'''''"",,,'.",'e.'''''___'~ ,"""F _..... .~_....~~_.,_,,,...~_....,,,.__,_,,~_~__=.,,.'"'~ 1611 A 15 February 9, 2009 I. RollCall Chairman Poteet called the meeting to order at 9:00am II. Approval of Agenda Mr. E'pinar moved to approve the agenda subject to the following revision: Item V. New Business as follows: C. Outstanding Committee Member D. Coordinator Communications Second by Mr. Delate. Carried unanimously 7-0 III. Approval of January 12,2009 Minutes Mr. Kriz moved to approve the minutes of the January 12, 2009 meeting. Second by Mr. Jenkins. Carried unanimously 7-0. IV. Old Business: A. Real Property Management Update - A-list propcrties Cindy Erb, Real Property Management provided the following updates: RJS, LLC. - Owner accepted offer. Winchester Head - 2 agreements for Conservation Collier consideration today. Unit 53 - Closed on 8 parcels, other closing continue. Final 2 agreements for Conservation Collier consideration today. Camp Keais - Closings underway. B. Staff report on 1-27-09 Board approval of cycle 6 Active Acquisition List Alex Sulecki, Conservation Collier Coordinator submitted the document "Conservation Collier Cyclc 6 Approvcd Active Acquisition List", dated January 27,2009 and map "Conservation Collicr Acquired and Cycle 6 BCC Approved. ., It was noted the Board of County Commissioners approved the list presented by Conservation Collier 3-2. The BCC moved the Stirns and Paganes properties from the A-list to the C-Iist because the parcels contained structures. C. Pepper Ranch update Alex Sulecki stated the Pepper Ranch property closed. The following was noted: . The Easement was granted (to Barron Collier Investments) for historic use of the access, no utility or improvements which affect the value of the Conservation lands or Panther Habitat Units are allowed; . There is an escrow account for the potential loss of Panther Habitat Units. . There is an escrow account for the pending value of the easement. . If an alternate access to the Barron Collier property is obtained prior to 2013, any funds in the escrow account retained by tbe County would be remitted to the seller. D. Contracts 1. Winchester Head: Ponce - 1.14 acres; Pacheco - 2.27 acres 2 ,.- "~"~~-.'-'.'~-'----'''"~-<---'~~~--'''-._-~ -_._--_.,----~",,---~_......._--,~---_.__. 1611A15 February 9, 2009 Cindy Erb provided the following Executive Summaries and attached agreements for approval: "Approve for Sale and Parchasefor 2.27 acres within the Winchester Head Multi -parcel Project under the Conservation Collier Land Acquisition Program, at a cost not to exceed $37.900 (Pacheco)" dated February 9, 2009. Approvefor Sale and Purchasefor 1.14 acres within the Winchester Head Multi -parcel Project under the Conservation Collier Land Acquisition Program, at a cost not to exceed $19,300 (Ponce)" dated February 9, 2009. Mr. Jenkins moved to approve the Executive Summaries as presented. Second by Ms. Wolok. Carried unanimously 7-0. 2. NGGE Unit 53: Tauber - 5 acres; Rey (2 parcels) - 2.83 acres each Cindy Erb provided the following Executive Summaries for approval: "Approve for Sale and Purchase jar 5.66 acres under the Conservation Collier Land Acquisition Program. at a cost not to exceed $91.100 (Rey)" dated February 9, 2009. Approvefor Sale and Purchase jiJr 5.00 acres under the Conservation Collier Land Acquisition Program, at a cost not to exceed $80.300 (Tauber)" dated February 9, 2009. Ms. Wolok moved to approve the Executive Summaries as presented. Second by Mr. Kriz. Carried unanimously 7-0. E. Conveyance proposals update - staff Benfield Road - Alex Suleeki contacted Tom Levangie (landowner's representative) to determine if removing the requirement for a Phase I Environmental Assessment would prompt the owners to re-nominate the properties for acquisition consideration by the Program. She has not had a reply. Calussa Reserve -- no contact. V. New Business Item A. was heard after item C A. Presentation: South Florida Water Management District - District Project Priorities Clarence Tears, Director of Big Cypress Water Management Basin for South Florida Water Management District presented a slide show on the District Priorities for restoration in the area highlighting the following: . Historic concepts were to drain the land in South Florida and develop residential and agricultural lands uses. . The current concept is to restore the water flow to its existing courses. . Historically the ground was saturated with water for longer periods of time. 3 ...._.,"<~<~~~.. ~"_'__"""~"~'__'_"~""_'_"'""""""'~,~~,__>_.,",,~_''',o_,..."~...., .~_,.,. "_"'_"_._~'~"'_'_~''''__'''''''''''''''_''''__'~___._'_'''~_'__~._._~,._~_____ 16Flly 9, AJ 5 · Nutrients and/or chemicals are more likely to enter the systems today due to the devclopment of the land. · He provided an overview map of historic and current water flows indicating it historically movcd freely through the County. · The construction of the canals in the region in the 1960's interrupted these flows. · There are now 4-5 major outlets of the flows when in the past it was primarily sheet flow. · The outlets are Henderson Creek, Picayune System at Port of the Isles, Cocahatchee and Gordon River, etc. . Transfer of Development Rights properties provides opportunities to restore historic flows. . The concept is to have the restoration plans in place and implement it through future actions as opportunities arise (direct acquisition of properties, work with land developers during the development process, utilizing Programs like Conservation Collier, etc.) . He used the Pepper Ranch and Winchester Head properties (and related connections) as examples which could assist in implementation of the restoration plans. Alex Sulecki reviewed future strategies for the Conservation Collier Program. She provided the following maps "Conservation Collier Properties Commission Districts ": Florida Department of Environmental Protection "Conservation Lands and Waters"; "Collier MPO 2030 Long Range Transportation Plan" for review. She noted the following: · There has been some discussion by the Board of County Commissioners regarding equitable distribution of acquisitions (it was noted the Ordinance does not require "equitable distribution" specifically by Commission Districts but that this is one way of examining the topic). [t was noted properties in District 3 and 4 are the most expensive to acquire. B. Cycle 7 Applications received Alex Sulecki presented an application for the Narsiff -2 parcel, previously submitted in cycle 4 and noted the following: · It is located South of lmmokalee Road East of the Corkscrew Sanctuary . It is not visible from a public road or highway. . The parcel accesses Friendship Lane, a private easement. . Listed species wading birds were observed on-site. . Thc surrounding lands area agriculture with the Jones Earth Mine in the vicinity. . It is characterized by Pine Flatwoods and Wet Prairie. Mr. Kriz moved to not consider tile parcel in Cycle 7. Second by Mr. Espinar. Motion carried unanimously 7-0. C. Outstanding Advisory Committee Member 4 ....,. ---'~"---""'-"""'-"-_'_'_'~"_'_"_~_'___.__._~~_"'N_'---'_~,,,,,__,.._,..~...,,,...~.~".." 1611 A 15 February 9, 2009 Marco Espinar was selected as Outstanding Advisory Committee Member for February 2009. D. Coordinator Communications Alex Sulecki recommended the following: . A Subcommittee to review the concept of contacting surrounding landowners of A-list properties slated for acquisition by the Program to identify potential issues such as the Barron Collier Investment Easement issue that arose with Pepper Ranch. . A Subcommittee to review the concept of utilizing one appraisal (as opposed to 2) for properties valued under $1 M. It was noted Staff should review the concept of utilizing a "review appraiser" in potential purchases. VI. Subcommittee Meeting Reports A. Outreach - Tony Pires, Chair None B. Lands Evaluation and Management - Marco Espinar, Chair Meeting held last week, which discussed public access on the parcels the Program has acquired. Ms. Wolok recommended the Committee re-evaluate the scoring criteria for the parcels acquired by Conservation Collier. C. Ord. Policy and Procedures - Will Kriz, Chair None VII. Chair Committee Member Comments . Mr. Kriz and Mr. Jenkins are leaving the Committee. Staff and the Committee recognized their service to the Program. . Annisa Karim is leaving the County to take a position in Lee County. VIII. Public General Comments None IX. Staff Comments Alex Suleeki also recognized Mr. Kriz and Mr. Jenkins' service to the Committee There being no further business for the good ofthe County, the meeting was adjourned by order ofthe chair at 10:04 A.M. Conservation Collier Land Acquisition Advisory Committee 5 "'_~"_""~~'"___'_"_'~._""W._'~_"___'__'_'__ "_"~_"""""'''_'^.__'''''~_.M''.....,. "..'^-__...,___'._.,.____~~____~..~.,_~.~._._.._r.._..._..~._._.,_.., 1611 A 15 February 9, 2009 Bill Poteet, Chairman These minutes approved by the Board/Committee on as presented or as amended ~ :5-'1-or ~ 6 ""--"-'~"-'~'.__~~' '__'_'~__M_~__"''''"",_,_",_""~_,,~,,,~, ._~_ '_~_~_~''"_'__~^'_~_'''''''',~"__ W._"~< 1611 A 15 v/ Co1tr;-r County ~ RECEIVED MAR I I 2009 To: Fiala Halas Henning Coyle Sue Filson, Executive Manager, Board of County Commissi~ ~ Alexandra Sulecki, Conservation Collier Program Coordinator ~ March 9, 2009 Memorandum From: Date: Subject: Transmittal of approved, revised, signed Minutes from the February 9, 2009 Conservation Collier Land Acquisition Advisory Committee Meeting Please find attached the following: . Approved, revised, signed Minutes from the February 9, 2009 Conservation Collier Land Acquisition Advisory Committee Meeting Please call me at 252-2961 if you have questions. Mise Carres Oate:__..__ "em it w.__.__..._____. ... -(':es;O Facilities Management Department Administrative Services Division 161~<P;-~ ) CEl\lE190LLIERCOUNTYLIBRARY ADVISORYBOA~ ,'.r!-L A MAR? 0 2009 Wednesday, March 18,2009 at 10:00 a.m. ~~::s .,( If/^'4/' . >o"r, ,,,wi, con,,,,iSSie"o,,, Headquarters Librarv ~~~~ng 1" V Coletta 1t ./ AGENDA Call to order Approval of Minutes Literacy Program Report Report of Officers Communications a - Written b - Personal Unfinished Business 1. Employee of the Month - March 2. South Regional Library Staffing 3. EnvisionWare 4. Proposed Policy Changes 5. Rose Hall New Business a) New Library Board Member Recommendation General Considerations Director's Report Report ofthe Friends Adjournment MISC. Corres Dale O!t_~ !em #lloIt~lb .{'lr1~. Ii', _,,~,__~~,,-,,_,_~~,.,,'M,' ,~__.,.,."._,....~_ 1611 A 16 Naples, Florida, February 18, 2009 LET IT BE KNOWN that the LIBRARY ADVISORY BOARD met on this date in regular session at 10:00 a.m. in the Headquarters Library with the following members present: CHAIR: Doris J. Lewis VICE-CHAIR: Loretta Murray Connie Bettinger-Hennink Shelley Z. Lieb ALSO PRESENT: Marilyn Matthes, Library Director Linda Fasulo, Ex. Director, FOL Roberta Reiss, Literacy Coordinator Luz Pietri, Administrative Assistant APPROVAL OF MINUTES Mrs. Lewis asked for comments or corrections to the minutes of January 20'\ 2009. There being none, Mrs. Lieb moved, seconded by Mrs. Hennink and carried unanimously, that the minutes be approved as submitted. LITERACY PROGRAM REPORT Mrs. Reiss stated that a Marco Island resident had donated $1,500 for the purchase of materials on citizenship. She also stated that one of her students had recently received his citizenship. Lastly, Mrs. Reiss reported that she had been invited to attend the 'Celebration of Reading' , an annual event held in Ft. Myers by the Bush Family. REPORT OF OFFICERS - None COMMUNICATIONS - None UNFINISHED BUSINESS The Board reviewed the nominations submitted for selection of the Library's Employee of the Month. Mrs. Murray moved, seconded by Mrs. Hennink and carried unanimously, to select Dennis McMahon, Sr. Supervisor, as EOM for the month of February 2009. In reference to staffing for the South Regional Library, Mrs. Matthes stated that the County has approved the hiring of 9 positions for that branch. These positions will, most likely, be filled with staff from other library branches and their replacements will come from the Job Bank. Staff from this group consists of other county employees who have lost their jobs and who would not have any benefits. Mrs. Matthes expressed her desire to maintain core services as her top priority given all cuts in staff and hours of service. This branch is expected to open by the end of April. --""~-"~----'.,.,---_.~."--~--,,,_. , 16Jl A 16 As for the new 'Envision Ware' program, Mrs. Matthes stated that the problem seems to be with the security program we now have, which might need to be changed. It seems to be working well in other libraries with a different security program. In reference to the proposed policy changes having to do with hours of operation, Mrs. Matthes stated that staff is considering reducing service hours and standardizing them for all libraries, except for headquarters. The Library Advisory Board supported the proposed changes in an attempt to keep all the libraries open and current employees employed. In reference to the Rose Hall Meeting Room, Mrs. Matthes reported that it had gone out for bid again and that it was expected to go before the BCC on March 24th for approval. NEW BUSINESS The Library Board members looked over the only applicant's resume for the LAB's vacant position. After some consideration, Mrs. Lieb moved, seconded by Mrs. Hennink and carried unanimously, to ask the BCC to postpone their decision and re-post the vacancy in order to have more than one candidate to choose from. GENERAL CONSIDERATIONS Mrs. Lewis asked the Administrative Assistant if a name plaque had already been ordered for the newest LAB member. Mrs. Pietri responded that she would take care of it. DIRECTOR'S REPORT Already discussed under 'New Business' REPORT OF THE FRIENDS Mrs. Fasulo reported the following: a). the second 'Nick's Lecture Series' was very well attended. b). the play held last month was very successful; it netted approximately $6,000.00 dollars. c). Library Day will be on April 14, 2009 and the Friends are planning to provide a free lunch to all staff in recognition for their hard work. d). The Friends have adopted a new shorter version of their mission statement and a new logo. They are also setting up tables at each branch with FOL literature about their mission and to recruit new members. c). The 'Smart' car raffle will be held at the Marco Island Branch on March 5, 2009. Tickets are still available. f). The Friends hope to have James Patterson as one ofthe speakers for the Lecture Series ncxt year. The lectures will probably be moved to the Naples Beach Club. 16fl A 16 ADJOURNMENT There being no further business to come before the Library Advisory Board, Mrs. Murray moved, seconded by Mrs. Hennink and carried unanimously, that the meeting be adjourned. Time: 11:55 a.m. Approved by: QCfW> ~ ~ Doris J. Lewis Chair, Library Advisory Board n_~,~'__"__'__~_""""~"_'~_'<'."_~_'" Fiala Halas Henning--=l:: Coyle _ ' :(.... -\VED Coletta ?<,/~j RL...,E MAR 2 3 2rJMINUTES OF THE MEETING OF THE COLLIER COUNTY PARKS AND RECREATION ADVISORY BOARD 1611 A 17 V" February 18, 2009 ~~-,~ '-',:':<'_' '~("~':rc:s'-' Naples, Florida, February 18, 2009 LET IT BE REMEMBERED that the Collier County Parks and Recreation Advisory Board, in and for the County of Collier, having conducted business herein, met on this date at 2:00 P.M., at the Immokalee Community Park in Immokalee, Florida, with the following members present: CHAIRMAN: VICE CHAIRMAN: John P. Ribes Edward "Ski" Olesky Frank Donohue (Absent) Barbara Buehler Paul Nyce (Absent) Kerry Geroy (one Vacancy) ALSO PRESENT: Barry Williams, Director, Parks & Recreation Shari Ferguson, Regional Manager Annie Alvarez, Regional Manager Misc. Cones: Gary McAlpin, Director, Coastal Zone Man~~: t-{ -1) Item # ! 0 IL I I 161 1 A 17 February 18,2009 I. Call to Order Chairman Ribes called the meeting to order at 2:09 PM. II. Pledge of Allegiance and Invocation The Pledge of Allegiance was recited and Invocation was given. III. Approval of Agenda Edward Olesky moved to approve the Agenda as submitted. Second by Barbara Buehler. Carried unanimously, 4-0. IV. Approval of January 21, 2009 Meeting Minutes Edward Olesky moved to approve the Minutes of the January 21,2009 meeting as submitted. Second by Barbara Buehler. Carried unanimously, 4-0. V. New Business a) Director's Highlights - Barry Williams, Director of Parks and Recreation Budget: . The Board of County Commissioners will meet on February 24, 2009 to approve the Budget policy for next year and Staffwill then prepare Parks and Recreation's Budget for FYlO. . If the millage rate remains the same, a reduction of 15.8% ($3M) is anticipated . A mid-course correction is anticipated for FY09 due to significantly lower revenues (i.e., State sharing and Ad Valorem taxes). The exact amount of "correction" was not available. . Efforts are being made to identify areas where savings can be improved, i.e., utilities (turning off lights, etc.). . There are no plans to increase fees at this time. . If the BCC raises the millage rates, the reduction to the FYIO Budget will be approximately 3%. . There may be a reduction in force in the future Jet Port Training and Transition of Airport Lands: . Have consulted with Miami Dade Aviation who manages the land and Miami Dade Parks & Recreation regarding a site for A TV riding . A potential site within Collier County has been identified and was inspected . Miami Dade Aviation and Miami Dade Parks & Recreation will make a presentation to the Board of County Commissioners on February 24, 2009 to discuss plans for the site Children's Museum of Naples: . Land was leased from Parks & Recreation in North Collier Regional Park . Ground breaking took place in January . Construction should take approximately 15 months . Joe Cox is the Executive Director 2 161 I A 17 February 18, 2009 2nd Annual Diversity Festival: . Hosted by Parks & Recreation in partnership with Hodges University . Approximately 3,000 attended . There were various cultural exhibits b) Employee ofthe Month for January, 2009 - Barry Williams . Sandra Ramos, Supervisor, Immokalee Community Park, was named "Employee of the Month for January, 2009" . The Immokalee Crew was recognized as "Employees ofthe Month for January, 2009" c) Bart Zino's Resignation - Barry Williams . Mr. Zino's resignation was received. . Sue Filson will advertise for applicants for the vacant position . There was no issue with Mr. Zino and his company with respect to his relationship with the Board of County Commissioners . The County Attorney's Office will make a presentation to the Advisory Board at its March meeting to explain issues concerning how an Advisory Board member can manage doing business with the County and procedural issues to be observed (The order of presentations was reversed.) e) Presentation on Land for a Cricket Field - Gopkumar Sarangdharan A PowerPoint presentation was made and copies of the slides were distributed to the members. . The Naples Cricket Club is a member of the Florida West Coast Winter League and has applied for non-profit status . The game of cricket was explained and the reasons why baseball fields and/or soccer fields cannot be utilized to play the game . Due to the lack of a specific location in Collier County, the Naples Cricket Club plays in Fort Myers and Lehigh Acres . The Naples Cricket Club requested that Collier County assign a dedicated cricket field for their use and to host League games . Suggested location: Pelican Bay Park and/or the West Field of Fleischman Park . The Naples Cricket Club will supply the Astroturf field covering to the County Discussion ensued concerning the legality of modifying a multi-purpose park for one specific use and it was suggested that Parks & Recreation contact the County's Risk Management Department for guidance. Additional spaces were suggested, such as Sugden Park, Manatee Park, or using a school recreation area. . The Naples Cricket Club carries its own liability insurance . Cricket season: October to May . The Naples Cricket Club presented a Petition of Support containing 450 signatures 3 16 1 I' A 17 February 18,2009 Chairman Ribes expressed support for the project stating it was a way to introduce other sports into the County. Edward Olesky moved to approve authorizing Parks and Recreation to pursue Investigating options regarding identifying an area to locate a cricketjield. Second by Barbara Buehler. Carried unanimously, 4-0. d) Recommendation and Approval ofthe Vanderbilt Beach Restroom Project - Gary McAlpin, Director, Coastal Zone Management A PowerPoint presentation was made and copies of drawings of the proposed deck were distributed to the members. . The Board of County Commissioners directed Coastal Zone Management to obtain a proposal to refurbish the restroom facilities at Vanderbilt Beach . A public meeting was held on February 17,2009, at the North Collier Regional Park Current facilities: . In relatively bad shape and too small - not adequate for the community . Age: 15+ years . Both the Women's and Men's facilities need complete modernization . A Conservation Easement runs alongside the area to be renovated - the structure cannot encroach the Easement area Proposed structure: . Current lift stations have the capacity to handle the new system . The existing footprint of the current facilities will be utilized . The facilities will consist of 8 stalls and sinks for each component . ADA accessibility mandates the use of walkway ramps which will be constructed according to Code with aI' in 20' horizontal distance . The deck will be elevated, pursuant to FEMA guidelines, to a minimum height of 16 feet . The deck will provide space for a concession area (currently located on the beach and operated by "Cabana Dan") and it may be possible to add some tables/chairs to the area . The concession area is approximately 360 square feet and could potentially be expanded in the future if necessary - only basic refreshments are served at the moment (i.e., soft drinks, ice cream, sundries) . An informational/educational kiosk will be located on the deck area Mr. McAlpin stated the cost for renovations will be approximately $l.2M and will take approximately 2 years to complete. The presentation will be made to the Pelican Bay Association for their approval within the next two weeks. The members asked the following questions: . Is the size of the handicapped ramp large enough? "Yes, according to ADA's requirements. 4 >,c"....___"_"~.;~__'...~....~~_,~__...___,__;,,__ 16 tlary&,11 . Can the size of the deck be increased in thefuture? "No" . Is the concession stand large enough? "Yes, the goal was to remove the present concession stand from its current location on the sand." . Who is "Cabana Dan"? "He is a contract concessionaire with the County and will be allowed to bid on the new location ifhe chooses." Chairman Ribes asked if a recommendation was required by the Parks and Recreation Advisory Board. Edward Olesky moved to approve the proposed plan to renovate the Vanderbilt Beach Restroom Facilities. Second by Barbara Buehler. Carried unanimously, 4-0. VI. Old Business a) Adopt a Park Response from January 21, 2009 Meeting - Barry Williams . Bart Zino's report was provided to the members . Also included in the packet of information was the Adopt-a-Park Assignments and Reporting Schedule b) Review ofPARAB Ordinance . A copy was included in the packet of information provided to the members for their review VII. Marketing Highlights - Sponsorship Policy - Shari Ferguson, Regional Manager . The new Sun-N-Fun Lagoon brochure was distributed . The Sun-N-Fun Lagoon is now open (weekends) . Beginning March 6th, the Lagoon will be open on Friday nights; Admission is $5.00 . The "Senior Expo" was held on Wednesday, February lith, at the Golden Gate Community Center - 60 vendors participated and over 1800 Seniors attended . Co-op promotion with "King Richard's" - "buy one, get one free" . Accreditation begins and Parks & Rec Staff is invited to attend a Kick-Off Social Hour on Friday, February 20th, at the North Collier Regional Park Exhibit Hall; Board of County Commissioners were also invited to attend A sample of the marketing promotion item ("Mardi Gras" theme) and a copy of the Invitation to the Social Hour was distributed to the members . The "Rec Guide" has been completed and is being printed . Promotions for weekend activities have been advertised on the radio, and in the newspapers . 2,500 flyers were distributed in the schools 5 -""-~'''_'"''''____'"~'''''_''''--''_'_''.'N_~'__'__,~__,,_>,__^..... 16 1 tbruJ lJ2Z9 Barry Williams asked the Advisory Board members who may attend, in order to avoid any problems with the Sunshine Law regulations, to not discuss Board business either with themselves or BCC members. VIII. Recreational Highlights - 8 v 8 Soccer - Annie Alvarez . Approximately 200 adults are playing in the Adult League and 70 children are in the Youth League . The volleyball court may be converted to a sand soccer field - will the first in Southwest Florida to have a sand field . Moving forward with plans to add lights to 3rd soccer field for night games IX. Capital Project Highlights -Updated Capital Project Report . An update was provided for the members to review X. Adopt a Park - Kerry Geroy . Tiger Tail Beach: in good shape, grounds look good, Staff is very friendly . Gulf Coast Community Park: was recently vandalized Ms. Geroy asked if Staff had information concerning the number of instances of vandalism. Barry Williams will research the subject and provide a report. . Isle of Capri: very tiny, cute playground, a Bocce field and bike racks are available XI. Informational Items Submitted: . Attendance Report . January Minutes, signed by Chairman . Copy of Bart Zino's resignation . Copy of Adopt-a-Park Report . Copy of P ARAB Ordinance . Copy of Elevation Drawings for proposed renovations to Vanderbilt Beach restroom facilities . Copy of Power Point presentation given by Naples Cricket Club . Copy of Petition of Support submitted by Naples Cricket Club . Copy of Sun-N-Fun Lagoon promotional flyer . Copy of Invitation to Accreditation Social Hour . Copy of the Adopt-a-Park Assignments and Reporting Schedule . Advisory Board meeting schedule XII. Public Comments - NONE XIII. Member Comments: Kerry Geroy asked for information concerning the Board's action regarding Bay View Park. Barry Williams stated the Board of County Commissioners, at the February 10th meeting, upheld the Planning Commission's recommendation to not approve a zoning request to expand parking outside of the Park's boundaries. 6 16 r lbru~ ls~009 Staff is investigating the possibility of expanding Bay View Park and then increasing the existing parking. Annie Alvarez stated Park & Rec is in the process of removing exotics from Gulf Coast Park. Chairman Ribes stated the next Advisory Board meeting will be held on March 18, 2009, at the North Collier Regional Park. There being no further business for tbe good of tbe County, the meeting was adjourned by order oftbe Cbair at 3:40 PM. COLLIER COUNTY PARKS & RECREATION ADVISORY BOARD These Minutes were approved by the Board/Chair on as presented '>' ' or as amended I"Illo.\4.GK I~ I tJ(# 7 1611 TRANSCRlPT OF THE IHEETING OF THE MANAGEMENT REVIEW COMMITTEE OF THE PELICAN BAY SERVICES DIVISION Naples, Florida, .January 12,21lO') I ARl8EIVED MAR 1 7 2009 Roard of Counrj (>~lnmlssbner~ LET IT BE REMEMBERED. that tIle Pelican Bay SeIVices Division Board in and for Ihe County of Collier, having conducted business berein. met on tIlis dale at I "KI p.m_ in R.~GULAR SESSION al Hanullock CYdk Cellicr. 8960 Hammock Oak Drive, Naples. Florida wilh the follO\,ing members present: Mary Al1I1e Womble, Chaim<lIllan Groff Gibson Jerry Moffatt Also Present: Jack Curran. Purchasing Dept. Collier Coonty; JoIm Petty, Divisioo Adminislrator, Pelican Bay SeIVices Division; Kyle Lukasz, Field Opemllons Manager. Pelican Bay Senices Division: Mary McCaughtry. Recording Secretary; Pelican Bay Senices Division and Jim Burke. Pelican Bay Senices Division Board Member. AGENDA Fiala Halas Henning Coyle Coletta 1. RollCall 2. Audience Participation -' _ Scope of Services 4. Conuniuee Requests 5. Audience Comments 6. Adjourn group. I think we're all here. CHAIRWOMAN WOMBLE: All right I'd like to call this meeting to order. Mary, may we have tbe roll call for our MS. McCAUGHfRY: Yes, Madam Chair. let the record reflecl that everyone is present CHAIRWOMAN WOMBLE: For the record we have Kyle wilh us and Jim Burke also. as well as Jack Curran who is ob,iously going to be here. Welcome, Jack. we're thrilled 10 see you_ Let's get started with. how do we go about this. What are we AUDIENCE PARTICIPATION step-by-step going to do and could you give us an idea of what's happened? We do have an audience participant MR BURKE: Yes, Jim Burke_ I'm a member of tile Pelican Bay Service Division and also a resident owner of Pelican Bay_ I think what you're about to undertake is very impOlt<1fil. Events of the past year indicate that sometIung needs to be done to reorganize the service division in the wd)' it approoches its senlces. but I don't know whether this is in the scope of what you're going to do, but a slll!ieclthat you should consider is whether or not we actually need an adminislmtor anymore. I don't know how you're going to weave that in. but perhaps in all of your "'lit, that will be something you will consider. Thank you_ MR BURKE: CHAIRWOMAN WOMBLE: Jim. may I ask you a question, why would you think that we wonld not need one? Well. things have changed rOT the service division, the creation of the budget conqniuee with a budget MISC. corres. Date OLt_-:Lli-_-:a2: 1 :!em~~t0tLi)~t ~ _____u,,__.,.._,.._~~__,~.....__..~____ 'Management Review Committee Januarv 12, 2009 16/1 Ala ChlUnVOll1an and the responsibilities of the senko di, ision have diminished somewhat. And. frankly. the conduct of t he meetings in the past year indicates that either there's a lack of desire to get to the remaining responsibilities or whether somellling is putting it off. I just think you need to turn the \Vhole thing upside do\Vn and look at it \V ith fr,,,h eyes. CHAIRWOMAN WOMBLE: You're saying lack of desire to get to the boltom of remaining activities? MR. BURKE: Well. just consider the last meetiug. and I don't want to get too far afield here. but it was almost two hours spent on something that1s no longer our responsibility. That's been going on 110W [or quite a ",'hile. In the meantime, YOIlve got a letter from a lady who was saying. hey. our landscaping looks like Junk and she also mention>d in there lighting and all of the otber stuff and traffic. So lllere are things tl1M are tile direct responsibility of the senice division. We need to get at them. All J'm saying is in yom deliberations here. if there's a way to put this whole thing back into a package, shake it lip and make some sense out of i~ IlIlink yon shonId do it. CHAIRWOMAN WOMBLE: Okay. But do you realize tlmt since you are sitting here on this board that the meeting you're talking about. those two hours worth were mostJy andience participation and they are people that are part ofthis COlnnlllnity. MR. BURKE: My point exactly. CHAIRWOMAN WOMBLE: And their reqllests and desires are important MR. BURKE: My point is none of our business has been taken away from liS. So there is a lack of direction and if tllere is a way, we can control this through this process I'm strongly recommending it okay SCOPE OF SERVICES CHAIRWOMAN WOMBLE: Okay. Thank yoo. All right. Now. moving right along. how do YOIl suspect that we shonId go about tllis',' MR. CURRAN: I'll explain the process tirst. What we need to do together as a team is we need to come lip with a scope of services for the reqtlirements. tIle duties. whatever it is you feci lh<-"Y need to do We need 10 ntake snre it's in this document clearly. Once we gather lh;". we agree to it. I \ViII then IJI" it in a fonnal cJocmllent witl. a 101 of other legal tenns, wllieh I bronght a sample of the old one here to show you. and we'll get ready to put that out on the street for open bid. Eighteen months ago, Collier Counly \Vent to electronic type of bid system and we have over five thousand registered vendors now. So they would all be notified if they're under the coll1l1lodily and tile)' wOlild be willing to propose We'll he requesting proposals. I have to make a change there because I'm not aware of how you do busmess here. but now all of OlIf proposals wilen we ask tile proposals to be returned to us, the requirements that we're asking to see to evaluate them they send blli-"'k to us now on electronic CDs. So we give 2 M1mage.ment Rel'iew Committee Januarv 12.2009 161 1 A 18 our CDs to our seleet committee, which in this case is you folks. You take them home, put them in your computer and review them. If you wish Ihem manually. I can do that If we have six proposals. we'll get six books with evel)1hing in them Now. we have our team, we're going to go over the scope of services. The things we'll agree upon is what we call the evaluatiOll, There is usually anywhere from three to live or eight tabs where you highlight specific items that you would like to score those folks on. We grdde them on a score of up 10 one lumdred on a proposal, and I don'llmow if it's in here, Since this was last on the street for bid Ule BCC has come out with a local vendor preference and on a proposal like this the maximum score a nonlocal vendor can get is 90. [fyou're a local vendor, you automatically get that additional tell, I know that applics for us in the county. But if it's CCNA, it docs not apply. That's the cousultant and it's bccau.., we're a mixture here, I don~ know if it applies, I'll find out for you and get hack to you. CHAIRWOMAN WOMBLE: Okay, MR CURRAN: What I did on the last one. we did 100. This last one I'm speaking of is on July 26. 2002, That's going to be in the package on tile streeL We did a scoring crite~ the Pelican Bay learn in Collier Counly. qualifications and experience of staff assigned to the contract, 35 points. Previous experience of tile linn on similar type of contract. another 25 points. Approach and understanding of contrdct. 25 points. Then a cost proposal where we award 15 points, There was no local vendor preference in those days, This is what we did six years ago, seven years ago almost now, This is not lnilten in stouc, This is. if you would like to see experience of staff, would you like to see a sunm1alY plan from the proposal to tbe commission we have llere, Would you like a business plan. We can put these in here, We can assign a score value lor valuation, Atlhe conclusion of this, the vendors will propose back 10 you and under each of those tabs tlJCy willltave whatever you ask for and all the criteria so you can make a fair judgment These are the two things we need to get done first that's look at the scope of service and then look at the grading criteria for what category you would like IUC to set up points for I can llelp you, We can go up. down and arOlmd What I have here is the scope of service that was in 2002 proposal. MR. GIBSON: Some nice person sent tins to me a1rC<ldy, MR CURRAN: The back of the last two sheets are the scope of SClvices. MR GIBSON: No. It's different MR CURRAN: There may be a slight difference, I cut the scope out of wOlker scope. like background I left a hille, I started on this page. this Due here. MR, GIBSON: MUle'S not in perfect order either 3 'Management Review Committee Januarv 12.2009 1611 Al8 MR. CURRAN: Because the srope starts on the second page here. Now, we have the last one. the bottom page is what was used last time and [ think the board looked at it and the duties and administrative were done MR PE1TY: COldd yon give me the last two that we have'! Plus there was an interim change in duties when our contract changed. MR CURRAN: This is what I have. So what I've dooe is in the draft I have in the office. I've taken the original scope of service, which is the original one tlmt you have and I've taken the one tlml \Vas attached. which was given 10 me of the most recent scope. Anything tlmt was not on one or the other I've put them in. Basically. I've combine!i tl.em both so tl.ere is no duplicity. I have a draft of tlml. Wlmt I would like fur YOl. to do is to take a few minntes to look at it or if YOl. want to take longer, review it and then let me know anything you would like to add or anything you would like me to delete oot of the scope of service. CHAIRWOMAN WOMBLE: Do YOlI have any suggestious at this point? MR. CURRAN: At the present lime. I didn~ see the last two that John mentioned. These are good requirements for YOll. then we should just merge the two and cover evcl}thing. If there are some things that you think didn't work in there tlmt you see there and you say I don~ really like tlml. let's take it out now. We can put in as much as you want in the scope of selVice. There is no limit I could make this five pages, if we have to. CHAIRWOMAN WOMBLE: Let's not MR CURRAN: We don't want to make it too short. We really want to be clear with what we're asking. When we evaluate the proposals, if you so desire to have presentations by the proposers, they're all going to be speaking to what you wmlt mill not talking about something else because of a misunderstanding. We can kind of go over them starting with the dnties of tl.e management TIlis is the duties that we've had in the scope from 2m2. "That's tlle top sheet It has in it that the manager's job is to manage. supelVise. and coordinate all activities of the PBSD in an effective, proficient and professional manner. This job requires tlmt the individnals haVoC ability to implement programs desired by tlle Pelican Bay commllllily as identified by the Pelican Bay SelVice Division Board and Collier County ordinance. Anything we want to change here? Please feel free to say and we can. We'll review it and talk about it again at another session. TIle next one says the manager shaIJ prepare the necessary organiz.ational structure and intelView and recommend personnel to he hired and employed by the county for Pelican Bay SelVice Division. The managers shall supeIVise the personnel employed by the PBSD in aocordancc with all fuderaL state and counly laws, ntles and regulations where applicable. TIle manager shall request approval of tlIe PBSD Board fur any significant ehanges in size or nmke-up of the organiz.ation. Now, in '02 it had here the manager has the following people reporting to hin" one superintendent, 4 1611 A 18 Manal(elnent Review Committee Januarv 12, 2009 one accOlmting specialist and one secretarv administrative assistant and 19 field employees. I think in the newer one Illllt wc have attached that that nwnber was rcmoved out of Ilrere. I think it just says the staff uow. So you can limit tlus as to how many, to give thc idea to Ille proposers, the magnitude of tIre people that are going to manage it tor YOl. so you can say all of our stalfwhich is a catch-all for everything. Then we have morc, basically tire same thing. l\<1anager sllllll implement all of your policies established by tile county in connection with YOlrr operations plus your own policies. The manager shall be e.xpecled to make reconmlendations on a regular basis for all programs, including the Peli<:an Bay community. The manager shall participale in meetings. discussions. business workshops and hearings that IIll1Y pertain (0 the adnunistratiOIl of se"1ces being provided and report back 10 the board. Managers shall auend regular and special meetings of the Board of Collier Counly Commissioners when issues arise regarding PBSD activities and report the restdts to the Pelican Bay SeIVice Division. TIle manager will suggest PBSD board member join the nlllnager at the meeting, if the manager deems sneh representative shall be desired. The manager shall review outside contractor bids and make reconunendations of approv-.lI or di\1sion' s approval to Ille mrrd. The lIl1mager shall work with the chairperson of the board in the preparation of the board's agenda and collaborate with the chair in selecting ite.ns and priorities. Thc manager shall prepare and adJninister the Pelican Bay Services allnnal budget in accordance with all federal, state and county laws, rules and regulations where applicable. The manager "ill have an nnderstanding of Florida county government operations good management principles and skills. as well as knowledge ,md skills in personal relations, public relations. and accounting and computer softw.!re operations. Manager's performance llIay be critiqued by any board 1I1e1l1ber at a regular mOllthly board meeting. Any board member may meet privately with a manager to discuss the manager's performance. Managers shall devote such time as necessary to complete the dnties and responsibilities assigned according to the specifications of this boani Manager shall spend a minimum and this is the item that I think could be changed from '02. Manager shall spend a minimum of 416 hours a year 011 the duties specified. Hours spent over the uunimum are not entitled to e."l.1m COmpellS1ltiorL TIle manager shall detail ou a regular basis time spent in the perfonnance of these duties. The PBSD cwrently provides an office staffin the management of Pelican Bay. but is not contractually required '0 do so. The n"""'ger shall sponsor. update and lIl1umain the Pelican Bay web site under the following domain name, which is your web site. Basically, that's what we required and nsed for the 2002 requests for proposals. Then a change was made on a few of Orem that are on the one lllll,e here lhat is attached on yours. It has basically tile same thing, like I said. with a few minor changes. Let's see one, fourth paragraph doon. The administrator may be asked by the Pelican Board to participate in service COlDl1uttees. I think in the other one we were asking for all meetings in the original one. Anything that's on here tIllIt you want to put in there is fine. If you Wllll! lI1e to do what I did, lake both of these and put 0"'111 into one, jllS! not 5 Management Review Committee Janua1'\' 12, 2009 1611 A 18 duplicating. If one was on one. I'd pot it in and if il was on botitl only put tile one ill. B.1Sically. this is what you're sayiug we waut the folks that you're going 10 select to do for you. If there is anything Ihat YOll see, saw, lhoughl or want tilem to do, then I will add that in as a scope of service. If there is something that I've just read or you've seell on here tillil you do not want I can remove it CHAIRWOMAN WOMBLE: I'd like to add somelhing 10 nwIlber nine. !l.1anager shall prepare and administer tile PBSD annual budgets in accordance ",Ih all fedcml, slale and counly policies. rules and regulations where applicable. r think il would be nice to add in tilere. working with the budget COlllilnttec. TIle manager shall prepare.and administer. I believe tile budget colIllnillee should be included with thaI knowledge MR CURRAN: ThaI's fine. ru add it in Ihere. CHAIRWOMAN WOMBLE: TIlank you. MR GIBSON: Shouldn't we have up-t<Hlate minimmn hours and salaries so we know wllat kind of a critter we're looking for here? Because you can~ expect a brain surgeon for not a lot of money here. We ought to know what we can pay for or whal those cnrrent limits are. MR CURRAN: Mininnnn hours we can put that in, do yon wanl to put a minimrnn cost, a maximmn cost, or do you just wanl to put in your nnnimmn hours and lhen when your proposals eOlne back you ask them for a cost of maximum hours and then you can see whal you're getting? MR GIBSON: I was going 10 say if YOll had a job thai'S pitying 12 or $24,000 a year you're going 10 gel one caliber of person and that person really onlyabsoIbed so many responsibilities. If you're going 10 pay this person $100,000, then 1 tilink you expect him to do almost everything. 1 think you get what you pay for. Then we need 10 know whal the past hours or past salaries issues are, so we can build solllCthing that kind of fits wllat we're in a position to spend. MR. CURRAN: In the past, w]llil we're asking for in the cvaluatiOll you can ask for past history and cost for Ihe work they've done. You're going to Illive references, which we're going to check to see how they've done their work, wllat tilC scope of services were and you'll get an idea of the do]1ars, whallype of history they have where they wOlk or whatever they did. If you wanl 10 put a limit in, see, it's hard 10 prequali.lY, if we want someone 10 do 400 hours, but were willing to pay up 10 $100.000. Then you're going 10 have all these folks coming in and you're going 10 say. gee, they know we're paying ]00, they're all qualified. tilen you're going 10 have a really rough time slarting 10 sort them out MR GIBSON: Maybe another thing that would be helpful to me, and timt's the problem ",tI, jwnping into tins Pelican Bay Services Division without a whole lot of background, and that is what Mr. Petry does and I know Kyle Lncas, from my 6 Manlll(ement Rev'iew Committee Jllnuarv 12, 2009 1611 AlB e:\.-perience in The Club, he seems to be allover the place doing evel)1hing from picking up bmnches to selling up work schedules. So a lot of these issues from my c:\.1JOSllfe is what Kyle has been doing. So maybe there needs to be some dehneation or something we need to grasp on here as commiUee members so we can Ie! them define their responsibility. MR. CURRAN: Yes. At the present time. the way I understand the way we're organized is. Kyle actually works with them, so whoever your administrator or management temn, they wonld come in and it would be another linu timt would sit there at this cbair and Kyle would still work with them. You can delineate it. but then you're taking away from your management team tbat you're looking to find by saying I don't want you to do this or just do this and he'll manage himself It's possible. It's just really wlmt you need to do. That's why you have a managemem team 10 take care of wbat I call the Collier County policy, because Kyle works with me all tile time. So tilen you start coming dowlIlater on and say, geez, we Imve tilCSe folks over here. I don't want them to come \llIder the administrators anymore. I don't kllOW if that's what you vmuld like to do. I'm new with this with this division. Because tills hadn't been done since '02. we can do'il any way you want. I'm willing to do it I'm trying 10 play the <!evil's advocate and show you some of these things. If he no longer has a function he's reporting directly' to your board. Everything you need will be there. If that's what you wish, that's fine. TIlen the management team will be siUing here managing tile rest of the opemtion. I don~ know if that's what YOl1 ""'nt. Can it work? I hollCSlly don~ know, because I doll~ even know if it's working IIOW. CHAIRWOMAN WOMBLE: I think it would almost turn into the chair being a paid employee and having them sit in the office mid direct things thllt they're not sure of MR CURRAN: Or being available at all times. someone to answer your questiollS or grab them to help and then wbat would occur? The board was not always available. then he would be being referred to go to the manager anyway. So it would go back to here. I understand you-all see each other. You see more of llle worl<. ll1llll1 do. I just work with them. The way it's set up is you have them to manage for you. So you don't Imve to keep running 10 Kyle. Kyle is my main contact for his staff and we do all of the bids that go on the street and I wOlk with him. CHAIRWOMAN WOMBLE: The beauty of that is they would make a good team because they've been doing this for so long togelller and you too. so it all works out. MR. CURRAN: Yes. it does. Experience mid seniority always does help you some. But in the course of the time over seven or eight years. it really behooves everyone to take a look out there and see is lllefC something new in llle lIIll1ket, something different out there, something really innovative that would fit in with what you need. If we don't go and take a look every so often. you never know. That's what we're trying to do today. In fuet, I think since tilis llling started originaIly, JoIu~ you were with a 7 Management Review Committee Januan' t2, 2009 161'1 A 18 different group and Ihen they changed ruunes and dillerenl areas. eventhing changes. MR PETTY: last year they did or a year and a 1,,1Jf ago they did bire by ill\.itation. MR GIBSON: They did what? MR PETTY: A reqnesl for proposal by invitation, Basically, it was the old finn tll3I had tile contract and tllen any new companies that were invited. I think one other firm was invited. but declined. MR. CURRAN: Okay, ThaI was done in-house. That didn't come throngh us in Collier County purchasing. See, that's why I could fiud uothing. Do you see what I'm saying? I don't know. It was done by your board. What we call in accounting, it would be an infonnal vote, It W1\Sl1't as in-<iepth as what you have in front of you and what you had originally douc in 2000. basically, because I know when John and I talked he said. we jns! did this. And I searched everywhere and I couldn't find anything. When I saw the paperwork, I saw what it \VdS. CHAIRWOMAN WOMBLE: Yes. we did do that. but I think it was in-house more than anything, wasn't it? MR PETTY: Yes. CHAIRWOMAN WOMBLE: We didn't seem to bave a wbole lot of people coming back witll anytlling. MR. PETTY: I believe it was by invitation, I believe it was my fmn and I helieve one or two other linn may have been talked to, but they declined to show, MR CURRAN: I know there was three firms talked to because we needed '. I think one declined. one came and two proposed. Now, that's basically it for your scope of service for what I have. I am willing to put anything in. We can discoss any questions on that issue, if you wdIll at the moment and then we can go on to the nex1 one, but if you have any issues while welre doing this, it's going to take me a few days to combine everything, put it togetber. You all have my business card. You ean e,mail me questions or if you think you want to add something in, and I can send an e-mail back to everybody on the committee and ask them what they think. As long as I'm in the loop and it's me talking to you, tllClC is no violation of the Sunshine Law The violation comes in if tbe tlrree of yourselves meet and talk about it and I'm not present and it's not in the public. CHAIRWOMAN WOMBLE: How about if we e-mail one, we e-mail all" MR CURRAN: I request tlmt of my folks. If you e-mail me, you don't really have to, but I'd like for you to copy them. TImt way everyone sees everything. We're doing nothing slmdy. MR PETTY: Madam Chair, if I could give you a little bit of our point of view? CHAIRWOMAN WOMBLE: Yes. 8 Management Review Committee J anuan 12. 2009 1611' A 18 MR PETTY: I don~ want you to get the impression thai you can use Jack as an iutCIpreter or interim muse to influence other board members. Basically, what can happen is infonnation can be exchanged amongsl tltis body, as long as there is no decisions made in the process. Your decisions will be made here, of course. So what, basically. Jack is saying is as long as yon flow all of the informatiou through ltim. you can keep an order of it and make sure we don't fall outside of that box. The decisions get made here, of course. and tlleu you will bring them to Ille full board for an actual vote. CHAIRWOMAN WOMBLE: Right MR CURRAN: Oue of tile issues you don't want to do, you don't want to scnd me.an e-mail. and we'll usc Jolm because we're friends. If you actually sat down and talked to so and so from this company and they said this, I'd like to make sure tlley get notified We don't really want to do Ilmt You may nlllke suggestions. Is tltis finuou my list? But if you're meeting with them aud talking with them. it's really not in the Sunshine Law. even though it may b<, you and me having a cup of coffee. ff they're an outside proposer and they're offering this type of scrvices and they're talking will. you. we don't even want to appear like we are letting anything like this Imppen. becausc if we do that, the person may come b.ck later, it's bappened to me a few times in doing the presentation evaluations. when I met with you last year at lunch. you told me you were going to talk about it And of course. the competitors were sitting out there and said, well. he has au in with the chairperson. That's why I say if you can direct evetything tlrrough me, I will get it back to you. Any question you ask. I will answer it for you. Anything that you tltink is a good idea. I will tell you my thoughts, but I'm here to do what you want, wbat you need. That's wbatl'm here for. It's your place, nO! mine. CHAIRWOMAN WOMBLE: Thank you. I wonder if Kyle has any suggestions? Have you looked over the information too? MR LUKASZ: Well, the scope of scrvices over the last few times, this has worked pretty well for ns. [did notice some things that are stated in here Mr. Gibson mentioned tllllt 1 might do, but I thought Illere was hasically a responsibility thai the management delegates to me that I do some of the wOIk Maybe that's the intent or the way that it should be stmctnred CHAIRWOMAN WOMBLE: Do you have an example? MR LUKASZ: Rc\.iew outside contract or bids. and some of the bids maybe go over that with John or the administrator, but in some cases I just work that willI purchasing. CHAIRWOMAN WOMBLE: Which makes scnsc. because you're on site. MR LUKASZ: Administrator's respousibility. but it is work that is sometimes delegated. MR. CURRAN: We're working on it uow. 9 Management Review Committee J annarv 12, 2009 1611 A 18 MR GIBSON: I hate to even ask a question. because it's probably going to be stldT I Imd. CHAIRWOMAN WOMBLE: TIlere is no stupid questions. MR. GIBSON: I Ulonght from the last board meeting that we were going to try to make a valiant effort to try and re- sccw-e or re-ootain some of the responsibilities for Clam Bay. Our audience participant out there says that's history. we're out of Clam Bay. It's no longer a part of the Pelican Bay SelVices Division. Is there anytlling we should be looking at that would hopefully incorporate the Clam Bay responsibilities? I'm not ready to give tImt up yet, bnl it may be puslling water up hill with a rake. It could already be gone. I'm groping for. I'm looking at you, Kyle. Maybe you've been involved heavily in Clam Bay. That's going to continue somehow, isn't it. until we're told to stop') MR. LUKASZ: If that was the case. say we do still have tile responsibilities for Clam Bay. we work under tIlese specifications, so the manager incorporated tImt into. . . MR GIBSON: These specifications would include all of the Clam Bay activities as well, in other words. we don~ need to m~.thelll. MR. LUKASZ: If we did have some responsibilities. MR. GIBSON: Or if we continue it. it covers everyllting MR. LUKASZ: It's covered in there is wlmtl'm saying. MR. CURRAN: But if you continued ,md those are restricted, some new type of restriction, then we need to get that in here so that tile new mamger or management would be aw'dfC tImt tlmt happened. That whatever occurs if you're not or you are. But what's in there now is the way it's been structured. TIrey both have been working with that area. If that stays, it will stay right here as it is. unless you find sonretIling new that you want to add ilL If it goes away, which is something that would be out of my domain completely, tIlese folks would not be doing anything on it because it's no longer in there. MR GIBSON: But it diminishes the responsibility dramatically. The administrator may need to adjust tlmt. It doesn't really change what we have to do here. CHAIRWOMAN WOMBLE: No. MR. GIBSON: But if we officially lost that. MR. CURRAN: But that's when we sit dow11 and do the evaluations. At that time you "ill probably be most knowledgeable as to wlmt's occurring and do we need all this and then when you have these proposals in and tIrese people show you all the scope of services. You can say. wait a minute. we dou't need to go to Utis great of depth. We need to gojnst here, but wlml we 10 Management Review Committee Januarv 12. 2009 1611 A 18 want to lIy to do up fronL Ihis is what makes UICse a little tricKY. nlC way vou're doing cvel)lIllng. what you're doing today you may not be doing illomorrow. How do (take it oul wheu somebody is silting in fronl of you giving you a proposal and you just found out this morniug. as you nolice when I rc-<ld these. j never S<lid UIC word Clam Bay. II's restrictive. I can't go anywhere else. But I just hope we cover everything and then we can always. al the last part. the contract part is when we're finished. that part there is when you can come up and say we had this. but we dou't waut tillS iu herc. We can go do a negotiation of tile contract aud get thaI part out MR. PETTY: Madalu ChaiL if ( could help out here a tittle bit historically. CHAIRWOMAN WOMBLE: Yes. MR PETTY: TIle eoutmct was basically set on 416 hours inUle past TIrat WdS based ou a reqlllrement thalUle manager had to spend at least one day of the week here. TIrat's where you got the 416. MR GIBSON: TIrat's 8 times 52 at the time. MR PETTY: At the time it was assumed thaI tile WOIk would be one day a week Now if the work becomes institutional in nature to tile point where Kyle and/or Mary and Ihe rest of the staffers can lrandle this without much supervision or without supervision period, theu you caulook at changes in that time frame, and that's exactly whal happened. I think it was two years ago, two and a half years ago when the chair at the time, Jim Carroll. asked for tlrat change and we did k1ke a look at the workload and tile one day per week was anlended 10 tile two meetiugs per monul. So basically if you cuI tile requiremem from 416 10 208 basically. So the contract was also cut in half from 48 to 24. Now. whether you have Clam Bay or whether you have 15 other new duties, it really boils dO\\1l to the time tlmt is involved and the reason why last year you cousidered, last May you considered putting the contract hack to 48,Om is because the time being spent was greater than one day per week. And it depends on whether there is a hot topic. So it's difficult to put it in an RFP to lIy aud quantifv it when it ura) become something of a communily issuc and require more time. I would suggest to you that you think about the minimum hour requirement of that 416 or thereabouts as being somethiug that you can set so thaI everybody can give you a good idea of wlmt tile) wish to provide and tllen lIy and make that as adjustable as possible based on current conditions. That may be better than trying to describe whether or not CiaJn Bay is or is not an issue at the time. CHAIRWOMAN WOMBLE: I don~ see anything on here that indicates specifically Clam Bay. so I think we're working witll a very good document. MR. CURRAN: You're working with a gelleric that will cover all of your sefVices. Bot tile hours tllat Jolm is mentioning 11 Management Review Committee J annarv 12, 2009 16f1 A 18 fits in about what Mr. Burke said If you feel that you don~ need liS much as the IIllluagement, then that's where you cut it. You can say, like, instelld of one meeting or two lIleetings, you Imve one every other week. a meeting. That way if you don't feel tlmt you need him as much as you do, but I do know tlmt this oue here was in '02. And then I think it was '07 that he went to the board and I didn't see t1mt documeut. but tlrey did change the amount of hours aud the money was doubled. The actual expenditure from $24,000 to $48,000, that's fine. That is an issue where you can work. TIml's what's going to spell out how much time and what he's going to be doing, whoever tlmt person is. if it's not John. Tlmt's wbere we're getting the bours, If you put the 416 hours in and then you get someone in here and tlrey say, that's it I did every1hing you want Then we're kind of. CHAIRWOMAN WOMBLE: How Ioug is a contract like tillS for, geuerally? MR CURRAN: What we are doing now, this one would be a maximmn of four years, We can word it such as one year, t1mt at tile end of tile first year we will renew it for one year and you elm do that consistently for four years, or you can say I'll give, after one, two years and two years, If you get new services or you're IUlSUre or yurl have thoughts t1ml things may change, I would suggest you go with the first year as a one year and then you could go to anotber one year renewal or two year renewal and two at the end, any combination you can l1llIke, CHAIRWOMAN WOMBLE: So tbe first year would be kind of a trial period? MR CURRAN: It basically is, I see contracts where they put tllem out for two years right off the hat If the linn doesn't work out, you have issues getting rid of them, This way at the end of the year it's a mutual agreement You say I don't want to renew and lie doesn't want to renew, It's done, You dou't have to give a reason. The contract reads will renew at tile discretiou of the board; in this case, your board, We send a request after we talk about the projeet and say, John or whoever it may he, we want to renew the contract He says, no, I don't wdnt to renew it It's over. Yau can tclime the board doesn't want to rene\v. You can go see John for example and be can say the contract is not going to be renewed, There is no issue, But t1mt's your choice, CHAIRWOMAN WOMBLE: I'm more concerned about the ammmt of time going up drastically because of the strategic time t1mt is out there, It's looking to me like we're going to have a lot more to do very soon, MR CURRAN: Like I said I'm not trying to linlit your bours or dollars, I'm trying to say if you want to take a look at, maybe I don't ueed as mncb management, t1mt's where you would take a look at If you feel t1mt what you Imve is adequate, t1mt's fine. We'll go right down tile street and do it Any other questions" MR MOFFATT: Yes, on item two you asked about leaving the munber of employees in there, I think t1mt would he useful to do so tlm the proposer has some idea of bow large of a staff be has to interact \Vitlt 12 Mauagement Review Committee J annarv 12, 2009 16f1 Al8 CHAlRWOMANWOMBLE' Yes, MR CURRAN: I agree, I don't know if Ilmt's a current llIunher. Because if yon want to direct me, we can get to Kyle and John to get tbe new accurate numbers, MR MOFFATT: I wonldn't propose doing it without the accurdte numhcrs. MR CURRAN: Yes, tl13t was sort of modified at the last meeting in '07, when I put tl13t in there, MR MOFFA Tl': Item nmnher 10, seems to me that's an evaluation criteria as opposed to a job responsibility, I think t1mt is sometlting t1mt we wonld score tIle nmnbers on, as opposed to saying tl13l's a requirement There is nothing you can do to satisfY item ten, other tllaIl having the experience to he able to fulfill tbese responsibilities, MR CURRAN: True, but it's. well tlley use the word lmderstanding, Tins would utake Ilns, if a finu from Califonlla called up and subnlitted a proposal to us and we asked them, well, are you aware of our laws dO\\1l here and they said no, if we didn't have this in here, they would he okay to bid ,md propose, CHAIRWOMAN WOMBLE: This is a chance for them to address it in the proposal, I think, MR CURRAN: For the evaluation, if tbey tell us their experience, We always ask, I always ask in your work scope, list for us tltree or four jobs in the last five years in the State of Florida for an entily equal to us in si7J: or larger than what our group is, We ask tllem to put t1mt in there to see it. By submitting to tillS, they're saying tllcy understand our laws ,md they cant come to us later when we're talking and say you know, we got to do this and tlley say, no, we don't do that in California, I don't want to do tlmt bere, I don't want to do that. That's the only understanding, I'm more than willing to take it out. MR MOFFA'lT: No. You explaiued it to me, I understand By the way, do we inc1nde the scoring criteria in theRFP? MR CURRAN: Yes, MR MOFFATT: I guess we'll get there. Item llInnher 12 on Illunber of hours, if we spell ont wl13t's reqlnred of tlle vendor in the other 13 items t1mt are in bere, shouldn't we let the vendor tell us how umny hours tlrey think it's going to take? I mean, I guess it concerns me tlmt we're telling them the number of hours 1l1cy have to spend, If they're any good, they'll he able to say, okay, on this I'm going to spend X numher of hours, on this something else, I'm going to add it up and it's going to be Y numher of hours, That would be my way of getting around looking at two days a week or a day a week. CHAIRWOMAN WOMBLE: You'd want to do tlmt instead of a minimum? You'd want them to give yon a specific or close to it? MR MOFFATT: Yes, Ifwe can do 11m!. 13 Management Review Committee Januarv 12,2009 1611 A 18 CHAIRWOMAN WOMBLE: WelL what w" would do is where it says the manager shall devote sneh time as necessmy to complete tlle duties and responsibilities assigned according to the specifications, period, The ne~1Iine, 'tlle manager shall spend a miuimrnll of 400 hours to do the specified', We cml lake that out ,md jusl end it righlthere. But you may want 10 put in there hours spent over. Say tJlcre is no mininlUlll, so wben \\'ould you talk about exlra compensation? MR MOFFA 1T 1 wouldn't This is tlle proposal and, . MR CURRAN: Basically, what we're going to do is we're going to say" MR MOFFATT: I was leaving the last two sentences in there. MR CURRAN: We am pnt in tlle evaluation oue of tile tabs can state for tllem to do their best estinmte based all whlll they've seen from our scope of service, We usually bold a pre-proposaL As important as this one is. I would suggest we do it TIlese are not mandated, hut olle person from the properly nmnager should atteud, If not I ask all of the questious at the time and the proposers ask all of their questions, One of you would probably be w1tb me, because youll have the answers t1mt I don't have and they can ask abont trult So 1 can lake that down, t1mt would be tbe last two that you mentioned. MR MOFFA 1'1': Yes, Detail and the time perfonuing duties, tlmt is something Jobn does now, MR CURRAN: Uh-hnh, MR MOFFATT: Who docs t1mt go to? CHAlRWO~N WOMBLE: John, what's yonr nllnimum mnount of hours in " year. MR PETTY: Jl,ladam Chair, I was basically set at the origilllll contract of 416 hours, tltat's tile minimmll, We don't have a maximum, The way it's currently set up in our contract mId in the RFP, anything t1mt we feel is above and beyond the 416 that we feel, we would bring to you as an hourly project and I helieve tllere's $150 per hour in our past contracts, thaI is for tlmt If you have an hourly project, an example would he sometl1ing above and beyond take a look at tlle population of Pelican Bay and come up Witll ml in-house Specil~ census, welL tltat would be above tbe nonnaI dnties and would he subjeet to tlmt. MR MOFFA 1T: Fine, My question was the manager should detail on a regnlar hasis the time spent in perfommuce of these dnties, Who do you detail tlmt to" MR PETTY: Madam Chair, do you want me to? CHAIRWOMAN WOMBLE Yes. MR PETTY: The manager currently does not fill ont a time card nor has be in the last lOur years. and I don't Imve mlY knowledge of it ever heing done. 14 Management Review Committee Januarv 12, 2009 16 fIr A 18 MR CURRAN: I understand wllere JeT!)' is going, I imerpret this to he a monthly or annllal report 011 the bours that have actually been spent and for what functions for the Board 'IUd tlley look at it and tlley can say we think there is too mncb time allocated here, Move it here, We don't want to do tlus, So t!l"I's the way I interpret tllis, I wasn't here in '02, bnt that's the way I interpret tlus, That's why I left it in there, It wasn't like a time card done on a montllly or senli-mlUually, whichever way tlte board so desired, If yon want me to make tlusa little clearer tlle way Ijllst said in there, a bi-montllly, 1Il0ntllly, senu-annually, I can put t1mt in there for tlle manager to report MR MOFFA 11': I would think it's something useful to do, MR GIBSON: I agree with you. monthly, MR MOFFATT: Then tlle last sentellce tllere is staff in their office, I tlIink is good intonlmtion. Now, if you go to the second document you gave ns, the next to the last word, the administrator will respond to any request for infommtion or data from the county lnanager's office, Maybe it's in here already, but I doll'[ read it th"t way, J tllink we ollght to specifically include that. MR CURRAN: The bullets t1mt are on here and on the hack are heing nlixed with tllOSC, This was the latest scope of seMce. CHAIRWOMAN WOMBLE: That's what John provided liS in his proposal. MR CURRAN: This is tlle way they did it in '02, when the COlIl1ty was involved, Any1lIing t1mt's on here that's not on there I moved it to tlle new document so some of tllese are repetitive, They won't do over. MR MOFFATT: That was actually the only one I saw t1mt wasn't covered, MR PETTY: Madam Chair, there is a reason why and I don't have a problem, I don't think anybody would have a problem witll it being there, but if yon recall the last two chairs or three chairs ago, Jint Carroll bad changed our ordinance with board direction and one of the ordinance ebanges WdS t1mt the nmnager of Pelican Bay Services Division reports directly to the board of Pelican Bay Services Division. where in the past he bad becn reporting direetly to the County Manager, Which is why I think in the last scope of work it says that it does not say tlmt tlley will report to a City Manager under tllese assignments. It was because of t1mt, but I think you can say both, Long answer. CHAIRWOMAN WOMBLE: Good, Everybody knows tlmt. MR PETTY: I dOIl't think tlle board wmlts to give up the right to tell the manager what to do in Pelican Bay Selvices Division. MR MOFFATT: Tlus is a more current docnment, isn't it? 15 Maoagement Review Committee J anoarv 12, 2009 16fl A 18 MR. CURRAN: Yes. Tlmt was the last one. The rCllSOl1 we use both is because there were lIungs in this one. This went out publicly, MR. PETTY: When he says this is the most cnrrent, he's talking aboutlhe last time it went out for current RFP, tlle last job descliption did not go ont for RFP, TImt is not tlle most current job description tlmt Jinl Carroll nmde clmuges to, MR CURRAN: TIlis would be tbe clmnge tlml the board did in '07. CHAIRWOMAN WOMBLE: Tlmt was his selection. MR PETTY: That was Jim Carroll's change in the contract. MR CURRAN: I'm trying to gel willI you, CHAIRWOMAN WOMBLE: He's saying yours, What you sent in was your proposal? MR PETTY: Mine was a copy of Jinl Carroll's, Alii did was copy it from 1I1e prior. MR CURRAN: I will send you those documents, if I can have your e-mail addresses when I leave today, When I compile what we're talking about, l'U send it to you for your comments. MR MOFFATT: You also brought np tlle issue of length of contract, I, for one, would like to see a oue-yearwith three one-year options, just to give ns the flexibility, Do you agree') MR GIBSON: Yes, CHAIRWOMAN WOMBLE: I do too, MR PETTY: Madam Clw, an option would he tlley SClve at tlle pleasure of. MR CURRAN: Yes, at the pleasure of. MR PETTY: You nlight want to e"l'lain t1mt option to tllem, Jack, I dou't know tbat tlley know it MR, CURRAN' I tlunk I went over it If they hecome or if we hecome dissatisfied you can end the contract with no penalties fees. CHAIRWOMAN WOMBLE: That's eilller direction? MR CURRAN: Yes, MR PETTY: TIlat way, Madam Chair, your issue of whether it was a one-year, two-year or tbree-year, hasically, it comes down to a day-by-<lay, so yon don't bave to woT!) about tImt MR, CURRAN: It's cleaner tIlOUgh when you do tllC years, heeause at the end of tlle year, the board sits down and has discussion, 16 Management Review Committee Januarv 12, 2009 16 f.1' A 18 MR MOFFA Tr: Makes a decision. MR CURRAN: They can say tlmt's iL we're not going to renew. Or you're doing a heck ofa great job, letls go on. Ifs not like you [mve to remember a few months ago they didn't do something just on one issue, I didn~ make copies Oftllis, so I'm going to try to do tlle best I can. Tbat proposal, our evaluation and I'm going to make some cbanges based on what you have spoken to me about tooay. TIus is the grading card, which rm going to give to ~vou. This \\'38 tile criteria tbat we used in '02. It says number two, number tIlree and nmnher four, Those were the issues. Wlmt I'm going to do for you is I'm going to go hack and on bere, tllese tabs, one is for obligations of experience; one is for previous ex-perience on a similar cuntract approach: and understanding of tlle contract, I'm going to pulltogetlter w[mt we currently use on the RFP and wbat the issues I already went over earlier. I'm going to redo these four, TIlere will probably he six qualifications, We're going to look a( cost. We're going to look at ex-perienee and understanding. We're going to look at size. past perfommnce and of course references, which I'll put on bere, and we will call and check, I'll list them, I'll put a grade evalllation score (0 it and I'll high[igbt it in yellow and I1l send it to you to see if you agree. TIlis is the sbeet tlmt lists. t1mt tells you per pamgraph wlmt we e"xpecl to see from tllem mlder these things and this would he the items there, So, basically, I'll he putting them in a paragraph and listing tllem OO"n here and "e'lI have I 00 points so yon can take a look at it Is there anything t1mt yon think, or hecause Ibis isn't a really up-to-date docmnent. being it's seven years old tlmt you would like to see from the proposer, t1mt you would like to rank them on? Would you like to rank them on experience, which we hllve tllere? Past experience, qualifications of tile team? Would you like tltelll to give you a sUlllnmry of work. how they're going to attack this work? Would you like them to give yon a business plan? We can do thllt MR MOFFATT: Bnsiness plan from which standpoint? I want the experience, certaiuly, I want the qualifications of tlte individual, I'm uot sure what I'd get out of a business plan MR CURRAN: Some oftllCm say bere is our plan, how we're going to do tile work Here is what we did here. MR MOFFA 11': So it's really an approach to satisfYing the contract? MR CURRAN: Well, t1mt or how they're going to satisJy it exactly, The way they're going to (ell YOle may not sit well with you and then we may have to talk about the presentations, MR MOFFATT: TIlen I don't lmve to hire them, MR CURRAN: This jnst brings out more information for you. That was jnst an option I'm putting on the table for you, MR, GIBSON: I !,'lless, once again talking out loud, I want to l1llIke sure that tile Pelican Bay Services Division Board tlmt we allow all of tile infonnation, for lack of a hetter ternl, the work Witll Kyle and John, get to tlle board memhers, 17 Management Re.iew Committee Januarv 12, 2009 16f'1 A18 Commmucation upwards, rather than just PBSD li,ing in this little rosy world not knm,ing what's goiug on. Questions like, I don't know, do people like working for Pelican Bay Services Division. 00 we pay them enougb? Are there any personal issues? I gness what I'm looking for is to make sure it's in the responsibilities of the Immager 10 connmnlicate upwards good new~ as well as had news, issnes tllat need attention, In my world in the corporate world, we cracker barrel a lot of these over a cup coffee, We can't do tlus on tllis board. You've got to have another system in place so tlml things that arc not right get to our attention so t1mt we can get our grabbers on them and see if it can he fixed, If it call grea~ if it can't.., CHAIRWOMAN WOMBLE: Otherwise, what good are we'l MR GlBSON: ljnst want to make sure in the job specification tl>ere is a=hanism somehow so t1m~ yes, John is doing a great job, but he may be tlrinking t1mt we don't need to know some of tlris stuff, heeause he's taking care of it. I'm the kind of goy wbo likes to kuow what's going on, good or bad and wl>ere tlte problems arc, so t1mt you don't have to go wberever this person is, go around with this big knapsack of stones on their back and they feel t1mt they have tllC responsibility to communieate to the board, I don't know if t1mt's poorly slated or what I want to ul3ke sure, MR CURRAN: I tbink I understand wltere yon're going, You want some type of mechanism where you can actuallY sit down and have a discussion about everytlung tlmt happened. MR GIBSON: Quarterly or senu-annual discussion, or sonte sort of an update on bow things arc going, Maybe it's being done now and I'm too new t1mt I haven't seen it But I kind of keep looking for it in tlte minutes and tbat kind of stuff. MR CURRAN: You want if I heard you correctly, you would like Kyle and John the two to come togetl>er and freely give it up and down. MR GlBSON: Yos. instead of less. I guess I'm jllSt grasping, MR PETTY: Madam Chair, currently tllis request has heen asked I gness for the ]ast, I gness fIVe or six years. The issue has heen addressed this way, It is. and lIIay I suggest tlml you nlaY want to consider tlris language, the position has been for administrator, not for manager, TIte difference is tlte manager comes in with business model and practice and delivers tllC end the objective you're looking for. And the tools they utilize are their own. Under adtninistrator, we follow the policy and direetives of the board and the board is more of the builder and sIl3ker and we just hasically do the wOlk So under this current scenario, t1mt's exactly how we report to the board, We've talked about job satisfuction on several occasions, typically dllling the budget eycle, heeause we always look at in-house staff versus contract, And we talk aboul our current praetice of bow we pay our individnals and what that costs lIS, et cetera, and are tlrey ImflPY, But t1mt's currently bow we do it and let UlC suggest to you do t1mt by calling the 18 Management Review Committee Januarv 12,2009 1611 A 18 sit dow1l in my dining room after the cllildrell went to bed and I'm reading tllis and grading it ] can't do it 011 tlle CD, I'm free. I will give one CD copy, which will keep our arcbived records, There "ill he three hard copies, Is tllis all that's going to be on tlle select comnrittee? CHAIRWOMAN WOMBLE: Yes, MR CURRAN: So I'll do tl=, one for myself and tbe board, that's fine. MR PETTY: Jack, ifyon'll selld one o\'erto Mal), she'll he able todislrihnte it to anyone else who nmyask MR CURRAN: Okay, I can't send it to anyone until after we vote, When the proposal comes in it's not public knowledge until tllese folks get finished with it We score yo,,- rank you and tllen it's public knowledge, We can't let it go out to anyone. . . MR PETTY: Don't you have an initial public opening, where you say the apparent low bidder is. MR CURRAN: Not for an RFP, MR PETTY: Not for RFP or RFQ" MR CURRAN : Yes, What I just did for your hortiClutural removal, that was public, What happens here, tllere is nobody tagged, The only tlliug they do here is what's called a tag, Bernard p, and what they get is a list of all of the proposers, and if they submitted wbat be asked them to subnlit MR PETTY: Tbe ten items or whatever it is. MR CURRAN: That's all it is, Tbat's all it said, Tbe actual proposals "ill stay Witll these folks until we come to a short list, MR PETTY: While you're doing tlte scope? MR CURRAN: 20 days later we do what I eall an opening, The packages are turned into me by 3:00 that day, I score them, sucb as I check to make sure tlmt every tIling t1mt yon reqinre is there and I also chcck to make sure there are a few things that we always require, a conllict of interest declaration statemeut, a qualifications fonn. I check alllllCSC things off If tlley're all there, then 11l mect witll you, If they're not tbere I'll call , tlte vendors for those items and they'lIlmve 48 hours to get them to me. If they don't, it's disqualification on 1llOSC issues, I also look if any vendor, which they do, take exception to anything, they don~ like your insurance fonus or tlley don't feel tlmt the bours t1mt yon want are adequate for what they want They say we're bidding and the exception of ours would be a miuiuuun of 6,000 boors, We could look al it and say, no, t1mt's outragcons, They clearly have to mark tlmt So I cbeck it over. So t1mt's what I do, I set up this meeting, You will get this mccting notice as soon as I go on the 20 Management Review Committee Januarv 12. 2009 161.1 A18 street. It's called an organizational meeting. I can come Ollt bere with it. In tllllt organialtional meeting I present to you all of the proposals from each of the finus and then I go walk tllrouglt score them, I walk through what YOLl Lleed to do and then I call it charging the jury, I remind yon tlmt YOlI're under the Sunshine Laws, so that when yon read the books you're more than welcome to talk to your staIf, your friends Witll questions, You just carmot talk to each other until we meet at the orgmlit.atioual mecting, Based on your calendar, l'll ask you for a date mId we'll set the date up tlmt we're going 10 pick one of tlle winners, At tllis sanle meeting [ will ask you, and I know it's hard when you first get the books, I will ask you if you want presentations from the proposers. A couple options, you can say I want to go hack and read for a while, send me ml e-maiL We get three e-mails t1mt say J want a presentatioQ then we'll do it If you Imve a large amount of proposers, what I would suggest is you read the proposals, we get together. make a short list, We short list tltree finns out often, Those tlITee firms would then be invited in, if you wish, for a presentation, TIlen yon do another scoring again at the presentation and that would he ymIT wimUng firm for the apparent winner. And we'll take it to the board for approval and approval by your board and it's done, CHAIRWOMAN WOMBLE: Now, it doesn't need to go to tlle conmlissioners, if it isn\ if it is not $50,000; is t1mt correct? MR CURRAN: Correct. CHAIRWOMAN WOMBLE: Do tbey still get involved in tbe process one way or the other? MR CURRAN: Not until we see the final dollars, As close as they're going to get involved in this is me, and I don't. CHAIRWOMAN WOMBLE: Y 011 pretty much give YOlIT suggestions, YOlIT advice to tlleU\. or does it a standalone? MR PETTY: Madam Clmir, this contract would not come hefore tlle com.nission for a vote unless it exceeded the dollar linlit So I don't think you're going to have that issue, unless you do exceed and tllCll Jack will put it on as an agenda item, MR CURRAN: We go nuder executive surruuanes and put it in tbere, I take your lead, if you elect tlmt IIris is the firm you want and you know the dollars, and of course, tllere is one IUOre step in the gan>e, and tlle doUars exceed the SO, then I will do executive sunUl1ary', I'm going to the board and I'm teUing them t1mt our selection eOlmnittee has reviewed and picked and selected out of so umny finns, this is tile firm that it picked and this is who they want and whatever, That's what it is, I don't detemline them, TIlis is the one I recolmnend, J lmve no recommendations, I foUow your !ellll I just hope t1mt I guide you to the way you wanted to go to pick the right finn. MR MOFFATT: Let me ask yOU, we decide on a firm t1mt's more than $50,000, When do we take t1mt to our board" MR PETTY: Madam Chair, if I could it would go before our board hefore we would ask tlle County Conunissioners to 21 Management Review Committee J anuarv 12, 2009 16fl A 18 go ahead, So it would he approprillte for tl1is conunitlee to bring it to the full board, CHAIR WOMAN WOMBLE: And tllen after tltat it wonld go to (be commissioners, MR CURRAN: I would wait to hear what ItappetlS, hecanse if the full board decides to vote it down, then there would be no need to go to tlle other one, CHAIRWOMAN WOMBLE: Right And here is another thought I did not see what was necessary for a vote on tllis, Is it a clear majority witll a quonnn, just a nmjority vote, MR, PETTY: Yes, Madam Clmir. We're not looking for a super majority, either at our level or at the full commission level. MR CURRAN: Mine is a score sheet, 7.ero to 100, If you give me 90 for this firm, you give me ten, when we add them all up, it's the high score. If I have a tic, I'll have to look at something extra, but nonually you get ten finns, the highest can be 100, I think mayhe scores come to about 80 or 81 after a compilation of aU of your wOlk The nex1 part and the final part is once we've selected our linn, we have not heen to either board, it goes to our contract forks to sit do\\ll and see if they can hanuner ant an offer t1mt's agreeable to you. Once they do their negotiations, il \\ill come hack and \\e'U say this is the dollar figure, Is this agreeable to you? When you agree, then we do it We're not going 10 give a contract out and do it blindly Witll no dollars involved, You don't want to do it I don~ want to do it and Jo]U\ doesn't We need to know some Iype of a dollar t1mt's agreeable, wbetller it he a base bourly rate, lump smn, wlmtever you come up \\ith, any ,uggestions you yourselves offer to me, CHAIRWOMAN WOMBLE: Okay, If tlmt doesn\ for whatever reason if tlmt al t1mt point does not work, is it automatically the nex1 vote? MR CURRAN: Nonually, yes, We would say nmuber one refuses to clmrge us less tlmn $1,000 and we don't want to pay tlmt an hour, So we say tImt', it We tried and tried, TIlen we all get together and say, all right, he's out And we go to nmnher two and then we call them in and we start again. Before we go to two, tile option is always on the table t1m1 you've decided you just don't want to go any furtllCf with it Let's just end lllis tlring and we can either go hack on the street for another one or your board is going to take a different direction. That option is aJ\\ays there, Once we get into the ganle and we're starting it and we do short lists, we follow through will, what I call the negotiations with the dollars, So t1mt's the wbole scenario, We'll probably be togetIler on and off llIltil we get it figured out until for the nex1 three months. MR MOFFATT: Should we wait t1mt loug'? MR CURRAN: I don't want to rush yon because everytlling is kind ofpiecemcal, 22 Management Review Committee Janua", 12, 2009 161'1 A18 MR MOFFATT: Ifwe do this tlling once a montlt we're going to be ill September. MR CURRAN: Once I get your final okay on tllis thing, we'll start rolling on It TIle big part is getting wllllt we're doing right now done, Y on\'e given me some thougbt to nmke some suggestions, like I said. MS, McCAUGHTRY: February 12 is the ne'>t meeting, MR GIBSON: 1:30, MR CURRAN: I'll bring a final package. Hopefully, you can review it, you get it back to me, If we do t1mt we'll be hack mid Marcb, We should Illlve tlle whole package dolle, every1hiug by late April mId tlmt's a lot of negotiations, any possible representations, TIrirty days brings ns back mid March. We'll nlCCt togetllCr within two days after we open, We'll schedule a meeting, Hopefully, I will in ten days, you lnay want to do it in a week, wllieh I have a lot of folks who do tllat. We'll meet in a week We'll do our vote or non-vote and then from then on, it's negotiations and approvaL MR GIBSON: Y Oil think we'll get people interested? MR CURRAN: I've been checking around, We've not bad a lot but the way the cormrultee is changed I'm getting calls every day, MR GIBSON: Great. I badn~ tbought of that MR CURRAN The reason I mentioned earlier about Clllifomia, I'm gelling calls from firms outside of the state, We're getting into such issues as", I'll give YOIl a very good example, I just put a bid out for Kyle mtd the bidscan>e hack and tile lowest two bidders, it canle down to they had tlle local vendor preference forms, and it canlC down to tlrree cents, And I'm probably going to end up having a protest to tlmt We don't know yet hut we get a lot of protestors when it's so close, We took your costs dowll to $12 and $6 with a $3 difference between one and two, I mean three cents, t1mt's petty, We Imve to go with the low dollar unless we Imve reason to justify not It's people yon've never heard of, tlley're jnst coming down, and tlley're qualified, If tl>ey're not, I do eliminate them, TImt part is enjoyable, MR GIBSON: That's good, CHAIRWOMAN WOMBLE: Jack would there he a way t1mt we could get tlte paperwork before the next meeting so t1mt we can take II look at it hefore we sit dmvll here? MR GIBSON: Yes, that would be very belpful, MR MOFFATT: Y cs. MR CURRAN What I'll do.., 23 Management Review Committee Januarv 12. 2009 16ft A 18 CHAIRWOMAN WOMBLE: Well. you hme our e-mails. Could tllat be scanned and sent to us? MR, CURRAN: I'll get yon a package, I just want to make sure t1mtl have tins finisbed, I will e-mail you something on TImrsday, The reason I say Thursday is I \lilI he away ne~1 week. I'm leaving Friday, I will e-mail yousomethingTImrsday.It should he a pretty good document I need you 10 do any changes yon so dc'Sirc. An)llling you do elmnge in the system, use the track. If you do it manually, that's okay, Just l1llIke it so I can see the changes, I've bad people l1llIke changes and they didn't show me where and I didn't know what tl>ey changed, I had to sit tllere page by page, I'll send it .to you and the main reason yon'll be getting it for your changes and your comments, I can get that to you by Thursday. If I'm fqrtuuate, I'll have it tomorrow. I have a draft put togetller. I just want to incorporate what we put togetller, I jnst want to fix the evaluation tabs any, MR MOFFA Tf: Anyone else on the committee feel as I do, of mming this tlling a little more quickly? I mean, if you get sometl1ing by Thursday or way IlCx1 week, we could do something the last week of the month as opposed to waiting till Fehruary, CHAIRWOMAN WOMBLE: Are you having trouble getting a meeting place? MS, McCAUGlITRY: I don't know, I'd have to check. bnt we already do Imve meetings on tlle 26th and 27th, 26 is bndget 27 is ordinance, MR MOFFATT: How long do you have the room on the 26th for? MS. McCAUGlITRY: l:OO to 4:00 in the afternoon. MR MOFFATT: What if we, I can't inmgine we'd spend three hours on, what if we met after, say 3:30 for this colmnittee, for just a half an bour,jnst to give you feedback on what you're going to send us, because we "ill he at tlmt meeting, CHAIRWOMAN WOMBLE: Is t1mt on the 26th? MR CURRAN: TImt's fine, CHAIRWOMAN WOMBLE: On the 26th? MR MOFFATT: On the 26tll, MR CURRAN: I have a new system I'm using, It's called Go To Meeting, If you have a computer I can bring it up, If you have a computer, you can use it If not yon can call in on it as a conference call. We can do t1mt too, if t1mt's a time t1mt's convenient for you, but the 26tlll can make it happen. It's free, I'm looking at my calemlar, It's free, The 28th is a whole, . MR GIBSON: You just get back from vacation on t1mt day. MR PETTY: Madam Clmir, if I could point to a poinl of procedure bere, One is for you-all to meet by teleconference, we would stilllmve an issue with if it's open to the public we would want to post it so t1mt they would bave the availability to come 24 Management Review Committee Januarv 12.2009 1611 A 18 and listen. CHAIRWOMAN WOMBLE: TheTC is anotller problem too, I helieve Witll the Sunshine Laws that's not adnlissible, because you don't know for sure wbo is on the other end, MR PETTY: There is a legal opinion on both sides, but when you get to this point, you nsually take tlle more cautious one, which is how do we know tlrnt it is you tlmt is at tI>e meeting if we don't get to see you, Voice identification is difficult MR CURRAN: I was using the Go To is the thing to do, about tbe review of the proposal. It's not a voting meeting, but when I do use it, which I don't, for voting, we need a quorum in tIle room, not on the pbone, TImt was just to save time, to help ns get a package together. MR PETTY: MadalU Chair, tlmt's the other tlung I wanted to bring to your attention, Based on the schedule you're talking about, at your next regularly scheduled boord meeting, may I suggest t1mt you ask the board to have the power to l1llIke t1mt decision, otherwise, this body basically would give reconullCndations to the full board and the full board mayor umy not approve, And if we wait until the last month to ask for tImt approval, let's say you ask for it in April, and the board says, no, I don't like this, we're going discuss it and you can't come to a consensus or a good vote, you're going to have an overlap of the contract, You may want to ask for permission then to be delegaled by the board to l1llIke this decision as a tllree-member board versus being an advisory board to them for scheduling, It's your call. I just need you to understand tlle coullict of the calendar and possible coullict CHAIRWOMAN WOMBLE: Since they would lake our advice more than likely anyw"Y, wlmt do you tllink? MR MOFFATT: Why don't we ask them for approval, MR GIBSON: Tlmt's a good idca. MR CURRAN' Would you like to set it up tlte 26th? CHAIRWOMAN WOMBLE: I would, MR GIBSON: I already used ink, yes, CHAIRWOMAN WOMBLE: 3:30 in tlte afternoon, Would tImt work? Wlmt time do you get off3:00, 4:00. MR CURRAN: Actually, I work 6:00 to 4:30, That's only beeansc I get every other Friday off, TIte hours matter not If you need to get it done, we'll get it done. CHAIRWOMAN WOMBLE: 3:30, Mary, do you know if we've got tlmt room'! MS, McCAUGHTRY: No, but I'm sure since it's our budget meeting and it's available lmtil 4:00 anyway, 111 double-<:heck witll Margaret Her ouly push could be I've got sontetlling coming in at 6:00, yon've got to go out of here at 4 :()(), But 25 Management Review Committee Januarv 12.2009 1611 Ala yon are not going to need tlmt mueb time anyway, so I'm pretty sure we can go Witll it MR MOFFATT: If t1mt's all we're going to do at tile meeting and we have all of the nmterial heforehand, MR CURRAN: It will he a nmtter of :mytlling yon saw that you want to clmnge on the package, yon can sbow me tlmt day. I can, if there is anything that I saw on nline, ] can appraise yon of it Anytlling else I can help you? CHAIRWOMAN WOMBLE: I don't tbink so. Well, Mary, do you bave any suggestions? You're on the staff. You're there all the time, You see what is needed from your end, Is tllCre anytlling fiom that list for tlle administrator t1mt you feel needs to he added or isn't importaut enough? MS, McCAUGHTRY: No, Madam Clmir, I'm satisfied with tile list AUDIENCE COMMENTS CHAIRWOMAN WOMBLE: Okay, Well, tlris has been a long time in the process anyway, So this document is probably right on top of what we need, I would think, Anybody? Any thoughts? No audience comments? Kyle? ADJOURN MRMOFFATT: I move, MR GIBSON: Second. CHAIRWOMAN WOMBLE: All in favor. Aye, MR MOFFATf: Aye, MR GIBSON: Aye, CHAIRWOMAN WOMBLE Aye Opposed? (No response), TIlere being no further business fur tlle good of tlle comIty, tlle meeting was adjourned by order of the Chairwoman at 2:24 P,M PELICAN BAY SERVICES DIVISION , //r '---~ TRANSCRIPT PREPARED ON BEHALF OF GREGORY COURT REPORTING SERVICE, INC, BY TRACIE THOMPSON AND FORMA TfED BY MARY MCCAUGHTRY. PELICAN BAY SERVICES DiVISION. 26 ~r:CciVciJ ~::=~ ~OY~l MAR Q 5 2n[)g Henning '-( V ~ q",,' ,,,County Commissioners g~r~~ ~ MINUTES OF THE MEETING OF THE COLLIER COUNTY RURAL LANDS STEWARDSHIP AREA REVIEW COMMITTEE A19v LET IT BE REMEMBERED, that the Collier County Rural Lands Stewardship Area Review Committee in and for the County of Collier, having conducted Business herein, met on January 6, 2009 at 9:00 A.M. in REGULAR SESSION at the Community Development and Environmental Services Building, 2800 North Horseshoe Drive, Rooms 609/610, Naples, Florida, 34104, with the following members present: CHAIRMAN, Ron Hamel VICE CHAIRMAN: Neno Spagna Brad Cornell Fred Thomas Gary Eidson David Farmer Tom Jones Tammie Nemecek David Wolfley ALSO PRESENT: CDES staff members Thornas Greenwood and Mike DeRuntz of the Comprehensive Planning Department, Jeff Wright of the Assistant County Attorney's Office, Nick Casalangllida of the Transportation Division, as well as approximately 25 members of the public, I. Call Meeting to Order The meeting was called to order at 9:03AM by Chairman Ron Hamel. II. Roll Call Roll call was taken, and a quorum was established as 9 of II members were present [Bill McDaniel and Jim Howard were excused due to conflicting meetings], III. Approval of Agenda Fred Thomas moved and David Wolfley seconded to approve the agenda as distributed. Upon vote, the motion carried unanimously, IV. Approval of Minutes of the December 18, Meeting Fred Thomas moved to approve the Minutes with one consistency change on page 2 as outlined by Brad Cornell. David Farmer seconded the motion, Upon vote the motion carried unanimously, V. Presentations. A, Presentation of Wilson Miller of the Supporting Documentation for the Phase II Report Al Reynolds presenting the Attachment A power point presentation, Mr, Reynolds stated that the maps are conceptual and not entitlements" ,"our best guess", IIPage Jeff Perry, addressing transportation supporting documentation, stated that: . A long-range transportation plan is required by state statutes and Collier County, . The transportation plan must be synchronized with land uses. . The planning horizon year used by MPO is 2030, Mise, Carres Dale:~ Ilem#L~ :opies 10. 1611 'A19 . The planning horizon year used in the conceptual transportation plans is 2025, per the RLSA Overlay, . The traffic analysis zones used in Collier County and in the RLSA are interconnected to T AZs in eight neighboring counties . The traffic projections related to land use used in this model and those used by Collier County, Gary Eidson raised the question of other forms of transportation such as rail and transit and how these will be addressed, Tom Jones stated that these are concept plans to begin to show that there can be an infrastructure to accommodate the 45,000 SRA cap proposed by the Committee, Nick Casalanguida stated that the maps are concept maps, and the maps have not been approved by the County and not integrated into the County-wide plan envisioned in proposed Policy 3,7 of the Transportation Element addressed in Section 5 of the Phase 2 Report, He stated that a lot of work was done with ECPO and Wilson Miller, hut that it will take another year to complete the county-wide plan [of which the transportation portion of the RLSA will be incorporated] and that Transportation has not signed off or approved the conceptual plans, Ron Hamel asked Mr. Casalanguida if there is anything the Committee needs to do now, Nick Casalanguida stated that Mr. Jones' statement is not correct as the concept plan has not been shown to be viable for inclusion in the county road network. Transportation is not yet there with a county-wide road network but hopes to be there in about one year per proposed Policy 3,7 of the TranspOltation Element. David Farmer asked what internal u'affic capture rate is being used. Jeff Perry stated that the actual rate depends, in part, as to how close the SRA is to another urban area, He stated that a 25% internal capture rate is a guestimate at build-ont. Mr. Eidson moved and Mr. Thomas seconded to include the entire power point presentation just following the transmittal cover letter and to include some of the closing points within the revised letter. Upon vote, the motion carried unanimously, VI. Old Business A. Continue Review of draft Phase II Report and Five Year Review of the Rural Lands Stewardship Program: Section 3..Supporting Documentation; Section 6"..Appendices With respect to Section 3 [Supporting Documentation] and after Committee discussion, Mr. Thomas moved and David Wolfley seconded, to incorporate the Section 3, as presented to the Committee within the Report provided there is a notation at the bottom of each of the conceptual transportation maps that the maps have not been approved by Collier County and will be finalized as part of the county-wide transportation plan envisioned in the proposed new Policy 3,7 of the Transportation Element, shown as Section 5 of the report, Upon vote, the motion carried unanimously, With respect to Section 6 [Appendices] the Committee was informed by staff that a separate web page [similar to that shown in Attachrnent B] could be developed so that the entire Final Report will be available in one location along with the public meeting dates and agendas related to the EAC, CCPC and BCC during the months of January and March, After discussion, a motion was made by Tom Jones and seconded by Gary Eidson to put the Phase I Report together with Sections 1-5 of the Phase II Report in one book and all of the extended appendices in a second book making a combined 2-volume document of approximately 1,000 pages, Upon vote, the motion was carried unanimously, 2lPage 1611 A 19 VII. New Business A. Discussion of presentation of the Committee's Five Year Review of the Rural Lands Stewardship Program to the Environmental Advisory Council [January 29th, the Planning Commission [January 28th/30th and the Board of County Commissioners on March l6'h/17th, Ron Hamel stated that he would be out of the country for the EAC and CCPC meetings, but would like the Committee to consider the following for a "panel" of the Committee when it meets with the EAC, CCPC and BCC: . Brad Cornell, David Farmer, Tammie Nemecek, Bill McDaniel, and Tom Jones Staff was asked to meet in a public meeting format with the panel prior to the EAC and CCPC meetings to assist in the preparation of a strategy for the Committee's presentation, Staff was also instructed to prepare a brief introduction to the Report as a lead in to the review of the Report by the EAC, CCPC and BCe. Mr. Thomas moved and Gary Eidson seconded to approve the panel and the strategy to prepare for the presentations, Upon vote, the motion carried unarlimously, Cornmittee's Terrn Extension. After discussion of the fact that the Committee's present term ends on April 24, 2009, Mr. Thomas moved and Gary Eidson seconded to recommend to the BCC that the Committee's term be extended one year to April 24,2010. Upon vote, the motion carried unanimously, Gary Eidson continued membership, The Committee was advised that Gary will soon be living outside of Collier County and that the ordinances in place do not address what happens when a member moves outside the county, ML Eidson stated that he would very much like to continue as a member. Mr. Thomas moved and Mr, Jones seconded to recornmend to the BCC that Mr, Eidson be allowed to continue as a Committee member following his move from Collier County. Upon vote, the motion carried unanimously, Special Cycle Amendment Request to the BCe. Mr. Thomas moved and Brad Cornell seconded to authorize the Chairman to sign and distribute the Attachment C letter to the Board of County Commissioners and to County Manager Jim Mudd, Upon vote, the motion carried unanimously, Cover Letter. Mr. Eidson moved and Mr, Farmer seconded to include the last major points in the last two pages of AI Reynolds' power point presentation into the cover letter, even though it may be reduudant and to correct and replace the cover letter for approval of the Chairrnan. Upon vote, the motion carried unanimously, VIII. Public Comrnents. None IX. Next Meeting. The Committee voted to meet on February 19 in CDES Rooms 609/610 to review the EAC and CCPC comments and recommendations and discuss its presentation to the BCC on March 16/17, Mr. Wolfley stated that staff needs to take good notes at the EAC and, particularly at the CCPC meeting, X. Adjournment The meeting was adjourned by acclamation at 11:25 PM, 3!Page 16f1 A 19 Rural Lands Stewardship Area eview Committee " I J ) These minutes approved by the Committee on 3- '3 -t::f:r. amended 4lPage , as presented ~ or as ... cu ~ cu c o .c N :: . a:: ~ 0 C:J: . cu "C C _ CI) cu Q,.c 0: .~ .! .... 0)- C CI) .c CI) _ CU E f! 1;) CI) _CI)O) CI) CI) CU E.c 5 ... - ,.. CI) - 11II:: _U')c .N.c 0)0 - C N ~ o ~ 0 ::0'" '.. ... C) .~ ~ ~ ~~C .!c::;' ... 0 0 ~.~ u O ... ... o CI) <c.c= tn 0) 0 ..Jcu a:: .c CI) Cl)c.c .cCU- I-c.C .- ~ :: Q) o.c 0..1- - ...0 cuU') ~~ C C o .- .~ 0 ... .- o ... :J: ~ U') CI) N (J o CI) N:: - CI) ::;, .c 0 - . .c:E - .- o ::;, .c.c - CI) - CI)- _ CU co .2 -=a; co ... > 0 CI) CI) .. CI) .c CI) . _ .... "'C CI) co ::;, ~"C13 co C C C .- co co CI) -(J CI) N .- .c N Q, I- . 0 - - - .- "C f u <C tn ..J a:: CI) .c I- o E .! Q, CI),co ~ (J tn <c a:: tn CI) ... (J co o o o Il'f ~ <c o - Q, CI) (J C o U o U') o N "C C co U') N o N o 9 1611 CI) Q, co :E CI) .- CI) ~ - co C <C C o +:i co 1:: o Q, CI) C co .: <C tn ..J 0::: o ~ "0 ~ Q) ::I tn_ 8.:; o .~ ... ... Q.tn "0 CO c:: ~ CO ~ - Q) c:: ... Q) CO t:: Q) ::I (J (J ... ::I ~ 0 . ... tn c:: CO ~ 0 0.- ~ E CO ... o ... 0 (J::I- - tn tn CO Q) __ L:: ~ ~E"O -oc:: CO ... CO c::.... CO "0 ur - ... ... .- .., 0 "0';"0 Q) ... .- ... Q) ... (J c:: ... <CQ)8 en tn ... ...JtnQ) O::~J: Q)"01: J:~CO I-(JQ. 161 9 "0 Q) "0 tn c:: c:: Q) tn ... E :;~ EQ)c::1: 8:5 Q) CO Q)0:5c.. "'- co Q)c::J:"O ... 0 (J .- w ._.... :::;;J:o .- co ~ - E... u. E~C:Q) OQ)CO:5 ,.. tn (J - -.... Q)~::IO J:"OOtn -Q)"O- ~..._co ;:.. (J .- 0 oQ),Etn J:_ Q) tnf!<CJ: ~.co::- o=en:5 J: co Q) ._ tn(J...~ . .~ :: ~ E ~ ~~of!c, -tnOtno COQ)qo... ; tn It) ... c.. c::vc.._ - co .. .- J: "0 <C 0 "0 (J Q) en .- ~ ~~...Jo (J (J 0. 0:: .! Q)=o 0 J:o...~~ I- 0. 0. _ .... VI :!: '0 Gl ... (.) 0000 0000 oooq ooOI'-Ln N<ON.... ..- ..- M VI :t::: -c ~ VI Ul 0 == ~CJ) '0 -c:J Gl Q) C ... 0 0 VI (.) Ul III :!: '0'65 '0 Gl Q) ,- Gl .....'-roca.. En:I 0 L. UJ (.) Q)O _ ;:;UJU)1::ca VlCllQ)CllO WIllO:::UJ~ Ul Ul VI ~ ~ ~ u u u <(<(<( LOI'-N I'-M.... MO>M O>MM M ~ *- o ..- ...... Q) Cll L.-c ~2 L. Cll Q) E Q, .- ...... VI Ul Ul Gl :t::: Q) ... -c Ul U Q) Q) n:I L. L. ~OUVl oo<(~ .....:-t=(.) Cl)Cll'Q)<( 'OUlC<( Gl~Q)tt:: n;ulllCl) E <( .2 - :;:;<(..c,J!! VlO::::JO WO)a...~ Ul Ul VI L. Q) Q) Gl... 0 L. L. UUU-C <(<(<(~ 0000 000Q) 0_ I'- I': > LOooMQ) '-N~-c Q) ..c -c :J o u -c C n:I Cll ; C) c: C $~ C 00) 2 0) 0) - L. C 5; 0 '>- E ~ Qj 00::: 'O-g -0) C::J ~ ,!:; ..In:I Ul Gl -c :t::: '0 Q) -c c: Ul ~ -g lij 8..~ =u-c...JO'Q)_ :ll ,!:; C C C) L. Ul n:I......CllQ)c:-c<( lD 0 ...J .- C 0) CcO.:CllO) c: -g ~ 0 n:lE cQ) .8 '-CllOO) C c: " Gl Q,.- ._...J \...I... 0 -c n:lcO<( UlQ) E Q) 0) C n:I._ u ~8"~~~~~ ~ .c "C 0)- "C .- s:::"C 0) 0) Eu E C- o .- (.).c 0) t/) ..."C ... ~ca ~ ~ ... 0) 0)- >cn o 0) <(; cnO) -IC) 0:: s::: 0) ca .c.c - (.) O"C -- t/) ::s 0) 0 C)~ s::: 0) ca 0) .c_ (.)~ "CEiIi mE'! oOEca Q,() o .- ...0)1;) 0..;0) ~ U lIJ L- (]) ~ c. u.l!l 1Il lIJ:.o~ ....(])'C (]) L- Ql c.u.... CIlO(.) ~NQl 'C .... ~1ti.a Uu'3 <.0 (/) ,~ N u tn -<(.... CIl(]).... u.ciij - - -(/)...... 0 C'!uo_ N<((])O ~Q):Q8 .c 1Il _ .- -- ....... (7) "OC::::J1lO a.. .- 0 --o-o'C 1Il c c Ql _CIlllJ- ,_ _ _ C'Cl 'C-o-oE Ql Q) Q) '-- ....-- UCIlCll.f! Ql C C .... .Ql.Ql :::l CIl (/) -Q)Q) '3-0-0 CJ C C '': Q) (]) c. c. <coo .c - ::::J o (/) -0 C CIl .c t:: o C Q) .c - C 1Il -o~~ cu'C CIl CIl Ql .... <(03U n:: c. .... S CIl 0 :t::: "'C 4- "'0 "i: o Q) .... (/) .... 0 Q)UU .... U 0 .... CIl ..- Ql 01ti; o CIl r:: ~ Q) C'Cl ..-....11. -ouo ccIlO cIlOO 1Il 0- ~-gC")_~ 'CCIlN.... Ql -'" ucoJ!! Q) - C'Cl oC.~E .... 0 0._ ... -- 'E '0 CIl.f! o (/) .... (.)~.Q .... u CIl Ql cIl .... .co.g - 0 '- r:: C") l:: C'Cl _ 0 l1...-u 16 1'1' o o 00 0<CiJ!! o ~.- - ..- 'C 00 .. Ql N.!B.... :.oU -.~I:: ~ U .2 c- o f! 1Il9:;::; 0 Ql..-CIl_ - .... 1Il C'Cl CIl 0 E<(Ul~ .- (/) Q) -(/)....0 1Il_Q)0 w(/)....o ;:::~.a~ 'C-O::::J~ QlQ)-.... ........~ " U ... 'C ..., C C Ql r:: 0 cIl_ 0:;::; OJ C'Cl .- cIl C E ms....:.c.. .... E C 1Il OCllQ)W iii~c.rQl-o-o et:Q)Q) 'C>1ti Ql e E .... c..- .~ c. Ul I-<(W CJ "0 a.. 1Il Ql Ql .... .... CJ CJ C'Cl C'Cl 0.... o Ql o 10 1Il ~- ....:c o Ql - .... ,- u E =1lO r:: E o 0 ;~ C'Cl r:: 0 :;:: .- C'Cl ::let: 'C~ ~e cnu 000000 000000 000000 cx:ici"<iolC').,f NN-:tCONO ..-..- 'It - ...... :J o C/l C/l Q) ~ <( C/l 0 CI)~ CO CI) 0.__0 'OC'OC/lO Q)OQ)~C') C/lo.(jjON CO :J :J CO C/l .o-'OOQ) -2cooEl/l ZO:::'O-~:J:!:: Q) OC/l~ _L- -:t~...QI l/lco()C/l_w :!::E!:Q~2C/lU ~ocCi5'Oo~ QI ..= 0 L- Q) '0 QI U... C/l en () ()L- .C 1U ...... L- E ,- '>. C Q) 0 ~ '0 L' 0 L- () ._ CD Q) ........ .- =' ..... ....L..Cro_L..CI) Ill()WL-:J<1>W E<1>>>.9o:S- .- C/l - C/l ,- C III .... L. L.. .... l/lCOCO<1>ClCOO wenwo:::<(a...~ L- ~~ ~ C/l ~~ U'O ~ 'C() CO ...... CO :J'O 1/12 <( ~ C/J > C/J2 ~ .- CIl'O - ~ o() .CIl <( 2(1) Il.CI) C/l ...... '0 <1> L- o CO CO -:t ....... Cl ~ o CO c? CI) Q) '- o CO <( 0::: CI) '- Q) a. C/l :!: '0 Q) '- () o ..- ...... CO C/l <( CI) CI) Cl C C CO E Q) 0::: C/l :!: '0 ~ o N ..- LO <0 o C') C/l C/l l/l C/l l/l ~ ~ e ~ e o 0 U 0 U CO CO III CO III <O..-.......C')O COLOMCOC\l "-<O~N,": NOC\l-:t....... ..-C')'It 'It ~ QI l/l :J QI ... III l/l :!:: ~ e Q) U ~ t; oco 'cf2, CO '- 0 III L- Q) ..- Q) 0....... _ eo.C/l<(CO N .- C/l :!: 0:: '0 -:t E :!: '0 C/J Q) >> :J al ~ ~ m l/l .2 m cJ () ~ .s QI 0 III o:!::(jjt)a... l/lCO"-CQ)IllQ3 EmmQlC/l<(o. u'O'O:!::Q)O::o ~1ll~2al~~~ ....... :;:; ... \\I n:J C C U :!: ._ LO C/JQ)Q)~Q3c:: ~~C/lOCQlCO ~t;~S~&.al QlCOCOOo a. . <( <( :0 :0 ftj a. 20:::0::::J:J(5co Il.CI)CI)C/Ja...~2- l/l QI ... U III o III l/l :g<( QlC/J (5C/J ... _ 0 ~~ oC/J - e QI '- >~ QI QI ~~ QI :J c- ._ U Qj e l/l_ III 0 me ~ e e .- III .!: -I III e E QI QI c.. 0::0 161 t1~' A 19 ::!1 ::!1 ::!1 ::!1 . . 0 . ia 0 '<t CD 0 15 ~ ..; co 0 I- '<t '<t 0 ... ... 0 '/!. - r-- - 0 0 0 0 0 CD '" III '<t CIl 0 0 0 0 0 '<t co ... 0 0 r-- C") 0 co ll'i ~ N N c<i C") ,.: CD '" en '" '<t '<t co ~ ... - - - Ul E CJ) 'C Q) ,5; ~ Q) (/) CIl l'll .c E 0 .... E - c c: OJ: :::J 0 Q. (/) rn .~ 15 ::J 0 Gl Q) 0 Q) 1/1 > u.. c: ::l c: .... '" 0 c Q) "0 () CIl () c lii E ,!!! l'll "" Q. ::2: ..J c: 0 (/) Q) '0 <( <( - a; c 0 rn (/) ia Cl > '" ..J (/) 15 ~ CIl '0 <( c::: '0 C c: '0 :lS c '" (Il - Q) CIl :! -' -' c (/) ::l -' .... iii:: l!! CIl (Il c ,!2 .c c: (/) ia ... <( Q) ~ CIl :c c:: .... 15 :::J (Il Cl 0 ::J () Z (Il 0 (/) a.. 0... I- ::!1 ::!1 ::!1 ::!1 ::!1 ::!1 ::!1 ia 0 0 0 lh . 0 . 0 '<t "': 0 If) C! .... r-- 0 ~ cO ..; co 0 0 I- '<t N '" N 0 ... ... 0 ::!1 . r-- - - III 0 0 0 0 0 CD '" 0 0 0 0 '<t '<t l!! 0 M co 0 0 C") 0 If) ~ N 0 N ..; ll'i CD ll'i en '<t M '<t ~ '" ... .... - r-- r-- ~ l'll E E :::J rn Gl 1/1 ::l "0 C l'll ..J <( rn ..J ~ c::: ~ (/) ::J "0 0 Gl !!!. Q) - c: E .... Jll :5! c Q) CIl () ia E (/) u ~ Q. :a: l!! (/) (/) 0 '0 <( <( 0 ~ c: "0 (/) (/) '0 ia CIl c (/) (/) 'C CIl ... 15 '0 <( l'll Q) 0 c c: '0 () .... (Il "0 Q) ... .c Iii CIl ::J -' -' Gl (/) "" ... ::l :;::: iii:: 1/1 CIl ::J Q) (Il c ,!2 os; .c () ..c: CIl ia - <( :c c:: 'C c: 15 15 CIl CJ) CIl (Il ::J c::: Z <( 0... (Il a.. 0... I- 0 <( +-' C/) <( .....J 0::: <( 0::: C/) 0::: J:: C/) ro +-' () E 0 ro -0 +-' (]) ::::J C (]) - E ro J:: 0 +-' X -0 - ~ ro 0 0 E (]) I.() a.. ~ C'0 ~ 0 0 I.() - (]) (]) T"" 0 > E () (]) 0 ro -0 +-' ::::J a.. E CJ) (]) ro c ..0 ::::J c- C (]) - (]) E a.. "~ CJ) 0 ro (]) CJ) +-' CJ) ..0 (]) C L.. ";:: (]) () a.. L.. .~ ro +-' ::::J 0 0 c- ~ .E (]) I.() L.. -0 '" -0 0 C/) (]) (j) (]) T"" - J:: '" a.. (]) 0 () - 0 -.:::t () ro 0 >. ro CJ) (]) (]) (]) L.. E > () a.. L.. CJ) (]) CJ) () ::::J 0 ro E -0 a.. c (]) +-' (]) 0 0) .x (]) <( a.. I.() ro ro c C/) 0 f'o.. (]) E (]) .....J L.. (]) I.() () J:: 0::: ..0 T"" ro <( I- '+- o en -0 C 0) 0 - - :J CO .0 U .C 0 - en en 0)- -o.om ~ en E >-~o. CO 0...Q E t5 ~ en .- 0) 0) 0.0 en 0) :J -0 co ...... 0 .... ..... - :J cenO::: coo_ ~ .0 U o E CO ..c >- 0. 0) en E N 0) 0 =cO CO .- :Jen-o en :J C -- ~ CO > <( en en CfJ 0) 0. -.J 0) CO 0::: CO :2: 0) >" -..c 0. _ ~ 0) C en u "_ C C ..c ~ 8i~ 0) C -0 C 0) CfJ 0. .co -- - ..c C en 0) -0- .... 0 CO 0. ~-o 0) C - CO CfJ 0) en en u -0 CO .... C 0) :J CO .... 0-<( enCO) 0) 0) C .... 0.._ CO 0-0 .... 0) C :J .... 0) -roCOCfJ Ceno. CO .- 0)0)..c .... .... en COCO-o .... en C CO CO 0) ~ ~ 0) 0) CO 0, U5 ~ ~ '" ""'....... ~ !D .0) :J - -- <.9 ~:J en u ~ CO ._ .... 0) .... CO .... 0) 0<(<( en 0) "C CO > o 0 0:::.0 o E .... >- o en 0) 0) 0)0) CO CO -- - - >> ~ .... COO) ~ C N ~ ~ en >-~ 0) C .0 CO ..c CO~ .... u CO .EO)O - O)-CO N CO -- ..c E en - :J - 0) ~ E .E C :J >< 0) en CO 15 ~ E 0.- 0) '+-o..c OC- 0)02 0)-0 C C 0) CO >. en .... - 0) 0) ~ 5. ..c .- 0) r-~.... >- -0 0) .C a.. :J:5co :2: o '+-0 C <.9 ..c :J '+- encoO-o -00>-02 C +:; .... 0. co~ .~ ~ ~ 0 .0 0) en co ~ Cti-o:J'?;>O) cO)Ec..c 0) .> :J - U~O)O..c enceno~ O);,;:::O)....~ .0 ~ :5 .0) 0) .- en - u ~ocoOoc o ~ CO 0. 0) en 0)-0 0) .c <( ..c 0 c-OCfJ-u o .c CfJ >- ~ _.0.....0 :J CO 0 -0 .C .0 en en 0) en -",,<(>.... cwo:::oO) ~-oCfJ5.C~ .." 0) 0. 0 .... "'" :J '+- .-:J 5.~Oco~-o 0) en 0) >-.- 0) ""cN-Eu en 0 .- CO E 0 o.uen:J .... coen""-ooo. :2: .E 0 :> 0 0 0) 0) 5 -g .?;> 0 en.o- c-.J O)_CO-o:J-o ..coUcoc r-cOcoOco >- ro -.::: Q) > o <( C/) .....J 0::: 'U Q) ..... a. o 'U ro Q) ..c ..... '+- o 0) C "C Q) 'U C Q) .... 'U Q) ~ a. E en ro en <( a. a. ro ro ~~ '+- '0 0) 0 en c .c en o > Q) C ._ Q) .... 0.....u2 :+:J.5Q)ro ro . C 0::: Q) 'U..... '+- C .en .0. ID Q)'U..c..c EQ)en..... E..c'U 0 o.....ro'U u 0 3: C ~'+-Q)ro 0..... en "- C/) en .... Q) Q) ro en u 2croro :t=Q)Q)0. Eu....C/) en<( EQ)O)a5 o..cco. U "en ~ 0 3: en c Q) 0 Q) lIi '> a. C/) ro Q)roo.~ 0:::3::2<( C/)oen- .....J..c'Uro .... .... o:::enro2 Q)U3::J ..c'UQ)u '+-' """-' .- c C/).... " cro_}f<( o CO .ro ~ 'U en c lIi tV' Q) a. Q) ro u.. enro.....Q)Q) roo:::::o......c CO..::: 0.<(..... o "C ro c Q) u en .... ro ~ c o N 'C o I L() N o N Q) ..c en en o a. Q) c o en 3: o ..c en CO a. ro ~ o "C ro c Q) u en +-0 :J o 'U :J ..c o L() o N Q) ..c en en o a. Q) c o ~ o ..c en U a. ro ~ LO N..e ~~ ....."00 00)..... (/) _ en <((/)0) tv' ro ..... u.. U ::l (j)0)- ..... ::l 0..... ro ..... ..... CO).8 0) :5 0) (0)"0 a. - > O~e ..-00. (/) E 0 t5E~ a.oro O)U"O "OUC a.roro ro "0 C ~g~ - :> ro 0.>_ 0) _ ::l uroa. C ..e 0 o - a. ()~"O LO .- C N (/) ro o en (/) N .C 0) 0) ~ E ..eroo I->..e "0 0) ..... 0.0 o (/) 0) ..... > ro 0) ~ 0) "0 .........0 >. LO "0 =N::l .200 _..-~ o (/) 0) C 0) "0 ...::.::: en Cro~ -- ro '- (/) >. > <(50 O:::Ec (j)E~ "Oo~ 0) U >:t="O e (/) ~ a.roo a. ..... ro (/) a. 0) a. (/) en ro t5roc "a. == ro 0) > 0) "0"00"0 a.C'<"- 0) roO)- roE (/) ..0 0) cO)a. 0) ~ ..... E .=~~8 9 o 8>. - - I """ ::l C N.....O >.O)c 0)..0"0 10"02 E g .ro 'x ~ g eO)(/) a. en(/) a.roro roO)"O 0) t; c ..... ro ro ro _ (/) c ro 0) ~ :5 E 0..... 0 ..eo..e (/)N"O (/) - 0) 0) ..- .- en >.0. ~O)B ==-u > ro 0 "0 .E ..e gs cX:t=(/) ro e ~ ::l (/) 0."0- ~ a. 0) .ro > <( 0.- .2 . 0 55 '-(/)0)"0 0) ~ > .- ..e U 0) (/) I-ro"O~ (/)0 o (/)C") 0)<0 ELO o (/) ..e ..... c o 0 s.....:.;::; 0) ro ..0 ::l E a. ::l 0 C a. "0 "0 0) 0) - - (/) (/) ro ro U U 0) 0) ..... ..... .8.8 _(/) 0 ~ll.. c~ ::l o 0) u..e - 0)"0 :5 c - ro LOO NO Or-- N _ c~ O')(/) C Q) '"'0 E Q) C :J -:5 ~ (/) C Q) ~ ~'"'O :O;:coQ) ;>M'"'O C'i 0 ~ C'i~ E EM C o T""" 0 ~'"'O:.,:::; ...... C cu Ocut ..... M 0 Q) 0> a. ..c-.:t~ E <0 cu :J 0 ..... C T""" !:::.. '"'0 C Q) 2 Q) U (/) Q) ..... cu 3: :J U _ 0 Q) Q) (/) .......c- o (/) ...... (/) cu 1? ~ ~ - c..... . ~ cu 0 ~ 0................. LO<(Q)M o C/) ~ <O~ C'i -M c~5~ J'<. A 19 ...... Q) O~ - (/) Q) C <(_0 ~cu:.,:::; C/)'"'Ocu 0- Q)E5. ..cEO (/) 0 a. (/)u'"'O o U C a.cucu <O'"'O(/) T"""-Q) :J (/) 0 E t53:0 .- ~ a. >-...... Q) Q) 0 '"'0>..... a.:":::; Q) CUU..c 2 Q) E _ 0 :J a.uc Q)-o ucuLO c~o 0- UQ)C'i N'"'O 0"- Q) LO(/)- o 0') (/) C'i .c r5 Q) C:' Q) ~ cu ..... I->.E Q) ~ (/) - (/) (/) 0 cu ..... '"'00') Q) Q) (/) 0') o cu Q) a........... o Q) U ..... > cu a.cu..... (/) C Q) .- cu a. - cu -:5 ~ -:5 '3: C (/) :J Q)-o ..... :J UOM cu'"'O'"'O o C o..5cu o ~ _ LO LO cu " -.:t<(C'i C C/) fi3 Q) -' Q) (/) ~ 3: Q)Q)- 0.. ~ Q) Q)_..c ..... ..... >- (/)0::: <(......(/) ~ a. C C/)cuQ) U'"'O '"'0 C cu Q) 0 (/) ....._<( :J.....~ ;Q)C/) U -e Q) .....o~ O')c- <( "- Q) ~(/)- <(<(:.,:::; ~C/)c SC/)~ c{~; ~~; ..... Q) _a...... <( a. U C/)cu'::>. LL C L' (/) ~ cu to< _ (/) w "_ (/) '"'0 3: Q) Q) Q) U - ..... Q) .U cu C a.Q)Q) Q)u~ '"'Ocu- (/) a. Q) CUC/)- Q) C ~ ro Q) ~ _ a. Q) <( 0 0') @) oo - ..... C oo co 0) oo ~ E C C "0 oo C >-- 0) 0 0) - C ~ N CO 0) .C E C E - 0 <( <( 0) 0) I <( --- .0 a..W >- a.. CI) I- 0) L{) I- .....J ~ 0::: u N 0::: 0::: CO oo C - .....J::> o)w 0 .....J t:: CI) - en::> N 0 c"O C >- CO C .- .....J @) 0 a. .0 - CO ~lL. - a. a.......J O~ ..... co ::l "0 co N CI) 0) C 0) U__ ~ - 0 ..... C 0 oo -W CO 0) .- ::l CO I- - - - C en ::l co ::l E- o ..... "0 0- t::LL 0)- N 0 0) 0) 8.. CO ..... - C .C ::l 0:::: C 0) en oo t:: -- E 0 C 0- oo COW 0) I C 0) ~ a.::> .: 0) 0::: oo ::lW W C >- I- o......J I- CO oo CO 0)::llL. 0- 0) C >- a.. oo C en CI) - 0::: . 0 - >- <( COe C C - ::l CO CO - co- O) oo CO C ::l 0) t:: 0 - O:::"OE <( 0 en~"O ::l 0 U 0 I - a. a. L{) "0 CO ..... C .- C oo 0) eo N o ::l 0) - CI) C 0 ::l .....J g E co - -C") N (Q .....J ..... 0 0)0 <(0:::<( lL. I- U ~N <( <( 0 0 0 0 0 0 +-' C Q) E Cl... o Q) > Q) o 0.. l- e::: .....J C Q) () t5 co .... 0.. "E co "'C C co +-' CJ) o "'C Q) .... co Cl... Q) .... 0.. (J) ~ co C <( +-' ~ o I "'C ~ III o (J) (J) >. co C <( I.() N o N >. ..c "'C Q) 3: o o LL o Q) C o N (J) (J) >. CO C <( () i!:: CO .... I- Q) ~ C'" C :::J C CO Q) .... <(- -Q cQ) Q) ...... E ::J Cl....0'> oU:: Q) Q) > Q) Q) (J) 0- - .r:N g~ W_ o co Q) .... <( C co ..c .... :::J Q) Q) co .::t::. o E E Q) "'C (J) C "'C C CO <(>. CJ)+-' .....J C e::: ~ Q)U :0>. (J)..c +-' ~"'C O~ (J) .- N E; ~Q: o 161 t;n A19 - (J) <( CJ) CJ) - (J) - (J) co () Q) .... o LL co C C> 'C o '+- o "'C Q) Cl... Cl... 'C +-' CJ) (J) N ~ C> C :;:. (J) 'x W o - c Q) - o D- Q) c o o C' \:l ::::::: Q) (/) :::> ..9:? ..Q ~ ~ Q) 0 Q) ~ .!:!;, \:l C Ctl E Q) o o "C Ctl C Q) U CI) Q) > Ctl L.. I- Q) \:l "~ I - U "C - (/) o I- o o u.. - ::J o I \:l ::J co Ctl o -- oq:: ...... 0- ~ ...s::: Lb Q) Q) (/) -- \:l Q) 0.. o Q) > Q) o ~ L.. ~ - Q) z o "C Ctl C Q) U CI) L!) N o N Ctl (/) \:l Q) Q) Z - C Q) - o D- Q) c o o " - ::J o I \:l ::J CO o ...... o- s:- ~ ...s::: Lb -- - ..9:? ..Q ~ \:l Q) 0.. o Q) > Q) o ~ L.. ~ - Q) z (/) \:l Q) Q) z L!) N o N -- o 16'I~AI9 -- CO c \:l Q) \:l Q) Q) z Q) L.. Ctl (/) Q) 0) c Ctl ..c U >. c Ctl ~ - Ctl ..c ~ - c (/) Q) Q) E C Q) Ew Q) C Q) 0 0- Ctl (/)1::: "- 0 ~o.. Ctl (/) C C <( ~ (/)1- -- Q) ..c..c 1-- o 16' r ,'- A 19 >- -- C ::J C 0 >- co () -- c a.. >- 0 ::J C "'0 CJ) -- 0 ::J .... "'0 () 0 -- <( a> a> CJ) C/) C "'0 >- :> -- C/) 3: "> ..c ::J .....I 0 0 "'0 3: 0 0::: "'0 .... a> a> I c a.. 0.. z "'0 C co 0 ..c .....I 0 0 ::J -- E "C a> -- co "3: co > c 0 c a> a> -- .... a> 0 CJ) "'0 CJ) '+- U ~ "~ co a> C/) 0> ::J U U C CJ) a> c -- a> a> -- .... co ::J 0::: c 0 0 co ::J LL "'0 I a> 0 a> ::J "'0 a> -- () (9 "'0 co 0> ::J 0 .... I c .... co ~ 0 co .e 0.. t::: 0::: <( .... ~ -- 0 I "'0 C/) ::J U W 0> a> .....I 0 C C ~ 0::: I "'0 0 CJ) "'0 0 a> .....I <( co -- -- >- >- ~ ::J >- co -- -- c co -- a> c c C ::J ::J a> 3: ::J .... -- c 0 0 0 a> 0 ::l () () a.. z () 0 0 0 0 0 0 ~ Q) "> Q) ~.:.: - ~ 'i o::c:c Q)U) .c...J -0:: "'0 Q) r::.c ca_ ~ - ca t/) - Q) ... ,- ~~ A&. c:c"'O U) Q) ...J"'O 0:: r:: ~ ~ 'C.E o 0 "'0 U ca f Q) t/) .c_ - Q) r:: Q) - o~ "'0 E ~ 5 aJ() "'0 ..... c: ctl ctl ~ (]) c: ~ 0 .:!: N :::l 'C U 0 . C .r: OJOl ctl c: c: c: o c: :.::; ctl u a. 2 (]) e-:; a....... (]) ctl e'E :::l (]) o E en a. ~ 0 ~ ~ :::l (]) ...... "'0 ctl >. c:...... ..... .- o c: :::l (]) E g E ctlo:; ctl u 0 ..c(])"O ctl..c :::l (])ctl..c > .!: ...... (]) ctl ctl .- ...... J::en"'O U :::l c: <( en ctl o - ~~ :::l c: .:!: :::l :::l 0 .U U ..... OJ..... ctl .(]) ..... - S8 en..... (]) 0 ,> >. 'E E (]) 0 U c: .!: 0 U ~ E (]) O.r: c:...... 0..... U 0 (])'E - (]) .2 c: OJo .!: a. c: E ctl 0 (]) U E (]) "'O..Cl c: ctl ctl '- > 3= ctl (]) en c: ctl (]) c: "0 ._ '- ctl 1j E ..... (]) a.. ..... en ~ U ctl 00 'Eo .- C") "'0 ~- (])C") u.... ctl 0 a....... (]) en ..c (]) ..... o U ...... ctl "00 (])o 1:)0 (]) - o.N xC) (]) E en 0 "'O~ c: en ctl ctl ..... (]) o ..... ctl<( (]) Ol ..... c: ctl '- _"0 ctl c: ...... (]) .9C/) (]) a. .r: .- .......r: (]) en en"E ctl ctl ~ 3= U (]) c:...... -C/) 161 c: ..... oS en en (]) ..... U ctl .....- :::l 0 0"'0 en U (])= .......Cl ~ 5- :::l (]) ...... ..... ctl .- c: :::l 0- ctl (]) U ..... :;:::i +"'" 'C 0 U c: .... 0 0"0 c:...... o ctl :;:::; .r: ctl...... ..... en o(])...... ...... > c: en ._ (]) ~ 'E E "0 (]) (]) c:UOl ctl .!: ctl c: Ol c: o c: ctl ...... 'r.;; E U :::l ..... 2"'00 e c: c: o.ctlO :2 (]) 2.!:!? ..c ctl :::l ctl > 0- c: 'C U W a. ctl ~'A 19 c: o :;:::; U (]) ...... e a.. ..... (]) .r: ...... c: ctl a.. ctl "0 'C o LL (]) .r: ...... .r: ...... '3= E ctl ..... en g>~ ..... '- 0.1:) <( (]) C/)B ....J 0 a::: en (]) E 5 ctl ..... c: OJ 010 - ..... <(a.. ~ CI) 'S; CI) ~.:..: - ~ 'i 0::<( (1)cn ..c...l -0:: "C CI) C..c ns_ >. - ns t/) _ CI) ~ ,- ~~ o 0 <(Q. cn"C ...I CI) o::-g ~ E 'Q.E o 0 "C (.) ns CI) ~ CI) t/) ..c_ - CI) C CI) o:=: ,- "C E ~ E ns 0 alO ..... Q.) C C co E Q.) .0 CO-o C C co co - I/) I/) :J Q.) I/) t) co 2: C Q.) ..c I/) ~ I/) o .Q.) ..... - 0>= C '(3 o~ :;:::; t) co= :J.o 0..:J o 0.. 0..0)' "Oc"o Q.) .- Q.) _1::-0 I/) 0'- CO 0.. > t) 0.. e Q.) :J 0.. ..... o I/) Q.) '+'- -..... Q.) CO CO 1i5fi~ "oQ.):J 0.....- E ~ g EC.b o Q.) I/) t) ..... CO t)c.l:: <(coC 3 Q.) I/) C ~ C t)..c co- 0'3 o Q.) o t) - CO l.C)0.. ~ I/) - o C - Q.) C 0.. 'C 0 ..8-c o Q.) .e..c 3 3 Q.) C C Q.) > 'C -0 ..l.l:: ..... o ~ Q.) C C o ;;::; CO 1:: o 0.. I/) C CO ..... - <( CJ) -l 0::: 6 3 C CO ..... o 0.. - I/) I/) "0 CO c;;::; CO C Q.) c- Q.) 0 0..0.. o 0> .... C o 't) C :J 0-0 '00 ~ ..... Q.) >- >.0 C Q.) o ..... t) Q.) .....fi .e - C Q.) Q.) > E 0..0 0- Q.) I/) > Q.) Q.) Q.) -0>- t) 0 .- 0.. E E o Q.) C ..... 8.e Q.) I/) Q.) Q.) :!: t) I/) CO o 0.. - 1/).8 .Q.) >- :t= ~ C E :J ._ 1:: x o e 0..0.. o..c o ._ 3 I/) Q.) Q.) C I/) I/) Q.) Q.) - C CO ._ Q.) I/) ..... :J 0.0 -0 Q.) - t) Q.) C C o t) ..... Q.) ..... C Q.) - c;::R Q.) 0 El.O 0.."- o 0 Q.) ,- ~ ~ ~ -o-l.e <(0:::-0 e:::_Q.) (f)19c E.8:J :J Q.) 8 E ..c t) .- - CO x_ CO 0 I/) E ~ I/) CO ;:: Q.) ;+=i ..ccc I/) CO :J .ofiE CO I/) E - I/) ~ Q.) 8 :>. - C :J o o Q.) 0 g>o CO C ..... ..... 0)2 C I/) o m CO I/) Q.) Q.) - 2: CO Q.) -g I/) E1i5 E..c 0- t) C t) CO <(0.. - C CO Q.) c E Q.) 0.. o 0 o..~ Q.) Q.) ..c "0 - Q.) Q.) t) C :J Q.) -0 I/) Q.) CO 0:::.0 19S]Of2 Annual Update and Inventory Report (AUIR) /-&-07 ANNUAL UPDATE & INVENTORY REPORT GJ~Y"'lP~ - web P'e::J-C The Annual Update and Inventory Report on public utilities (AUIR) is an annual process for collecting, organizing, and publishing a summary report illustrating the approved significant County infrastructure c;; f Level of Service Standards (LOSS) for key faCIlities, compnsed of Category A and Category B projects. ThiS."....;>e process is governed by the Florida Growth Management Act of 1985, requiring Collier County to adopt --I-f" levels of service standards (LOSS) for key facilities; (Category "AU) concurrency facilities necessary to /,,~ support future development, and (Category "8") faCIlities not binding on the Bee, however impact fees are I,) collected. I~ JOINT CCPC/PROOUCTIVITY COMMITTEE HEARING: OCTOBER 22, 23 & 24, 2008 COMMUNITY OEVELOPMENT & ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES 2800 N. HORSESHOE ORIVE, CONFERENCE ROOMS 609/610 NAPLES, FL 34104 A.G.ENOA --d~ I :w08 AUIR: (FOUR PART) !'aI:U !'aI:UJ l'ar:Ul! Ei!!:tl\L 8CC HEARING: NOVEM8ER 3 & 4, 2008 80ARO OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS 3RD FLOOR 8CC CHAM8ERS - MAIN COMPLEX 3301 E. TAMIAMI TRAIL NAPLES, FL 34112 AGENDA Previous AUIRs: 2007 AUIR: (FOUR PART) Part I EMUl EaJ11Il Part IV http://www .colliergov .net/lndex.aspx ?page= 158] ] 2/30/2008 16' JtlW: c January 5,2009 The Honorable Tom Henning, Chairman and Members Collier County Board of County Commissioners 3301 East Tamiarni Trail Naples, Florida 34112 Dear Chairman Henning and Commissioners: The Rural Lands Stewardship Area Review Committee gratefully acknowledges the direction received from the Board of County Cornmissioners to transmit our Phase II Report to the Collier County Environmental Advisory Council and the Collier County Planning Commission as part of an expedited review of the Committee's work. Given that the Phase II Report takes the form of specific recommended policy amendments to irnprove the RLSA program, and in keeping with the Board's vote to expedite the review process, the RLSA Committee recomrnends and respectfully requests that the Board of County Commissioners initiate a special cycle for Growth Management Plan RLSA Overlay Amendments to consider the proposed policy amendments contained in the Phase IT Report We appreciate the opportunity to serve the Board of County Commissioners and stand ready to proceed in whatever way you believe best serves the people of Collier County. Very truly yours, Ron Hamel Chairman, Rural Lands Stewardship Review Committee cc: County Manager James V. Mudd ~:::s~. LA 1'1 RECE\VED Hennin~= MAR 05 2009 g~r~~ ~ ~- , Coml1'l,SSIOners "o~UTES OF THE MEETING OF THE COLLIER COUNTY RURAL LANDS STEWARDSHIP AREA REVJEW COMMITTEE j LET IT BE REMEMBERED, that the Collier County Rural Lands Stewardship Area Review Committee in and for the County of Collier, having conducted Business herein, met on January 16, 2009 at 9:00 A.M. in SPECIAL SESSION at the Community Development and Environmental Services Building, 2800 North Horseshoe Drive, Room 610, Naples, Florida,34104, with the following members present: Brad Cornell David Farmer Tom Jones Bill McDaniel ALSO PRESENT: CDES staff members Thomas Greenwood and Mike DeRuntz of the Comprehensive Planning Department Others present were Anita Jenkins and George Varnadoe, I, Call Meeting to Order The meeting was called to order at 9:05 II. Roll Call Roll call was taken, and a quorum of the entire Conmlittee was not present, but a quorum of the Conmlittee presentation panel, as established by the Conmlittee on January 6, was present It was pointed out that no official Conmlittee business will occur nor will recommendations will be made to the BCC and that the reason for the meeting was to have the presentation panel of the Committee [Bill McDaniel, Brad Cornell, Tammie Nemecek, Tom Jones, and David Farmer] discuss and strategize a presentation to the CCPC, EAC, and the CCPC on the RLS Program Five Year Review Report , III. Approval of Agenda, The Agenda was approved by acclamation, IV. Approval of Minutes. The nlinutes of the January 6 meeting will be presented for action during the February 19, 2009 regular meeting, V. Presentations none VI. Old Business none VII, New Business A. Discussion of presentation of the Committee's Five-Year Review of the Rural Lands Stewardship Program to the Environmental Advisorv Council fJanuarv 29th! February 5th, the Planning Commission [January 28th/30th and the Board of County Commissioners on March 16th/17th. Following review of a draft power point presentation prepared by Tom Greenwood and a draft power point presented by Tom Jones, and a detailed "weigh in" on each slide, the following was agreed to: . A revised power point presentation would be emailed to the Conmlittee on or about Tuesday, January 20m; . McDaniel, Nemecek and Farmer would be the presenters and Jones and Cornell would field most ofthe questions; . The next meeting was set for Friday, January 23 at II am in Room ,IQQ2 e6r~ CDES building, Mbv Cc Date: Date:_ item #: Item!e';~ -pies to 16 I IF" A 1 q VIII. Pnblic Comments. None IX. Next Meeting. The presentation panel agreed to meet on Friday, January 23 in CDES Roorn 607 to review the revised presentation to the EAC, CCPC, and BCe. X. Adjournment The meeting was adjourned by acclamation at !0:30AM, These minutes approved by the Committee on arnended eview Committee , as presented ~ or as 2 p"-r.EIVED t.,;..,,\ 1 2009 "c",)v;l;JJ')/UI.ESoGf THE MEETING OF THE COLLIER COUNTY RURAL LANDS STEWARDSHIP AREA REVIEW COMMITTEE Flal~ Ha\~ ~. Henmng Coyle ~ coletta - -r~ ./ - - LET IT BE REMEMBERED, that the Collier County Rural Lands Stewardship Area Review Committee in and for the County of Collier, having conducted Business herein, met on January 23, 2009 at 11 :00 A.M. in SPECIAL SESSION at the Community Development and Environmental Services Building, 2800 North Horseshoe Drive, Room 607, Naples, Florida, 34104, with the following members present: Brad Cornell David Farmer Tom Jones Bill McDaniel Gary Eidson Ron Hamel Neno Spagna ALSO PRESENT: CDES staff members Thomas Greenwood and Mike DeRuntz of the Comprehensive Planning Department. Others present were Anita Jenkins, George Varnadoe, as Marisa Polgar of the Conservancy of SW Florida, I. Call Meeting to Order The meeting was called to order at 11:05 II. Roll Call Roll call was taken and a quorum of both the entire Committee was not present as well as of the Committee presentation panel, as established by the Committee on January 6, It was pointed out that no official Committee business will occur nor will recommendations will be made to the BCC and that the reason for the meeting was to have the presentation panel of the Committee [Bill McDaniel, Brad Cornell, Tammie Nemecek, Tom Jones, and David Farmer] discuss and strategize a presentation to the CCPC, EAC, and the CCPC on the RLS Program Five Year Review Report, III. Approval of Agenda. The Agenda was approved by acclamation, IV. Approval of Minutes. The minutes of the January 6 meeting will be presented for action during the February 19, 2009 regular meeting, V. Presentations none VI. Old Business none VII. New Business A. Discussion of presentation of the Committee's Five-Year Review of the Rural Lands Stewardship Program to the Environmental Advisorv Council [Januarv 29th! Februarv 5th. the Planning Commission [January 28th/30th and the Board of County Commissioners on March I 6th/I 7th, Following review of a draft power point presentation eontairling some 100 slides, the following was agreed to: . The first 35 of the slides, which summarize the Committee membership, powers and dnties of the Committee, public participation, RLSA history, pre-RLSA, the Goal of the RLSA Overlay, Phase I Report overview, and Phase II Report recommendations and conclusions would be presented; MISC. Corres: Date: !tem#'. to 1611 A 19 . The approxirnate 65 balance of the slides, which address the May I, 2008 list of questions received on that date from the Planning Commission would be reordered by Policy and made available as needed, but not handed out. Meeting Rooms 609/610 will be set up so that all the CCPC/EAC rnembers will sit in front on one side of the room and the RLSA Review Committee mernbers would either sit on the other side with panel members sitting with their backs to the audience during the presentation of the Report. VIII. Public Comments. None IX. Next Meeting. The presentation panel agreed to meet at 8:00am on January 28th in CDES Roorn 609/610 for any last minutes preparations for the 8:30am presentation to the CCPC. X. Adjournment The meeting was adjourned by acclamation at 12:30PM, These minutes approved by the Committee amended 'ew Committee , as presented x - or as 2 16 fll A 1-9 v/ MINUTES OF THE MEETING OF THE COLLIER COUNTY RURAL LANDS STEWARDSHIP AREA REVIEW COMMITTEE LET IT BE REMEMBERED, that the Collier County Rural Lands Stewardship Area Review Committee in and for the County of Collier, having conducted Business herein, met on March 3, 2009 at 9:00 A.M. in REGULAR SESSION at the Community Development and Environmental Services Building, 2800 North Horseshoe Drive, Rooms 609/610, Naples, Florida, 34104, with the following members present: CHAIRMAN, Ron Hamel VICE CHAIRMAN: Neno Spagna Bill McDaniel Brad Cornell Gary Eidson Fiala David Farmer Halas Tom Jones Henning Tammie Nemecek Coyle \/"" Coletta ~ ALSO PRESENT: CDES staff mernbers Thomas Greenwood and Leslie Persia of the ~enslve Planning Department and Steven Williams of the Assistant County Attorney's Office, Approximately 20 members of the public were also in attendance, Rt:Ct:iV cu MAR I 7 ''''''C " Wo;:) " unty '-::'ommissic'ner:-c I. Call Meeting to Order The meeting was called to order at 9:03AM by Chairman Ron Hamel. II, Roll Call Roll call was taken, and a quorum was established as 8 of II rnembers were present [Jim Howard, Fred Thomas, and David Wolfley were excused due to conflicting meetings], III. Approval of Agenda Bill McDaniel moved and David Farmer seconded to approve the agenda as distributed, Upon vote, the motion carried unanirnously, IV. Approval of Minutes of the January 6, 16, and 23, 2009, meetings David Farmer moved to approve the Minutes of these three meetings as distributed and Tom Jones seconded the motion, Upon vote the motion carried unanimously. V. Presentations none VI. Old Business A. Review the Collier County Planning Commission and Environmental Advisory Council comments, issues, concerns, and recommendations provided during public meetings held in January/February and discussion of Committee presentation to the Board of County Commissioners on April 21/22, 2009 [previously March 16/17]. The following attachments are a part of these minutes: · Attachment A. March 2, 2009 memo to Tom Committee member Gary Eidson; Greenwood Mj;!g-rfro1.LsA Review Date: IIPage :tem#' ',f"'-S :( . _.~--_.~-~.~-----~-.. ,-,~~.__..~~.,._..._..._,.,~><.."."_._~,,,- 1611 A 19 · Attachment B. Received from George Varnadoe at the end of the March 3 meeting for further discussion at the March 12 meeting.. ..,possible language to replace the Committee-recommended language contained in the last two sentences of Policy 3, I I, paragraph 2, · Attachment C. Consent item for the March 5, 2009 Planning Commission meeting which is the CCPC comments with respect to Section 2 of the Phase 2 Report of the Five Year Review of the RLS Program, Ron Hamel thanked the members who participated in the separate CCPC and EAC review public meetings held on January 28, 29 and 30, and February 5, 20, 26, and 27, Final action of the EAC is anticipated on March 4 and by the CCPC on March 5 as a consent item. Ron Hamel asked those members participating of their general impressions of the reviews by the CCPC and EAC to which the general comments were as follows: · Long but a learning experience for all who participated · Everyone had an opportunity to share their thoughts and the meetings were very transparent . A number of new ideas surfaced · The review was more like a GMP amendment rather than the review of the report · Need to examine the other ideas brought up at the meetings · Opposed to capping credits rather than SRA acres Gary Eidson briefly reviewed Attachment A which he authored, The Committee thanked him for his time and efforts with Attachment A and that the subject matter within Attachment A will be covered as the Comrnittee finishes its review of the CCPC comments and recommendations. Chris Straton thanked the Committee for offering the public all of the many opportunities for comment and stated that she felt the Committee's efforts were outstanding in this area, Tom Jones recommended that the Committee review and take action on the Collier County Planning Commission document labeled as "Consent" [Attachment C] prepared by the Planning Commission and scheduled for approval by the Planning Commission during its regular March 5 meeting. Staff Note: For the sake of brevity, these minutes include only final actions taken. A recording of the entire meeting is available upon request. Policy 1.6.1. Mr. Jones moved and Bill McDaniel seconded, to accept the additional language proposed by the Planning Commission located at the end of Policy 1,6, I as shown in red in Attachment C. Upon vote, the motioned carried, 8-0. Policy 1.7. Tom Jones Gary moved and Gary Eidson seconded to accept the CCPC recommendation provided the following words be inserted directly following "the Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission": "and one of the following: " 2lPage . ..- ,._.._-._,._.___..__.._<___~_, ..._....._. e" ".._~~_________....~.,~." 1611r! A19 Policy 2.2. David Farmer moved and Gary Eidson seconded to not accept the Planning Commission recommendation, but to add following each "ACSC" the following words, "as established by F.S. 380.055 as of March 3, 2009", Upon vote, the motion carried, 8-0. Policy 2.3. Tom Jones moved and Bill McDaniel seconded to accept the Planning Commission recommendation to keep Policy 2.3, but to change "will" to "may" in the first sentence and delete the last sentence. Upon vote, the motion carried, 8-0. Policy 2.4. Tom Jones moved and Bill McDaniel seconded to accept the Planning Commission recommendation to keep Policy 2,4 with its current language, Upon vote, the motion carried, 8-0, Note: Policy nwnbering for the remaining two policies in the Group 2 policies will be renumbered to their current numbering. Policy 3.11. Regarding Policv 3.1 L paragraph 2, the general consensus of the Committee was that the last two sentences of the recommended language in the Committee Report be rewritten with George Varnadoe providing the following draft language for consideration at the next Committee meeting on March 12: Should a property owner in a federally approved corridor designate the required property for such corridor, 2 Stewardship Credits shall be assigned for each acre of land so dedicated. Issuance of the 8 restoration implementation credits may be phased to coincide with a phased implementation process in accordance with the federal permit. The procedures shall be set forth in the LDC, The Committee tabled action on the above language as it was distributed near the end of the March 3 meeting and had not been vetted, Brad Cornell moved and Bill McDaniel seconded to accept the additional CCPC proposed words, "and in no case shall greater than 10 credits be awarded per acre" to paragraph 3 of Policy 3,11, Upon vote, the motion carried, 8-0, Policy 3.13. Tom Jones moved and Brad Cornell seconded to accept the CCPC proposed language change in the second to last sentence of this policy, Upon vote, the motion carried, 8-0, Policy 3.15. Gary Eidson moved and Tom Jones seconded to accept the CCPC proposal for this proposed new policy, but with the following wording: "Within one year of the effective date of this Policy LDC regulations shall be implemented for outdoor lighting to protect the nighttime environment, conserve energy, and enhance safety and security," Upon vote, the motion carried, 8-0, Policy 4.2. Gary Eidson moved and Tom Jones seconded to not accept the CCPC recommendation and to keep the Committee recommended language, Upon vote, the motion carried, 8-0, 3lPage 16 f 11 A 1 9 Policy 4.5. Tom Jones moved and Tammie Nemecek seconded to accept the CCPC recommendations regarding this policy, Upon vote, the motion carried, 8-0, Policy 4.6. Bill McDaniel moved and Brad Cornell seconded to accept the CCPC recommendations regarding this policy, Upon vote, the motion carried, 8-0, Policy 4.7.1 Bill McDaniel moved and Tammie Nemecek seconded to accept the CCPC recommendations regarding this policy. Upon vote, the motion carried, 8-0. Policy 4.7.2. Bill McDaniel moved and Brad Cornell seconded to accept the CCPC recommendations regarding this policy, Upon vote, the motion carried, 8-0. Policy 4.7.3. Brad Cornell moved and David Farmer seconded to accept the CCPC recommendations regarding this policy. Upon vote, the motion carried, 8-0, George Varnadoe, at the request of the Committee, presented the preliminary language [Attachment BI provided for discussion purposes during the March 12 Committee meeting as possible replacement language for the last two sentences of paragraph 2 of Policy 3.11. VII. New Business none VIII. Public Comrnents. none IX, Next Meeting. The Committee voted to postpone its presentation to the BCC until April 21 with a carryover date of the morning of April 22 so that it may have time to review all of the CCPC and EAC comments which are not expected to be finalized until after March 5th, The Committee voted to meet on March 12 in CDES Rooms 609/610 [with a carryover date of March 26th] to continue its review of the EAC and CCPC comments and recommendations and discuss its presentation to the BCC on April 21/22, X, Adjournment The meeting was adjourned by acclamation at 12: 15 P,M, Rural LJJUls--St~wardsilip Area Review Committee .~. \ I , # Ron H eI, Chairman Committee on ;3/r~/tJ9 I , as presented KaT as These nlinutes approved by the amended 4lPage To: Tom Greenwood From: Gary Eidson Subject: RLSA Changes I am concerned that the decision by the CCPC to cap credits will reduce incentive to preserve ag land, reduce protection of the Panther, which provides umbrella protection for other wildlife and supporting habitat, and may give added leverage to large land owners that would limit the ability of smaller landowners to utilize the program, Because of these concerns I would appreciate you forwarding my comments for discussion at tomorrow's meeting, Why did the committee cap the land? There was a desire by the committee to; 1.) "Contain" growth in order to prevent sprawl. 2,) Establish predictability for planning purposes, 3,) Create more value for the credits by restricting the available land, Why did the committee expand the number of credits? Expanding credits provides the ability to put additional emphasis on; 1.) Long term preservation of ag land, a DCA suggestion and perceived deficiency in the first program by the DCA, 2.) Added Panther preservation, which is an umbrella protection of other species and habitat, 3,) Providing smaller landowners greater incentive to put their lands into preservation thereby limiting the continuation of 1 per 5 acre, sprawl inducing, baseline plans available, The CCPC has posed the following justifications for capping credits, as I understand it; 1.) Property owners who establish SSA credits may be unable to use them if there are too many credits available, 2,) The credit cap can be changed later if it does not work, 3,) That the committee will be able to finagle the recommended credit changes, 4.) If there are a limited number of credits then there might be a greater chance less land would be developed, There are some points that I think the CCPC has overlooked, 1.) This is a voluntary program, Discouraging people from participating could put the county back in the GMP/LDC negation, free- for-all that has dominated land use policy in this county for a long time, 2,) Property can be converted from ag to 5 acre ranchettes and the expansion of the Golden Gate syndrome, 3.) Baseline GMP/LDC regs encourage sprawl and do not address the best interest of future land development in the eastern Collier region, 4,) The committee plan as presented, even with the majority of the CCPC suggestions (excluding the incentive cap proviso), uses incentives to address both the ag and environmental issues by "directing" development and creating value for preservation. 5,) The plan creates more incentive for the 20% of the landowners that have smaller parcels but who are vital to filling in habitat links, 6.) This single action is a major change that could have serious negative impact, ._...._----~----'-_.__.._-_.._,.~~._.._-"'---_._~...~-_.,'- 16fl A 19 These are support items that would bring clarity to the discussions; L) A list of possible repercussions if this program starts to unwind, (See attached A) 2,) A map showing the land that owners have indicated they want to keep in ag status, given the use of incentives as suggested, (Perhaps an overlay of the alternative use of the land would bring the picture into focus). 3,) A map showing the land owners have indicated would become protected, given the use of the incentives as suggested, (These maps, clearly delineated, would show what could be lost if the program is mishandled), 4,) A list of alternative uses for credits beyond the trading between land owners, i.e. what happens if there are more credits than land available, could other entities turn credits into dollars. (See Attached B) The Conservancy has introduced new material to the CCPC and EAC after the RLSA made its report, L) The presentations on the pathways have dominated the meetings, 2.) The RLSA committee had not received the information presented, 3,) The pathways proposed still require the voluntary release of property rights if the pathways are to be successful In summary, it would appear that there is a lingering confusion over the difference between land caps and credit caps. By addressing the issues presented I believe it will become more clear that the committee efforts toward increasing credits and restricting land availability were judicious, creative and appropriate, With committee approval I would then like these points presented to the BCC in March, Sincerely yours, Gary Eidson Member RLSA Review Committee March 2, 2009 1611 Addendum A - Eidson Memorandum Possible repercussions if the Committee Plan with is not adopted; L) The program would continue as is...Status Quo, a, Less emphasis on Ag preservation b. Less emphasis on Panther pathways c. More potential for ag land to be converted to development d, Smaller land owners may see the program as to complicated e, 2,) Diminished use of program if Credit Caps imposed a, Land owners may see more value in alternative uses of land b, c. 3,) Lost window of opportunity a, The slow market gives people time to take a long view b, The suggestions offered can have time to be tested c. Pathways are available now that might not be in the future d, A 19 Addendum B - Eidson Memorandum 1611 A 19 Alternative methods of using credits, other than trading with other land owners in RLSA, might include having credits; 1.) Purchased by county to preserve land, 2,) Purchased thru a philanthropic effort to preserve land, 3,) Purchased by environmental groups could purchase rights, 4.) 5,) 6,) 16 1"1 ~..." 19 ,,~ Should a property owner in a federally approved corridor designate the required property for such corridor, 2 Stewardship Credits shall be assigned for each acre of land so dedicated. Issuance of the 8 restoration implementation credits may be phased to coincide with a phased implementation process in accordance with the federal permit. The procedures shall be set forth in the LDC. 16't~, A19 and enhance~ economic prosperity and diversification, Collier County hereby establishes the Rural Lands Stewardship Area Overlay (Overlay). The Overlay was created through a collaborative community.::based planning process involving county residents, area property owners, and representatives of community and governmental organizations under the direction of a citizen oversight committee. Policy 1.2 The Overlay protects natural resources and retains viable agriculture by promoting compact rural mixed.use development as an alternative to low-density single use development, and provides a system of compensation to private property owners for the eliminati(?!l of certain land uses in order to protect natural resources and viable agriculture in exchange fOrlransferable credits that can be used to entitle such compact development. The strategies)~'#~ll:,are based in part on the pnnclpJes of Florida's Rural Lands Stewardship Act, Chapter 16~.3177~~,1) F.S. The Overlay includes innovative and incentive based tools, techniques and~~rategies that ~~ not dependent on a regulatory approach, but will complement existlllg local, reg'jd~l, state arfd!fc:,deral regulatory programs. ,I:. . I,', " .I,::i: 'Ii"'!!!::,:",. "'11 Policy 1.3 , I "'L "',:I,!i"I!:.I: 'i:,:' ','J ".: This Overlay to the Future Land Use Map i'~."~"i~licted. on th~::~l~wardship Overlay Map (overl.ay Map) and applies ta rural designated lands,,~ated wi~~jn the Iti'Q!Jjlokalee Area Study boundary of the ~ollier ~aunty Ru~al. and ~gricuItural"~~a r,\,e~sme~t referred to in the State .of Flonda AdmInistration Commlsslan Flllal qf~~[Na>~g"'99-002. Jr~e RLSA generally mcludes rural lands in northeast Collier Caunty ~jhg 'north and ~~tofqq,d~n Gate Estates, narth of the Flarida Panther Natianal Wildlife Refug.~'and Bigiq~p,ress:~,~nal Preserve, south of the Lee County Line, and south and west,~f thei1~$;~'C()\~1iW Lln~, and includes a total of approximately 195,846 acres, of which ap'~,imatety'fs2,334 ,.fes is privately owned. The Overlay Map is an adopted overlay ta the FutureUf1nd Use Map (li~t1JM). '1:1 '. ii"1.1 Policy 1.4 Y Iii;;'" Ij, ' I::,:. "41'11!':.!',;, Except as pra~j~~d in ~~pup 5 palici~I" there shall be na change ta the underlying density and intensity 9fi.#iermitt~. us~ii,q~ land Within the RLSA, as set forth in the Baseline Standards, as defined ~I'lpohcy 1.5.i-unlJs~j a,?d until a property owner elects to utilize the provisions .of the Steward~~ip Credit System. Wis the intent of the Overlay that a property owner will be compens~~i' ~ for the volUntary stewardship and pratection of important agricultural and natural f~~,~~es. 'S()~pensatioJ) to the property owner shall occur thraugh one of the followmg i !jil~e'~h~nisms:'ibr~.t~OQ.~ transfer of Stewardship Credits, acquisitian of canservation easements, acquisition Qfle~~ t~an fee interest in the land, or through other acquisition ofland .or interest III land throug~,~, willing seller program. " '!ii: !i "'V",' :","j:::IJ pori~i~j~(~ecommended amendment) As referred to in these Overlay policies, Baseline Standards are the permitted uses, density, intensity and ather land development regulations assigned to land in the RLSA by the GMP Growth Manalfement Plan (GMP), Collier County Land Development Regulatians and Collier County Zoning Regulatians in effect priar to the adaption of Interim Amendments and Interim Development Provisions referenced in Final Order AC-99-002. The Baseline Standards will remain in effect for all land not subject to the transfer or receipt .of Stewardship Credits, except as provided for in Group 5 Policies. Na part of the Stewardship Credit System shall be imposed upon a property owner without that 6WfleFS owner's consent. 2lPage 16' I Policy 1.6 (recommended amendment) Stewardship Credits (Credits) are created from any lands within the RLSA that are to be kept in permanent agriculture, open space or conservation uses. These lands will he identified as Stewardship Sending Areas or SSAs. All privately owned lands within the RLSA are a candidate for designation as a SSA. Land becomes designated as a SSA upon petition by the property owner seeking such designation and the adoption of a resolution by the Collier County Board of County Commissioners (BCe), which acknowledges the property owner's request for such designation and assigns Stewardship Credits or other compensation to the owner for such designation. Collier County will update the Overlay Map to delineate the boundaries of each approved SSA. Designation as an SSA shall be administrative and shall not require an~1Ilendment to the Growth Management Plan, but shall be retroactively incorporated into the adoPted Overlay Map dUrIng the EAR based amendment process when it periodically occurs. ~ i~tlewardship SendinQ: Area Credit Agreement shall be developed that identifies those allowabJe residW)tial densities and other land uses which remain. Once land is designated as a SSA a~d Credits oAJ!rer compensation is granted to the owner, no increase III density or additional uS~Sl'~nspecifiedi~J,he Stewardship Sendinl! Area Credit Agreement shall be allowed on such propertY::~~;less~:SA. is tenninated as Dfovided elsf;where herein. .1-;: hi li:1 Policv 1.6.1 (recommended new policy) Notwithstandin an rovision herein to th " Area ("SSA"). the Stewardshi Easement Period" and shall be deemed a Condo extended for on~ additional ear at e; rior to the ex irati on of the initi Easement related to maintainin obli ations of the owner of at an time durin the Co Stewardshin Easement s all etual and non-r H I. initia~if roval of a Stewardshi Sendin for ai'term of five ears "Conditional t. The Conditional Period ma be 'avidin written notice to the Coun s and restrictions oftbe Stewardshi o j conditions includin all mana ement full force throul!hout the Conditional Period. If Ie followin events occur then. the Conditional e a' t Stewardshi Easement which shall be final. ce WI' 1 the tenns set forth therein: "1;, "I '1.'!~'!~liibi!!':P':1 Steward Its m the S ,)J"have been assilIDed to entitle an aooroved Stewardshio Recei~dl.!: 'Are\\',~, RA', ,and the SRA has receivoo all necessa final and non~a ealable deveJqomen1 ord, e '. or other discretion a rovals necessa to commence constQlction. includi!. subdivision lat and site develo ment Ian a roval but not buildim! ermr If Stewardsh' "Credits from the SSA have been assi ed to more than one SRA then the ei t ", 'II neces ovemmental final and non-a ealable develo ment orders enmts or other disc:r 'i ovals necessar to commence construction of anv SRA shall automatilJilly cause thtlConditional Stewardshin Easement to become a Pennanent Stewardshin Easement' i The oWQr.;- of the SSA lands has sold or transferred any StewardshiD Credits to another person or ~qinl! a Stewardshio Credit Trust as describoo in Policy 1.20. the c1osinl! has occurred. 1&1t1!tf1~'oVv1ler has received the consideration due from such sale or transfer. but not exoresslv excludinl!: ~. I. , I, (a) a sale or transfer of the Stewardshio Credits ancillary to the sale or transfer of the underlvinl! fee title to the land or (b) instances where a landowner establishes an SSA for a soecific SM. whether the SRA is owned or develooed bv a seoarate or related entity and the Stewardshin Credits are transferred as reauired bv the Growth Manal1'ement Plan or Land Develooment Code for SRA apDfoval: or 3lPage A 19 3. The owner of the SSA lands has nxeived in exchamre for the creation of the Stewardshin Easement AlITeement other comoensation from local. state. federal or orivate revenues (collectively. the "Events"). The LDC shall soecifv how. assumim! a Notice of Termination (as hereafter described) has not been recorded. the Conditional Stewardshio Easement shall automatically convert to a Pennanent Stewardshio Easement UDon the earliest to occur of (a) any of the fore!!:oilll:! Events durin!!: the Conditional Period or (b) 180 days after the last day of the Conditional Period. as and to the extent extended hereunder. In the event that none of the forel?oinl2: events has occurred durin!! the Conditional Period then the owner of the SSA lands may within 180 days after the last day of the Conditional Period terminate the Conditional Stewardshi Easem recordin a Notice of Termination. In addition if a challen e and/or a ea.1 of a evelo ment order ermit or other discretion a roval is filed the own of the av elect to extend the Conditional Period until the challen!!e or anneal is finally r . hal en e or a ea.1 is not resolval such that the construction ma commence ace l~ to the owner of the SSA lands the owner of the SSA lands ma within f the fimi'!~sDosition of the challenl!e or a eal record a Notice of Tenninati ordin 0 . such Notice of Termination the Stewardshi Easement A ee ent d tewardshi Sendin Area Credit Al!reement shall ex ire and tenninat t te ated b the 5SA shall cease to exist the ri hts and obli ations S' I rth in t wardshiasement shall no Ion er consti~te an encumbran~e on the Dr an~e. ,~,. Memorandum shal~ be revised accordml!:lv. The owner of the SSA Ian _ rea CODY ~tlce of TennmatlOn to the County. In the event that the Stewards a rovals but none of the fo . Notice of Tennination credits from the 5SA u'H another s urce and such S Notice of Tenn' ofTennination. II e been used to obtain one or more SRA ID durin the Conditional Period then the . nation of an SRAs that have been assi ned o\'mer! obtained sufficient Stewardshi Credits from ave been a lied to the SRA In the event that a J\ the owner of the SRA lands shall 'oin in the Notice In the ik restr" 'ons andd" tiar,," ssociated with the SSA shall be null and void and the land shall revdt i to it" underJ~l! zdftinl? classification free and clear of anv encumbrance from the Cond' i mal Stewar' Easement and SSA Credit A reement. If r uested b the owner of the '., t '" Collier and the other l2rantees under the Stewardshin Easement Al!feement shall roV" release and tennination of easement and credit a eements for recordin in the ublic ree within 15 da s of r uest from the owner of the SSA lands. Collier CountY shall uriCtfe the overlay man to reflect the termination of any SSA or SRA. 'i:cT~is ,D~licv_~hall be imolemented in the LDC .within 12 months after adootion hereof. j'Uif:!'" For SSA's aooroved cricr to this Policv 1.6.1 beina adooted but have not chanaed. ownershio in whole or Dart since the creation of the SSA and have not transferred sold or utilized credits aenerated from the SSA the orooertv owner may withdraw the SSA desianation orovided an aoolication for such withdrawal is imolemented within 6 months of the adootion of this Policv 1.6.1. 4lPage 16 III 'A 19 [ formatted: Indent: Left: 0.5", First line: 0" l 1611 ' Policy 1.7 (recommended amendment) The range of Stewardship Credit Values is hereby established using the specific methodology set forth on the Stewardship Credit Worksheet (Worksheet), incorporated_herein as Attachment A. This methodology and related procedures for SSA designation will also be adopted as part of the Stewardship Overlay District in the Collier County Land Development Code (LDe). Such procedures shall include but ft6 not be limited to the following: (1 )~IJ' Credit transfers shall be recorded with the Coilier County Clerk of Courts; (~) a covenant o~ PCffl,etual r.estrictive easement shall also be recorded for each SSA, shall run with the land @Jld shall be III favor of Collier County and ',he Florida Fish and Wildlife conserva~ commi';:!R~' Dc~.FtmcR' af EfI,ireflfFlental-pr:teet;"6ft, DCfJart:fteflt-,ef /:~~:~~~~e ~~d '~l:IFf1er S \i~_~!,. SelJth Fleriaa ')later HaRagemcnt DistFiet, or a fes8gmzeli state. iae laful. tf'list;'it!D:~Qaltment 6fEnvi~onmental Protection 0 artment of A 'culture and Consumer . out1\. orida Water Mana ernent District or, a recoenized st~te~ide ~and trust- app (3 ",(' -lilS~lnl :~, Stewardship Sendiug Area CredIt Agreement will Identify the sJif~jfic landlclWfnagement tlleasures that will be undertaken and the party responsible for su~~jrleasures'i I ""i: A 19 Formatted: Font: (Default) limes New Roman, Not Strikethrougn Policy 1.8 , The natural resource value of 1 Imt4in tl1bill}LSA is }F1*a'sured by the Stewardship Natural Resource Index (Index) set forti the'\Vorkshedt:"T~~,rndex established the relative natural resource value by objectively I ~.i'i:~ilIa'~ftferefj~:leb~racteristics of land and assigning an index factor based on each,:ltpara 4!ll"'Lhe T of these SIX factors is the index value for the land. Both the characteristlc~~ised and t,he t,act91 assigned thereto were established after review and analysis of detad, ed", ""nfo, ',m, a_~~ abo~l'.~,rrl~.ttral resource attributes of land Within the RLSA so that developmC~~'.d'lli"',Q, be~aL ,cteal aWay from important natural resources. The SIX characteristics meas ,:,,,ja~~"1Stt.(,' ip Overlay Designation, Sending Area Proximity, Listed Species Hai~~Wr!~?iil,s/ ~!:e Water;' storation Potential, and Land Use/Land Cover. PolicylJ:', - IJ; ; .,;", "'j A Natural Resource lri4~x MAp Series (Index Map Series) indicates the Natural Resource S,t~~~rdshl" Index valu~'ilfor all land within the RLSA. Credits from any lands designated as ,~:SS~i'wwtlJ ~i;~a~,ed ~H?~ the Natural Resource Index values in effect at the time of designation. 1- Any change in: thc:.-<Dhatacteristics of land due to alteration of the land prior to the establishment of a SSA tb~~ either increases or decreases any Index Factor will result in an adjustment of the l;fact"Of value",~'!,:,nd a correspondlOg adjustment in the credit value. The Index and the Index Map '::~~es are a~Pted as a part of the RLSA Overlay. p~I\~ljj\i In SSAs, the greater the number of uses eliminated from the property, and the higher the natural resource value of the land, the higher the priority for protection, the greater the level of Credits that are generated from such lands, and therefore the greater the incentive to participate in the Stewardship Credit System and protect the natural resources of the land. Policy 1.11 The Land Use Matrix, Attachment B, lists uses and activities allowed under the A, Rural Agricultural Zoning District within the Overlay. These uses are grouped together in one of eight separate layers in the Matrix. Each layer is discrete and shall be removed sequentially and 5JPage 16 PI' lA 19 cumulatively in the order presented in the Matrix, starting with the residential layer (layer one) and ending with the conservation layer (layer eight). If a layer is removed, all uses and activities in that layer are eliminated and are no longer available. Each layer is assigned a percentage of a base credit in the Worksheet. The assigned percentage for each layer to be removed is added together and then multiplied by the Index value on a per acre basis to arrive at a total Stewardship Credit Value of the land being designated as a SSA. Policy 1.12 Credits can be transferred only to lands within the RLSA that meet the defined suitability_criteria and standards set forth in Group 4 Policies. Such lands shall be known Stewardship Receiving Areas or SRAs ")1 Policy 1.13 .' ~ !;:, '':jUJ: i;..'.i ;,: '> ,:'1:;:, The procedures for the establishment and trans.f~* Of~~l~ 'ao'di~1tIl\Ii:~ignation are set forth herein and win also be adopted as a part of m,Srewardshipc~,~ct In the LDC (District). LORs creating the District will be adopted wit~, bne (ll,~~ar fro~Tthe effective date of this Plan amendment. '1:!:., ,.!.!' '.. I I': ,_, Policy 1.14 (recommended amen~~''''J !i!~:'. . _,;,/1 Stewardship Credits will be exc~~~ged for~,5W\'!,!on3~:,~~~~htial or non-residential entitlements,in a SRA on a per acre basis, as deilCribedl~"~11.,,~lf.J9. Stewardship denSity and intenSity will thereafter differ from t~~I,Basj~~jk~r~tandard'jiThe assigrunent or use of Stewardship Credits shall not require a GMP Ame:~~nt. "..,.",'/ . "", '1;11 I"'<!I;\ ::~:Yb:~~~es deSl~~~~~IYtll:~I~pon the adoption of a resolution by the Collier County Board of S@~tYj<;;:0111trij~~~ners (BCt) approving the petition by the property owner seeking such desi~nlhion. ~n~iEha~ ~,n the residential density or non~residential intensity of land use on a parcel 'Of land located;withlq: a SRA shall be specified in the resolution reflecting the total number dttransferable Qredits assigned to the parcel of land. Density and intensity within the ~S4, or \'H~l;lin an SRAi ~haIl not be increased beyond the Baseline Standards except through the !!i~~o~f~Hons 6tithc:,;~te~~shlp Credit System, the Affordable~workforce Housing Density Bonus as reference~ in thelD-ensity Rating System of the FLUE, and the density and intensity blending provision ofijthe Immokalee Area Master Plan. " ~ ~~Iicy 1.16.:i:: S'f~ft~4s~i'Receiving Areas will accommodate uses that utilize creative land use planning techriiq~es and Credits shall be used to facilitate the implementation of innovative and flexible development strategies described in Chapter 163.3177 (11), F.S. and 9J-5.006(5)(I). Policy 1.17 Stewardship Credits may be transferred between different parcels or within a single parcel, subject to compliance with all applicable provisions of these policies. Residential clustering shall only occur within the RLSA through the use of the Stewardship Credit System, and other forms of residential clustering shall not be pennitted. Policy 1.18 61 Page .."'__.............__~.___ro_~._..'"~_____~._.~________~.~.,_. 1611 A blend of Local, State, Federal and private revenues, such as but not limited to Florida Forever, Federal and State conservation and stewardship programs, foundation grants, private conservation organizations, local option taxes, general county revenues, and other monies can augment the Stewardship program through the acquisition of conservation easements, Credits, or land that is identified as the highest priority for natural resource protection, including, but is not limited to, areas identified on the Overlay Map as Flow way Stewardship Areas (FSAs), Habitat Stewardship Areas (HSAs), Water Retention Areas (WRAs) and land within the Big Cypress Area of Critical State Concern (ACSC). Policy 1.19 All local land or easement acquisition programs that are intendedw work within the RLSA Overlay shall be based upon a willing participant/seller approachdt'a~,_not the intent of Collier County to use eminent domain acquisition within thiS system. I Policy 1.20 tl~iliiit"'i' .'i,cI The County may elect to acquire Credits throy:jf1 a ' ':, ~'lclY'I~~I;:, ,~ogram, using sources identified in Policy 1.18. Should the County~~ue this ~pn, it shatl~stablish a Stewardslup Credit Trust to receive and hold Credits un,tm.~Ch t. imS)ls tl1~;~re sold, transferred or othenvise used to Implement uses within StewardshipJ~eceivinii:iAreas.' , 'I..,.!' Policy 1.21(recommended amen~ntlj 'i~:, _ "I The incentive based StewardshiJ?:l:'redit system rel~~, ot~b~' projected demand for Credits As illi the primary basis for pennanentkRrote~~~~-JtCJ ., ral lands flowways, habitats and water ~etention areas. .The ~ount)!i'ri_ ;:ec. o~.:' "',~~ifH~t th ay' be a lack of si~ficant demand for Cr~dits III the early years of Implem' " hon, and also ,gOlzes that a public benefit would be realized by the early deslgn~~~on of SS kj To a~ " s issue and to promote the protection of natural resou.rces, the ,~p'~mFP....~~~gn.?f t~.' ~!.:,.p~e. rt~'y will include an early entry bon~s to encourage the voluntary estabhshrrieIQt of S'SA~1:~~,n the RLSA. The bonus shall be III the form of an additIOnal 9~q\~f~~~rd;llip::.credit p~tracre of land designated as a HSA located outside of the ACSC and.,\S'ne-haJf:i~lfw~~Srip Credit per acre of land designated as HSA located inside the ACSe. ,1., he early en'tttrl:bonUs::shall be avallable for five years from the effective date of the adoption:~t the Steward~hip Credit System in the LDe. The early designation of SSAs, and ,~nWIti;?g '~r.ptection of~owway.s, habit,ats, and Water retenti~n areas do~s not require the ~ta~1Ishme~t;i?f ~RA~i;br otherwIse reqUIre the early use of CredIts, and Credits generated under , the early entry Mlliul Inay be used after the termination of the bonus period. The maximum number of G.J.J1e.', [ ".dits that can be generated under the bonus is 27,000 Credits, and such Credits shall Ii ~ot be trans(~l ed into or used within the ACSe. "I, .;' Pdl6t!'i~.J21:(~ecommended amendment) The RLSA Overlay was designed to be a long-tenn strategic plan with a planning horizon Year of 2025. Many of the tools, techniques and strategies of the Overlay are new, Innovative, incentive based, and have yet to be tested in actual implementation. A comprehensive review of the Overlay shall be prepared for and reviewed by Collier County and the Department of Community Affairs HJ:l8A the five) eat armi"efsaf) sf the adElJ:ltiElA sf the Ste ar-dshiJ:l Distr-iet iF! tHe LOC. M Dart of the Evaluation and AODraisal ReDort Drocess. The purpose of the review shall be to assess the participation in and effectiveness of the Overlay implementation in meeting the Goal, Objective and Policies set forth herein. The specific measures of review shall be as follows: l. The amount and location of land designated as FSAs, HSAs, WRAs and other SSAs. 2. The amount and location of land designated as SRAs. 7lPage A 19 1611' A 19 3. The number of Stewardship Credits generated, assigned or held for future use. 4. A comparison of the amount, location and type of Agriculture that existed at the time of a Study and time of review. 5. The amount, location and type of land converted to non-agricultural use with and without participation in the Stewardship Credit System since its adoption. 6. The extent and use of funding provided by Collier County and other sources Local, State, Federal and private revenues described in Policy 1.18. 7. The amount, location and type of restoration through participation in the Stewardship Credit System since its adoption. 8. The potential for use afCredits in urban areas. Group 2 - Policies to pr:e: agrieu.ltufallaBd!i from PFeRlal~i~R. enieB te ether llses ftfttI retain and for a ric_t...ral activities throu h the use of! ' bl. d incen 'ves in order !Q continue the viability of agricultural production tbrouM.~! ~he Collie :~nty Rural Lands Stewardship Area Overlay. (Recommended amendment) I:::j, i! "'1 Iii II'!!, I Policy 2.1 (recommended amendment) ....... 'i!~ 'Ii: IJ': Agricultur~ landowners will be rovided ,,', h Y,: eSR ersisH te ether uses b:. sreating incerml.'~ i'< s' tha.t.. ..e;~9our' ',lithe voluntary elimination of the property owner's right to convert agricu~~e lan~'ilto non'agt1~u1tural uses in exchange for compensation as described in Policies 1.4 and> ?~ftd by the,_.l.'l~tablislunent of SRAs. as tHe ferm !IJ:!HHiU'I'"'''' '",.,.tl: '.,H, ".,q.'." /~ Policy 2.2 (recomme'n~'~I? atilfD~J:IMf~~). Agricultur~:llNI+l"Irotea~ throu'gH fhe use of Stewardship Credits shall be designated as Stewards..'JJjSendiDi~t~fea~~~SAS) as described In Pohcy 1.6. The protection measures for SSAs are set fQ: h in Pohci~S!li.6, r:1~.LLQ, and 1.I7. In addition to orotectinll atrriculture activities in SSAs w' 'n FSA HSA:]l nd WRA as further described in Policies 3.1 3.2 and 3.3 additional e desired to tain a 'culture within 0 en Lands as an alternative to conversion of "I ,. Bas ~ Standards as described in Polic 1.5. en Lands are those lands not RA HSA. FSA or Dubhc lands on the Rural Lands Stewardshin Area . . Therefore in lieu of usin the rce Index on land desillnated Onen these lands shall be assillJled two (2.m 'redits Der acre outside of the Area of Critical State Concern (ACSC), and two and SIX' K-ht~t1Jii. "(2.6) Credits per acre within the ACSC or Open Lands determined to be orimarv nanther habitat. All non~allriculture uses shall be removed and the remaininll uses are limited tQ alZTiculture Land Use levels 5 6 and 7 on the land Use Matrix. Each layer is discreet and shall be removed seauentially and cumulatively in the order nresented in the Matrix. If a laver is removed all us~s and activities in that laver are eliminated and no lonller ayailable. Following: aODroval of an Acricultural SSA. Collier County shall undate the RLSA Zorune: Overlay District Man to delineate the boundaries of the A,...grjcultural SSA. Folie) 2.3 (retORIlHtHded dddiou)Polic:v 2.3 ~atted: Not Strikethrough 8lPage 161 r' A 19 V/ithiH SRe (1) jeBr [rem tlle effeeti.e aate ef thess amenameRts, Cellier CSI:IRt) ..ill establish 88 /.griSl:dture ,".1:1\ isef) CauBeil 6emprisea sf Hat less tll.iHl. 1i e FlSf mere {haft RiRS aJ9flsifttea representst! es sf the agriSl:IltHre iHfh::lstF), 18 8Ehise iRe Bee GA maFters relatiRg 1a .\gfisI:IJture. The AgFisl:dture ,\8'0'1581) CSl:Iftsil (A.'\C) ,.ill ..8r~( 18 iasatif) epJ'lsrtl:lftitis38fUi J3TeJ:IBre saategieg 1a 8nAanee BRei pfsmete the eentiRl:I8flSe, 81t198Rsien aHa r:li .ersifieatieA ef agfis\:Ilture iFl Cellier CEH:lAt). The :\,~.C .. ill 8138 jseRt!!) 19aFFiers fa the eeRtim::l8flSe, 8ltJ9fl.flSisfI ffficl. dh ersif.ieatisfl sf the agriel:iltl:lFaI iml.l:lstf) ana" ill fHepar8 reSElffimefuiatisas t6 eliminate Sf ffiiRimi;:o;e sueR bafflers 1ft Cellier CSIiR!). The ,\AC ..ill 81s8 aSS8SS v.hether 8JlseptisHs fr8A. stanEtafBs fur eusiHess uses relatea to agriEultHre skeulEl be aile II eEl liAaer aA aamiAistFati\ e J'lf!fffiit preees3 aAlJ mal(e reeemmenElatisHHEl the BCe. LWithi_n. o~e (1) vear fr~m_ ~he effective <iate _of th establish an A 'culture Adviso Council com rised of not a oin r res nt tive f th ute in to ad . A 'culture. The A ul A vise Co n il AAC will re are strate ies to enhance and romote the continuance e a .culture in Collier Coun . The AAC will also i .'<- and diversification of the a . cultural indust a wil minimize such barriers in Collier Count . T AC WI standards for business uses related to a . i',' .ure sh Id oennit orocess and make recommendation the B 'I' Palie) J." (rU:6BllReRded delfH8:~""n- 2.4]" _ , ,:if I ~::t~; ':~~e::::':i:~:e:;;~~~~~a::c= ::cb::~,::~~:e~~ Bce FHa) aeept ameHB!H"~ts t~1ilt~~~lt!nc tall i~lemeflt pelieies that SlippeR IlgrielilNre ll€ti'ities. 'Ii:' - _I~ The BCe will co d~t~~'ii~i of the AAC and facilitate the im lementation of strate'e nd recom b the ACC that are determined to be a ro riate. The BCC ma '[DC that imnlement Dolicies that sunDort allriculture activities. ' ,~~UF,f,2.s:j~Jrec~mme~~ed ameodment). '" '. ,J:~'gtiCUlture'l~f~~lm~~fiIi3nt aspect of Colher County s quahty of life and economIC well-bemg. ,- Agricultural acti\ii~jeslshall be protected from duplicative regulation as provided by the Florida Right-to-Fajjp Act. "~~li:~y 2.e.-;.Jirecommeuded amendment) NolffilllJM~Wding the special provisions of Policies 3.9 and 3.10, nothing herein or in the implementing LORs, shall restrict lawful agricultural activities on lands within the RLSA that have not been placed into the Stewardship program. Group 3 - Policies to protect water quality aud quantity aud maintain the natural water regime, as well as listed animal and plant species and their babitats by directing iucompatible uses away from wetlands and upland habitat through the establishment of Flow way Stewardship Areas, Habitat Stewardship Areas, aud Water Retention Areas, where lands are voluntarily included in the Rural Lauds Stewardship Area program. 9lPage [ formatted: Not Strikethrough ::=J [Formatted: Not Strikethrough ~ 1611 Policy 3.1 Protection of water quality and quantity, and the maintenance of the natural water regime shall occur through the establishment of Flowway Stewardship Areas (FSAs), as SSAs within the RLSA Overlay. FSAs are delineated on the Overlay Map and contain approximately 31,100 acres. FSAs arc primarily privately owned wetlands that are located within the Camp Keals Strand and Okaloacoochee Slough. These lands form the primary wetland flowway systems in the RLSA. The Overlay provides an incentive to permanently protect FSAs by the creation and transfer of Credits, elimination of incompatible uses, and establishment of protection measures described in Group 1 Policies. Not all lands within the delineated FSAs arc comparable in tems of their natural resource value; therefore the index shall be used to differentiate higher value from lower value lands for the purpose of Overlay implementation. Analys~s of the Index Map Series shows that FSA lands score within a range of 0.7 to 2.4; approxi,lT1at~IY 96% score greater than 1.2 while 4% score].2 or less. The average Index score of FSA la~d IS 1:-8. P?licy 3.~ (recommended a-:nendmen9 . .: !i:,I' :':'.. LISt~d ammal and .plant speCies and their hablt~ts.shaJ e protectdt~9rough the tstabh.shment of HabItat Stewardship Areas (HSAs), as SSAs wlth..tn tH9:Yigt~~~lkHSAs are_ delineated on the Overlay Map and contain approximately ~ act~JIfl:",~s are pnvately owned agri_cultural areas, which include both areas~Urnatural c ,,~il:~teristics that make them suitable habitat for listed species and areas wltho~qtJi:ese Ch..~fj",teristibsL,.These latter areas are included because they are located contiguous to hatil~t. to ./leJ~' fonn a continuum of landscape that can aug~ent habitat values. The o~erl.a...~;_p;ro:'ide~:'1PII~tl..te~tiv..e..J.~;_penna~ently pr?tect HSAs by the crealion and transfer of credlls,.res~lling. .10.. ~e.hm.. JJ!ltton of mcompatlble uses and the establishment of protection me~,pres descrj~e,~ iir~rfJ1~~"1 Policies. Not all lands within the deli~eated ~SAs.are compa~able"~9 .t,.~,~ff~l~tfI~:ihaBitijt value; therefore the ind~x shall be ~sed to dlfferenhate higher val~'!f~om. IbWer .value..la~s for the purpose of Overlay lmplementatlon. Analysis of the Index Map S~~~ shows~hat Hi~~jlands score within a range of 0.6 to 2.2. There are approximately_~ 12..1.~! acr~LJJt::iCteared agricultural fields located in HSAs. The average Index scor~~il~~~ii~~'~~!gn~ted lands is 1.3, however, the average index score of the naturally vegetate~-~as :':;HWlh,ij'~A$ IS 1.5. " Policy 3,j'1 ~l,^~~fr PrQ~tti.on.. f<. o...r.. s;~ace water quality and quantity shall be through the establishment of :j'WatelRetenttb~~f~~~.~WRAS), as SSAs within the RLSA Overlay. WRAs are delineated on the Overlay Ma~ and1cdntain approximately 18,200 acres. WRAs are privately owned lands that have I, been perml~ by the South Florida Water Management District to function as agricultural water Ili~~tention ar~. In many Instances, these WRA.s consist of native wetland or upland vegetation; in .~w:, ca.,s~:I~ey are excavated water bodies or may contain exotic vegetation. The Overlay proV1~~htn incentive to permanently protect WRAs by the creation and transfer of Credits, elimination of incompatible uses, and establishment of protection measures described in Group I Policies. Not all lands within the delineated WRAs are comparable in terms of their natural resource value; therefore the index shall be used to differentiate higher value from lower value lands for the purpose of Overlay implementation. Analysis of the Index Map Series shows that WRA lands score within a range of 0.6 to 2.4; approximately 74% score greater than 1.2 while 26% score 1.2 or less. The average [ndex score ofWRA land is 1.5. Policy 3.4 10 I Page A 19 1611 Public and private conservation areas exist in the RLSA and serve to protect natural resources. Corkscrew Marsh and Okaloacoo'chee Slough State Forest include approximately 13,500 acres. Analysis shows that they score within an Index range of 0.0 to 2.2; with an average Index score of 1.5. Because these existing public areas, and any private conservation areas, are already protected, they are not delineated as SSAs and are not eligible to generate Credits, but do serve an important role in meeting the Goal of the RLSA. Policy 3.5 Residential uses, General Conditional uses, Earth Mining and Processing Uses, and Recreational Uses (layers 1-4) as listed in the Matrix shall be eliminated inl..lfSAs in exchange for compensation to the property owner as described in Policy 3.8. Cond~;tij:mal use essential services and governmental essential services, other than those necessary ,~is~r~w pennitted uses or for public safety, shall only be allowed in FSAs with a Natural ResQ1;lr~e s'te.,..,.,ardship Index value of 1.2 or less. Where practicable, directional-drilling techniq~_es andlot ~r~.viously cleared or disturbed areas shall be utilized for oil and gas extraction in FSA~!jn order to mtm,mize impacts to native habitats, Other layers may also be eliminated at the eletlt~.n of the property owner III ex.chan~e for compen.sation. The elimin~tio~ of theh~~:~.!I~~Mi,,~~'~l'...iitr .shall not preclude the exc~va~lOn of lakes or ,other water bodies If s~(}h us~!'~$, a~"~~'I~~rt of a restoratIOn or mitigatIOn program wlthm a FSA. i: ,,~IL, i::','. '::':, Policy 3.6 :;'l", ::r~ 'if: Residential Land Uses listed in the.. ~atrix Sh~~~..". elimi.n..a.. I~ in Habitat Stewardship Sending Areas in exchange for compensa'i~~d\):fhe pr~~l2' OWI}~::~s described in Policy 3.8. Other layers may also be eliminated at t~ election ?~~~e' ~~C;W'owner in exchange for compensation. 1:1", ;'lji;,J.Ii:-!J,i,_ ~,li' Policy 3.7 (reCOmmended'~~ "en~*..ijl-I itl General conditional. Uses, '., .M...ining. a. nd... .HJWcessing Uses, and Recreational Uses shall be allowed only on HSA ,lands, :a N~m"~'I~lfource Stewardship Index value of 1.2 or less. Conditional us~ eSS~~i.~D'iE~s ~.' "p....ove~tUnental essential services, o.ther than th?se necessary to serve penmtted u~, or"iro:r"PM~I~:~afety, shall only be allowed m HSAs with a Natural Resource S~~W~~hi'p rHtf,~ value ot1.'2 or less. Asphaltic and concrete batch making plants are prohibiteqj!jIfi all Hi~~~. \'\f~:ere practicable, directional-drilling techniques and/or prevIOusly cleared oM disturbed ~tlas shall be utilized for oil and gas Extraction in HSAs in order to minimize!~,mpacts to nat~e habitats. In addition to the requirements imposed in the LDC for aJ;WJq~aIQf ~ ConditlO~ Use, such uses will only be approved upon subnuttal of an eIS ~fi\iifo'~.eri~~lmD~~~~te~ent (EI~) ,,:hich demonstrates that clearing ~f native v~getat!on has " been nummlzed1rtlic!-ltise wtll not slgruficantly and adversely Impact listed specIes and their It h. abitats and:f.:....:-.. e u. se will not significantly and adversely impact aquifers. As an alternative to the ~oregoing, I,,: applicant may demonstrate that such use is an integral part of an approved ~~~!~ratio~:IR mitigation program. Golf Cour~e design, construction, ~nd operation in any HSA shl31h~p y with the best management practices of Audubon InternatIOnal's Gold Program and the Florida Department of Environmental Protection. Compliance with the following standards shall be considered by Collier County as meeting the requirement for minimization of impact: . Clearing of native vegetation shall not exceed 15% of the native vegetation on the parcel. . Areas previously cleared shall be used preferentially to native vegetated areas. . Buffering to Conservation Land shall comply with Policy 4.13. Policy 3.8 Compensation to the property owner may occur through one or more of the followingYmechanisms: creation and transfer of Stewardship Credits, acquisition of conservation easements, 11lPage A 19 1611 acquisition of less than fee interest in the land, or through other acquisition of land or interest in land through a willing seller program. Policy 3.9 (recommended amendment) 1. Agriculture will continue to be a permitted use and its supporting activities will continue to be permitted as conditional uses within FSAs and HSAs, pursuant to the Agriculture Group classifications described in the Matrix. The Ag 1 group includes row crops, citrus, specialty farms, horticulture, plant nurseries, improved pastures for grazing and ranching, aquaculture flimited to OJ;!en Land desil.mation onlvl and similar activities, including related agricultural support uses. In existing Ag 1 areas withinF~As and HSAs, all such activities are permitted to continue, and may convert from, one type of Agriculture to another and expand to the limits allowed by applicable permjts. Once the Stewardship Credit System is utilized and an owner receives compensatIon asn~eviously described, no further expansion of Ag I will be allowed in FSi\~ and HSA~:.~eyond existing or permitted limits within property subject to a credit tranSfer, except for: incidental clearing as set forth in Paragraph 2 below. Ill:!! "il.'"JI:lli:'!j'"""., "'lj 2. In order to encourage viable A~ I. act~.iV. .~tf.s, ~n~i!,t9.'~COd_Q~~~ the ab.ility to convert from one Ag 1 use to another, mClden ,. 'Cleanng'~'J\lpowed to ~om eXlstmg Ag I areas, square up existing fann fields, or ?t9, ,j Ide a~c.,~s to ISq!t~? m other ~g ~ areas, provided that the Ag 1 Land Use Layer has'~~en ret~rd on the'$;J;eas to be mCldentally cleared, and the Natural Resource Ind~x, Va1(J.~;~~~e has beffl adjusted to reflect the proposed change in land cover. I'lpi~~1 clearl~ is defJ~ as clearing that meets the above criteria and is limited to }!yo of the are~ott~4"S~J\~ In the event said incidental clearing impacts lands having al;[tJatur~~II~~~e Fna~~ Value in excess of 1.2, appropriate mitigation shall belp,~?vid~itll:,:il! ' :-1; i,_ ,J ~ 1"1 _) II 'i' 1 Hif'dJ ~r,i}:i~i'~;~";~~;~::~I~~t:nZ~~s~~~ ~~C2hi:r~a:o~~:~~ ;~~:~~da~;~t;~~~~~ activities!~'pemUffCd}o cb~tj~ue, and may convert from one type of Agriculture to another and expand ~- the limits 1~U9wedj~Y applicable permits. Once the Stewardship Credit System IS utilized ~ an owner re~ives compensation as previously described, no further expansion of Ag ~j:i~fd1?nV~~ion.of Ag. 2"to Ag 1 will be allowed in FSAs or HSAs beyond existing or pennitted Ii! IimJtSl\.vithin::~operty ~lIl>ject to a credit transfer. '!b Policy 3,l.1:{~cco~meoded amendment), . ~Oij'IL In certamll~catlOns there may be the opporturuty for flow-way or habItat restoration. Examples 1 ~~Au.de., bl;lt!:;~re not limited to, locations where flow-ways have been constricted or otherwise ici~'Ciij";,6y' past activities, or where additional land is needed to enhance wildlife corridors. PrieR!:) shall ee gi.eH ta restsratisH "ithi8 tHe CamJl Keais Stfami 178:\ ST eeHtiguSti5 HS/.s. Should a property owner be willing to dedicate land for restoration activities within a FSA or HSA the CaffiJl Keais StTaRs FS '\ ar 8SRtig<l81:1.3 lIS/.s, [stir two additional Stewardship Credits shaH be assigned for each acre ofland so dedicated. ,\8 asl'litisRal 1.. e Ste'.. anlshil' STeaits shall ae assigHea fer ea!;:" aere sflaRa aeaieatel'l fur re.steratisa aeti\ities ..ithia etHeT FS}~s aad lIS:".:>. The actual implementation of restoration improvements is not required for the owner to receive such credits and the costs of restoration shall be borne by the governmental agency or private entity undertaking the restoration. Should an owner also complete restoration improvements, this shall be rewarded with fetH: additional Credits for each acre of restored land upon demonstration that the restoration met applicable success criteria as determined by the pennit agency authorizing 12lPage A 19 .t 6 fl A 19 said restoration. The additional Credits shall be rewarded for either caracara restoration at 2 Credits oer acre or for exotic controllbumim! at 4 Credits nee acre or for flow way restoration at 4 Credits oer acre. or for native habitat restoration at 6 Credits Dee acre. Within the area oroDosed for restoration Land Use Lavers 1-6 must be removed. The soecific orocess for assiQ'nment of additional restoration Credits shall be included in the Stewardshin DistrictQLthe LOC. 2. In certain locations as Qenerallv illustrated in the RLSA Overlay Man there may be oDvortunities to create restore. and enhance a northern nanther corridor cormection and a southern oanther corridor connection. Should a nrooertv owner be willinll to dedicate land for the u ose of establishin and maintainin the northern or southern ant corridor 2 additional Stewardshi Credits shall be assi ed for each acre of land so dedic . Shelild B.H a \ Her alse "'. aet'e:. One an entire corridor meetin minimum criteria e lis dedicated a SSA's and restor ion of the antir or is co' OWner(s), this shall be rewarded with 8 additional credits"lier acre. ""!' for such rrider is ted b the land 3. In order to address a sillfuficant loss in Southwest IF easo I' bird fora in habitat restoration of these uni habl wi ' r Dedication of an area inside an FSA HSA for'sUch seasona be rewarded with 2 additional Credits Der a~nf ' , , ! j ~ i i\ I Should the landowner successfullv c~H!lDleteilt~~,;testoration1:and additional shall be awarde!i , ;:;:k 1;!'1 ,! shallow wetland wadin 'vized in the RLSAO. , , etland restoration shall J 6 Credits ner acre [ Formatted: I~gent: Lef!:. 0.75" Onl one t restoration erf.~ffl"l~ii i~f compensation for restoration which may be rtne'r~fijp agreement such as a developer contribution l, i~~een the parties involved. Also not orecluded are various restora l'fiiJ!i ro ams such as the federal Farm Bill conservation ~_~; for assignment of additional restoration credits shall be included t of iI\~ LDC. e of restoration sh i n ~se Credits for each acre desi er r. ated for This policy does not addressed throughlj agreement or stewa rivate Drom'am~r;~ 10 the Ste*"ardship Dis !(,~:VM~~l~h~i,~ta,a~~~i~aIYSiS of the Study, FSAs, HSAs, WRAs, and existing public/private , conservation laoo!lmlU8e the land appropriate and necessary to accomplish the Goal pertainmg to natural resq~~ce protection. To further direct other uses away from and to provide additional i! ,incentive fo~.~e protection, enhancement and restoration of the Okaloacoochee Slough and Camp litfflais Stra~dj>allland within 500 feet of the delineated FSAs that comprise the Slough or Strand t6~:li~I~Ub~herwise included in a HSA or WRA shall receive the same natural index score (0.6) that a HSA receives if such property is designated as a SSA and retains only agricultural, recreational and/or conservation layers within the matrix. Policy 3.13 (recommended amendment) Water Retention Areas (WRAs) as generally depicted on the Overlay Map have been pennitted for this purpose and will continue to function for surface water retention, detention, treatment and/or conveyance, in accordance with the South Florida Water Management District (SFWMD) permits applicable to each WRA. WRAs can also be permitted to provide such functions for new uses of land allowed within the Overlay. WRAs may be incorporated into a SRA master plan to provide water management functions for properties within such SRA, but are not required to be 13lpage 1611'nA19 e S oundin 1 d ithin 1- shall 1m I mented I r u rk k r r m I enhance safety and security. designated as a SRA in such instances. However if the WRA Drovides water treatment and retention e!lelusi, el. for a SRA the acrea2e of the WRA used as orimarv treatment for water mana2ement for the SRA shall be included in the SRA. WRA boundaries are understood to be approximate and are subject to refinement in accordance with SFWMD permitting. Policy 3.14 During permitting to serve new uses, additions and modifications to WRAs may be required or desired, including but not limited to changes to control elevations, discharge rates, stonn water pre.treatment, grading, excavation or filL Such additions and modifications shall be allowed subject to review and approval by the SFWMD in accordance with best; management practices. Such additions and modifications to WRAs shall be designed to ensure '1l1at there is no net loss of habitat function within the WRAs unless there is compensating lTlitig~1!o,n or restoration in other areas of the Overlay that will provide comparable habitat functi$n~ C.ofu~,~nsating mitigation or restoration for an impact to a WRA contiguous to the Camp, Keais St~np or Okaloacoochee Slough shall be provided within or contiguous to that Strand or! Slf~gh. Policv 3.15 (newoolicv), i r rli I w. ul i ns rk Sk nd rYe en r ;";l:;,,, ':":J: ,), Group 4 - Policies to enable CO.."iii'."i'SiO~i.O.f ruraj:~d."j .h'tber uses in appropriate locations, while discouraging urban ..sp, r~l.. a.~~I~~~'M:~...J gililll'\I~~e1opmenl Ibat utilizes creative land use planning techniques b~li~,e' ...,,'inent ~ Stewardship Receiving Areas. ": " ' , ,i ~; 1 Policy 4.1 :";, "'hl ;,j'ii' ','il" "","','1' Collier County ,e "!~_" facilitate uses that enable economic prosperity and diversification of _ lki:i~':~,~J of the RLSA. Collier County will also encourage developmeB~!~h~_!l atlve Ian use planning techniques and facilitates a compact fonn of develoPm+~to acc6 , ;population growth by the establishment of Stewardship Receiving Areas (S~As). Incentl to eficourage and support the diversification and vitality of the rural economy;~uch as flexi , ,development regulations, expedited pennitting review, and targeted '::ap,if~l,impr9:yements sh~, be incorporated into the LDC Stewardship District '1' ;,1 l:'lt!l ii' Policy 4.2 (,;~commended amendment) , ~11 privatel~'19wned lands within the RLSA which meet the criteria set forth herein are eligible lfpr:design~t~cbn as a SRA, except land delineated as a FSA, HSA, WRA or land that has been dd~f8h~~tf!~s a Stewardship Sending Area. Land proposed for SRA deSignation shall meet the suitability criterIa and other standards described in Group 4 Policies. Due to the long-tenn vision of the RLSA Overlay, extending to a horizon year of 2025, and in accordance with the guidelines established in Chapter 163.3177(11) F.S., the specific location, size and composition of each SRA cannot and need not be predetermined in the GMP. In the RLSA Overlay, lands that are eligible to be designated as SRAs generally have similar physical attributes as they consist predominately of agriculture lands which have been cleared or otherwise altered for this purpose. Lands shown on the Overlay Map as eligible for SRA designation include approximately ~ 72.000 acres outside of the ACSC and aooroximatelv +&,;00- 15000 acres within the ACSC. Total SRA desii!Tlation shall be a maximum creation of 315 000 stewardshio credits ef 15 999 aeres. .\'pflf8Iiimatel) 29~ sf the5e lamia aehie. e B.fi IfiaeJl sesre greater thaR 1.2: Because the Overlay 141 P age 16' :t1'~1' A 19 requires SRAs to be compact, mixed-use and self sufficient in the provision of services, facilities and infrastructure, traditional 10eational standards nonnally applied to determine development suitability are not relevant or applicable to SRAs, Therefore the process for designating a SRA follows the pl'IHeiflle3 sf the Rl:iffil Lanes Ste . afashiJ:l ,>\"et as fuFtker e1eseribea Drocectures set forth herein and the adoDted RLSA ZonilJ.K Overlay District. Policy 4.3 (recommended amendment) Land becomes designated as a SRA upon petition by a property owner to Collier County seeking such designation and the adoption of a resolution by the Bee granting the designation. The petition shall include a SRA master plan as described in Policy 4.5. The basis for approval shall be a finding of consistency with the policies of the Overlay, including~'uired suitability criteria set forth herein, compliance with the LDC Stewardship District, al}~!,,*~urance that the applicant has acquired aT will acquire sufficient Stewardship Credits to il1l'plem~iai:~~e SRA uses. Wi-tfttft ~~;;~~~;~~~ri~~~J~~~~~~~5~~f~;~;~ ceH.JtSeratlOn ill the BCC efsuch a deslgnatlOll. IJL' J'JLlj"ruJ " -I.;, .....,,:_, Policy 4.4 .' '., Collier County will update the Overlay Ma~-to dehl1r~te the bgu~aries of each approved SRA Such updates _ shall not require an amendm'enttp! tHe Growth. Management Plan, but shall be retroactively Incorporated into th~:i4Jdbp~ed ovttlay Mall ;~ring the EAR based amendment process when it periodically occ~q;. . !....,.. ;;...1:: : j;;' ...-,:'v-,: "I! Policy 4.5 (recommended a.m.. eri4tm~nl)iil:,;I; I., i,:i...:. .., ,1>1. :'fr'UN>'" ';i' To address the specifics of ta~~ SRA, a master A~~n of each SRA will be prepared and submitted to Collier County a~ a part df, ~e pe,qH~ ~$r designation as a SRA. The master plan Will demonstrate that thAH "r, ,!c?mpher~,.;WilH"!~d 'applicable poliCies of the Overlay and the LDC Stewardship Distrid~i I"1'sJl:I~~4L~0 that IOcompatible land uses are directed away from wetlands an J:w:t identifida: as FSAs and HSAs on the Overlay Map. Te the enteHt ,;;1 t~ Plan shall he ssnsisteHtcom I with the County's then~adooted n an fLRTP) the Countv Build Ou(Yision Plan as mav be amended ~ 3.7 of the Future Transnortation Element. and Access Manallement Each SRA ster Ian shall include a Mana ement Plan with rovisions for minimizin human and wildlife!: nteractions. Low intensit land uses e. . assive recreation areas olf urses a...! velletation nreservation reauirements inc1udinll alITiculture shall be used to e'g I, "."hffer areas between wildlife habitat areas and areas dominated bv human activities. Consl eration shall be Iliven to the most current ~idelines and remdations on techniques to reduce human wildlife conflict. The manallement plans shall also reQuire the dissemination of information to local residents businesses and llovernmental services about the oresence of wildlife and oractices(such as aonronriate waste disnosal methods) that _ enable resnonsible coexistence with wildlife while minimiziOll oooortunities for nellative interaction. Policy 4.6 SRA charactenstics shall be based upon innovative planning and development strategies referenced in Chapter 163.3177 (I I), F.S. and 91-5.006(5)(1). These planning strategies and 15lPage 1611' techniques include urban villages, new towns, satellite communities, area-based allocations, clustering and open space provisions, and mixed-use development that allow the conversion of rural and agricultural lands to other uses while protecting environmentally sensitive areas, maintaining the economic viability of agricultural and other predominantly rural land uses, and providing for the cost~efficient delivery of public facilities and services. The SRA shall_also include a mobilitv Dlan that includes eSflBis!f8tiBR sf vehicular bicvcle/oedestrian. DubHe transit internal circula~ors and other modes of travel/movement within and between SRAs and areas of outside develooment and land uses._:rhe mobility olan shall orovide mobility stratelries such as bus subsidies. route soonsorsrup or other incentives which encouralle the use of mass transit services. The develoDment of SRAs shall also consider the needs identified in the Countv Build Out Vision Plan and Dlan land uses to accommodate services that woJili,Uncrease internal caoture and reduce trio lemrth and Ion I! distance travel. Such development ~tlrategies are recognized as methods of discouraging urban sprawb encoura2inlZ altenJlUilve frloges of transoortation. increasinl! intemal capture .and reducinl! vehicle mil~s traveleq. , Policy 4.7 (recommended amendment) < Ii There are fe.t:tf three specific forms of SRA pennit( .. i" ~h~-;:~~i lerlay. Th'ese are Towns, Villages, Hamlets, and Compact Rural Develo,"p1e ,~!'I:'tij~!k,c racteristics of Towns, Villages, Haffl.lets, and CRD are set forth !l~ll1Jhac m ~IC and ar'lgenerally described III Policies 4.7.1, 4.7.2, and 4.7,3 aM ~ii:IF . l"~ ;:~':" .specific regulations, guidelmes and standards withi1,W~e LDSr$ ewardshi JJ;)istrict te guide the design and development of SRAs to include innovative1~~~I" lJilg and de~flopment strategies as set forth III Chapter 163.3177 (II), F.S. and 9~..~~~5)(l). ',I',11e.'. iz.e. M~'base density of each form shall be consistent with the standards setJOhh on A~,tadml ~t; S.;]:1he maximum base residential density as set forth in Attachment C ma~pnly 9~j"~(t~, "" ed ~~gh the density blending process as set forth in density and intensi~" blendJ1)tO~~ovision ~r the Immokalee Area Master Plan or through the affordable-work. .".. orce h~Hl~~~~.g. d.ensity. b. on. ~.~ _~s referenced 10 the Density Ratmg System of the Future Land Use Element.ll1ljf1e b~i..r~~~: tial denSity is calculated by dIviding the total number of re.....sl...den'..'... . ..'...n a sW.~.';.I'p.Y.t..hd bveraIl area therein. The. base residential density does not restrict net reside iijri:qrri ...' ,els withm a SRA. The location, size and density of each SRA will bf;~t1t9"~ilneqn"an indivld ai basis during the SRA deSignation review and approval process. 1:::,,1 Policy 4.;7.1 (recom~~~ded atneodmeot) Towns are the largest and'.inost diverse form of SRA, with a full range of housing types and mix i1.i6if!ijsle's. T~,~a~~,~~an level services and infrastructure that support development that is : 11 compact, mix~d 'uScwtiainan scale, and provides a balance of land uses to reduce automobile trips , and increa'~l~vability. Towns shall be ~-.!ess than HJOO I 500 acres and un 'a ........... I~thlifl. 1,000 . I' 00 acres and are comprised of several villages andlor neighborhoods that have "!i~ividual id# tlty and character. Towns shall have a mixed-use town center that will serve as a f8didIPffl~rn:i%r community facilities and support services. Towns shall be designed to encourage pedestnan and bicycle circulation by including an interconnected sidewalk and pathway system serving all residential neighborhoods. Towns shall include an intemal mobility olan which shall include a transfer station or Dark and ride area that is aooroDriatelv located within the town to serve the connection ooint for intemal and external public transoortation. Towns shall have at least one community park with a minimum size of200 square feet per dwelling unit in the Town. Towns shall also have parks or public green spaces within neighborhoods. Towns shall include both community and neighborhood scaled retail and office uses, ffi----a--.t:at as ~ described in Policy 4-:-l-4 4.15.1. Towns may also include those compatible corporate office. research develooment comoanies and light industrial uses such as those permitted in the Business Park 16 I P age A 19 1611' A 19 and Research and Technology Park Subdistricts of the FLUE. and those included in Policy 4.7.4. Towns shall be the preferred location for the full range of schools, and to the extent possible, schools and parks shall be located abutting each other to allow for the sharing of recreational facilities and as provided in Policies 4.15.2 and 4.15.3. Design criteria for Towns are ~ included in the LDC Stewardship District. Towns shall not be located within the ACSC. Policy 4.7.2 (recommended amendment) Villages are primarily residential communities with a diversity of housing types and mix of uses appropriate to the scale and character of the particular village. Villages shall be 2feater ftet--l.e5s than 100 acres and un to aT Ri8f! tllaR 1,000 acres)nside the Area of <':~tical State Concern and UD to 8et mere tAa8 1.500 acres outside the Area of Critical State'Concelll. Villages are comprised of residential neighborhoods and shall include a mix~?~~s~:xillage center to serve as the focal point for the commuruty's support services and facilitie$. Vin~.8;es shall be designed to encourage pedestrian and bic~c1e. circu~ation by inclu.din~L,an interc()fu,~fted sidew~lk and pathway system servmg all reSidential neIghborhoods. Vlllageg'~rall have p'M-k~_ or public green spaces within neighborhoods. Villages shall include neighborhood'$",led retail '~Tltl office uses, in a ratio as provided in Policy 4.15. A TO riatel sca'~>I, esc~iH in Polic 4.7.4 shall also be oenmtted In Villalles. Villages are an appro~,:,' ,te I~~ ~jalr "':I~-lWge of schools. To the extent possible, schools and parks shall be loc~,: adjacentt~jl, each at 'efto allow for the sharing of recreational facilities. DeSign criteria f?I~L~'i lages s~all bC!\Ilc1uded in the LDC Stewardship District. Viii II i I i temal, T ,) who , II in I a tran Ii r station or n ri ire viII seth one i n oint for internal and external Dublic tran~&-, Paliey i.7.3 (recommend~d d ,/:tion) '<"J neighbsrhssas. I t8 Vil1ag!~I~REI Te\\ ~~;;~sti~~rC1 thaR 5 Hamlets, in eaffi13i~atisn y, ilh eRns sf 199 aues ST less, ma) Be apJ9f8\ea as g~..s )9fiAr te the 8J'lJ9fs'.al sf a '.'illage ar Te..H, aHeI thereafter Hat mere than 3 adl1i,tisHal IIaffilet~. iH 6SffiBiRatisFI ,itk CRDs Elf 100 aeres aT less, ma) be lifl13f8.ea fur ~"~~~tJb5eilf1ir~ Village_~tT8, R. I:: Policy 4.Mt~.7.3 (recommended amendment) 1<<r~mpactR;~~i1 Developmen~ (CRD) is a form ofSRA that ~ill flrs.iae f.1~Jl.iBilit) ..itk feSfleet t~"~I'm,;f1I~f l:Ises aHa aeslgn staadaFds, B1:It shall etheF.,\se esmJ9l) Vllth the standards sf a l'-",",' Hamlet'sr Village. shall SUDDOr! and further Collier Countv's valued attributes of a~iculture, natural resources and economic diversity. CRDs shall demonstrate a uniQue set of uses and SUODort services necessarY to further these attributes within the RLSA. PrimarY CRn uses shall be those associated with and needed to SUDoort research education convenience retail tourism or recreation. .\eBf8eFiatel sealed eefRB8ti131e 1:I3t9 EleseFitJea iR Petie, 1.7.1 ma. alss be eefHlitted ~. A eRD may include, but is not required to have permanent residential housinK &tld---the seT.iess aHEI faeilities that 51:1J9J98R fleffilaneHt reaifleHts. ~nd the_ sefYices andfacilit(es that SUODort oermanent residents. The number of residential units shall be eauivalent with the demand I!enerated bv the_orimarv CRD use, but shall not exceed the maximum of two units ner lITOSS acre. A CRD shall be a maximum size of 100 acr~s. ,^~H enamflle efa eRn is aH eeetaliAsffi .illage that Formatted: Font: Times New Roman, Not Strikethrough 17IPage 1611' . SI:lIg ha\e a HRi<J.LiS set sf l:Ises ana sHflpert seniees differeflt [rem a tmsitisRaI residential ,illag-e. It . sHIEl sSRtain tfB.RsieHt lesgiag faeilities Bad sBniees <1J:Iflf8flliate tEl ase laurists, 131:1.t ffi8) flat IUs, iite fer the FRAga sf san jees that are Rfleess8F) ta suJ'lJ3sr-t fl8Fm8R8flt fesieeRts. Ell€eflt as asseFited ells, fl, a eRn ':.ill eSRfsFffi ta the eaarseteristies sf a '.Tillage Sf 1I8fl.Jet as set fsftk en :\ttaekm8Rt C l3aZlea en the size ef the eRD. .\.5 rssiaentiall:lHits arcs list a HHjl:lirea 1::1.58, tkese gasss aHa .':lee. iees that Sl:IflJ3sFt re3idsFlti'l StieR as retail, aniee, ei ie, ga. emmsRtal aRa iRstitI:ltiefHll H,;es shall elsEI Ret 1ge r8Ej\:lirea, "- IIk8"e.er~ fer aB) CRD tkat E1aes iasll:lse fl8fffl8Renl: resiElsatial hSl:lsiRg, the flf8flsRieaate Sl:lflJ'lsFt sef\ iess listed Bee. e shall be flFe. iaea iH aeeeF€laHse ',itk ,\ttaekmeFlt C. Te maiHtaiH a flF8)'leftisR sf CRDs ef 199 seres sr less ta Villages BHd 18..RS, Ret mare thaR 5 eRD!! af lOa seres ar less, ifl e~ft!eiHatieR ..itk Hamlets, mal 13e Bflflr"fl\ed as SR.~.s flAer te the aJ3fJfe.al sf a "illsge ar Te,rfi;'sH6 thereafter Ret FRere lkaH j aaaitieAaI CRDs sf 199 seres ef less, ift eemeiRatien \\it~ l~~~t3, ma) ee aJ'lfJf6.ed f~f €laek sl:ibseEjl:leflt '-'Biage sr Te' H. Tkere shall ee He mere thaft,~ CRDs:~fHl6re than I gO aeres ~t J _maintain a r ion of CRD f lOr r I 0 Vill" Town not mor than RDs of 100 cr r ss a be a roved a th a I ofa Villa e or Town. and thereafter not more than 5 additional CRDs ess a 6"'a roved rior to e~c:h subseauel1t Yilla2:e or Town. S ) ears fJl:IfSl:Iaflt ta Pelie) 1.22. Policv 4.7.4 (.-('commended new policy) l,i{1 Existinl! urban areas Towns and Villal!es s':. J within the RLSA to further mmote ecomf and 'ob creation. I ,i; referred 'IQ~~tion for business and industrv in ir and develo ment diversification 1;:i:,:ii:tUli> ' Policy 4.8 1+, '1,li I !: Ii; ii, ' An SRA ~:ibci:l:~Ui~~;t.o a FSA or HSA, but shall n.ot encroach into such areas, and shall buffer SU.I;~lareas as!~~~c.rrii1j"~in Policy 4.13. A SRA may be contiguous to and served by a WRA wifout requirin~ft~e WRA to be designated as a SRA in accordance with Policy 3.12 and 3.13. n ,) Policy 4.9 (rccoliiill~~~ed amendment) i: A SRA mu:s,J,i.contain sufficient suitable land to accommodate the planned development in an ~~~ironm~nl~.ily acceptable manner. The_ primary means of directing development away from wbltl~~~i~n:a"critical habitat is the prohibitIOn of locating SRAs in FSAs, and HSAs, sad \HR.\S. To furHler direct devel.opment away from wetlands and critical habitat, reSidential, commercial, manufacturing/light industrial, group housing, and transient housing, institutional, civic and community service uses within a SRA shall not be sited on lands that receive a Natural Resource Index value of greater than 1.2. In addition, conditional use essential services and governmental essential services, with the exception of those necessary to serve permitted uses and for public safety, shall not be sited on lands that receive a Natural Resource Index value of greater than 1.2. Infrastructure necessary to serve Demitted uses mav be exemDt from this restriction. orovided that desillns seek to minimize the extent of imoacts to anv such areas. The Index value of greater than 1.2 represents those areas that have a high natural resource value as measured pursuant to Policy 1.8. Less than 2% of potential SRA land achieves an Index score of greater than 1.2. 181 Page A 19 Formatted: Font; Times New Roman, Not Strikethrough Formatted: Font: Times New Roman Formatted: Font: Times New Roman Formatted: Font: Times New Roman, Not Strikethrough Formatted: Font: Times New Roman Formatted: Font: Times New Roman Formatted: Font: Times New Roman, Not Strikethrough Formatted: Font: Times New Roman, Not Strikethrough 1611 Policy 4.10 (recommended amendment) Within the RLSA Overlay, open space, which by definition shall include public and private conservation lands, underdeveloped areas of designated SSAs, agriculture, water retention and management areas and recreation uses, will continue to be the dominant land use. Therefore, open space adequate to serve the forecasted population and uses within the SRA is provided. To ensure that SRA residents have such areas proximate to their homes, open space shall also comprise a minimum ofthuiy-five percent of the gross acreage of an individual SRA Town; ill Village.,.et' these CRDs ellceeeliag 100 aeres. Lands within a SRA greater than one acre with Index values of greater than 1.2 shall be retained as open space: exceot for the allow~qce of uses described in Policy 4.9. As an incentive to encourage open space, such uses within:s SRA, leeateel el:ltsiae €If the f.CSC, exceeding the required thirty-five percent shall 110t Ile required to consume Stewardship Credits but shall be counted as Dart of the SRA acrea2~~ ' Policy 4.11 The perimeter of each SRA shall be designed to provide a tra " n from W&J;er density and intensity uses within the SRA to lower density and!jlt6,b....~~'I'~~es ad.joining property. The edges of SRAs shall be well defined and de~~aned'll~i,j~e 'C8Wl1;t "..I,with the character of adjoini?g property. Techniques such as, .b.u.....,f!i:r'H\ Iim..i!e. 'd1i,pi' se..tbacks,lands~a~e buff~rs, and rec~e.atlOnI?~en space placement may b~<ljIstd for ,\WiS .pll1li~s~. ~here eXlstmg agncultural activity adJoins a SRA, the deSign of the S~_, musttll"e this actl\1ty mto account to allow for the continuation of the agricultural activity and'lR; 'Bini'mize any. conflict between agriculture and SRA uses. j; J:' I:' :! I' , Policy 4.12 'j.i .,:';:!Fil-i!J",iJ:il Where a SRA adjoins a '~~:,:(\, 'H$l\.Ui\\1RA J":,11existing public or private conservation land delineated on the Overlay ." best manage ;nt and planning practices shall be applied to minimize adverse i~.. acts to...s..... ijlt.1a.n.. d.II~~ ~sign shall demonstrate that ground water table draw down or dive~Mi1n.'~iH~,~ot,a~~I" elyrNipact the adjacent FSA, HSA, WRA or conservatIOn land. Detention a.nd 'a~1jI,t~01. ~1W~:, ,)shall be established to protect such natural areas and be consistent :'ii~l~oundIllg,land an ~ 'dject control elevations and water tables. dI' 'L'!li ..":i; Policy 4;13 ., i'." Open spa~e within or co~,guous to a SRA shall be used to provide a buffer between the SRA and <mX; ,~djoi~n~ FSA, H~~, or existing public or private conservation land delineated on the ili@Vetl~y M'ap:I'I,',Qpen sR~ce contiguous to or within 300 feet of the boundary of a FSA, HSA, or " existing public dt'l~tilv~te conservation land may include: natural preserves, lakes, golf courses 1, provided no~jf~irways or other turf areas are allowed within the first 200 feet, passive recreational i1:~reas and p~s, required yard and set-back areas, and other natural or man-made open space, "m~~~g the ~t boundary of the FSAs and HSAs that comprise Camp Keais Strand, I.e., the area ~~~H~K!lfrHhokalee Road, this open space buffer shall be 500 feet wide and shall preclude golf course fairways and other turf areas within the first 300 feet. Policy 4.14 (recommended amendment) The SRA must have either direct access to a County collector or arterial road or indirect access via a road provided by the developer that has adequate capacity to accommodate the proposed development in accordance with accepted transportation planning standards. At the time of SRA approval an SRA oroDosed to adioin land desiQ:nated as an SRA or lands desil!Ilated as Open shall nrovide for the oDnortunitv to Drovide direct vehicular and Dedestrian connections from said areas to the Countv's arterial/collector roadwav network as shown on the Countv Build Out 19JPage A 19 161'f~A19 Vision Plan so as to reduce travel time and travel exoenses. imnrove interconnectivitv increase internal canture and keen the use of county arterial roads to a minimum when travelinll between develooments in the RLSA. Public and orivate roads within an SRA shall be maintained bv the SRfR8F: te'" H af eemffil:mit:\SRA it serves. Si,malized intersections within or adiacent to an SRA that serves the SRA sh;lll be maintained bv the SRffi8f\ 1a" R af eeRlftutfl.ip. 8RA it serves. No 8RA shall be approved unless the capacity of County collector or arterial road(s) serving the SRA is demonstrated to be adequate in accordance with the Collier County Concurrency Management System in effect at the time of 8RA designation. A transportation impact assessment meeting the requirements of Section 2.7.3 of the LDC, or its successor regulations~all be prepared for each proposed SRA 10 provide the necessary data and analysis. To the. ~,I t re uired to miti ate an SRA's traffic imDacts actions may be taken to include but shall~irnited to. movisions for the construction and/or oennittinl! of wildlife crossin s envir' mP tion credits ri ht of way dedicationls). water manalZement and/or fill material be'Ji \ ed to ex and the existinlZ or ofOoosed roadway network. Anv such actions t ,_ set traffic'! I~pacts shall be memorialized in a develooer contribution alrreemen. 1. ~~.'" }_ctionir. be consi'aered within the area of sil!llificant Influence of the mOlect tratTiu '_, "gjj!, sed roadwa s that are antieiBateel. tel:lz eJiJlanfleel. aT e8lliltfl::letefl. ,J~ '!1 Vi 1 Policy 4.15.1 (recommended amendment); '1',;- I SRAs are intended to be mixed uSI;f,~dl~al1 be~!owed t~'lfUlI range of uses permitted by the Urban Designation of the FLUE~:;,i.~~ mOdifi.ed b..Y. pg~iC.~~.IU.7, 4.7.1, 4.7.2, and 4.7.3,..+-74 and Attachment C An appropriar :\ IIlix. ~~I~i~~om~J' 'recreational, civic, governmental, and institutional uses will be "5,vaila l~i\~lwerve t~., daily needs and community wide needs of residents of the RLSA. Dep "ng on the size, s-ale, and character oCa SRA, such uses may be provided either within the sped' A.iWf:trnp;!S 11er SRAs in the RLSA or within the Jmmokalee Urban Area rov of ttihse ad'oinin area's facilities as described in Attachment C to newl created SRA can demonstrate sufficient ea aeit e sired useS er the standards of Attachment C. By example, each Village o~!:fown sfi~n! pro . ~lor neighborhood retail/office uses to serve its population as well as appro~l'iate civic and!~nstitutional uses, however, the combined population of several Villages a..". cllIa. ml~tc. may be req.u.,i~ed to support community scaled retail or office uses in a nearby Town. ~~f1t~rdS,rCll; the minilnum amount of non-residential uses In each category are set forth in lib~.hachment 01 and shpllbe also included in the Stewardship LDC District. ::;j'I,:;!; , Policy 4.15.~ '. :;'!LJhe Board ~:~ounty Commissioners (BCC) may, as a condition of approval and adoption of an "$;~;, devel~tnent, require that suitable areas for parks, schools, and other public facilities be set asiC1~~jjjhp\!8ved, and/or dedicated for public use. When the BCe requires such a set aside for one or more public facilities, the set aside shall be subject to the same provisions of the LDC as are applicable to public facility dedications required as a condition for PUD rezoning. Policy 4.15.3 Applicants for SRA designation shall coordinate with Collier County School Board staff to allow planning to occur to accommodate any impacts to the public schools as a result of the SRA. As a part of the SRA application, the following informatIOn shall be provided: I. Number of residential units by type; 2. An estimate of the number of school-aged children for each type of school 20lPage 161 ii' A 19 impacted (elementary, middle, high school); and 3. The potential for locating a public educational facility or facilities within the SRA, and the size of any sites that may be dedicated, or otherwise made available for a public educational facility. Policy 4.16 (recommended amendment) A SRA shall have adequate infrastructure available to serve the Proposl~ development, or such infrastructure must be provided concurrently with the demand. Tile; level of infrastructure provided will depend on the fonn of SRA development, acceptedsiiVj:,j~~gineering practices, and LDC requirements. The capacity of essential services and infr~lHictlhl~',recessaty to serve the SRA at build~out must be demonstrated during the SRA desi8J1.ation procel$'I' Infrastructure to be analyzed includes. but not limited to transportation, potable \V~~~,r, wastew~tq~~rrigation water, stonnwater management, and solid waste. Transportation infra's(~Fture is dl~~ssed in Policy 4.14. Centrali~ed or decentralized communit~ wat~i .! ~.~7:W'"'~: utilities. are required In Towns and,VllIages, . ""':". ' and may be required~ CRDs . I, . , dejJl nl ~ng upon the permitted uses approved within t.he CRD. centraliz~A.;;!i~.';" dec.en..,~raliz l~?m..munity water and wastewa.ter utilities shall be constructed, owned, ope~~~d and ,"~intainedl;:b~ a private utility service, the developer, a Corrunumty Development DiStll~,,~.l:1~!l' Immok<1J,ee Water Sewer Service Distnct, Collier County, or other govem~~t.lii;enti~Jl!!i ~.rU1. ov.at.i,Yi~l'~ltemative water and wastewater tr~atme~t syste~s such as decen~fized commuru . '1f:f~~J~~t sy~te~s shal~ ~ot be prohibited by thIS pohcy proVlded..that th. e. y.. ."1.._~m, ,~e.. t.. all.. ".~,""e. .',~,. '., .~.. @'.',' ..I.e ii!~...' attory cntena. IndiVIdual .potable water supply wells and septic sX~~Fms,'I~~~t'o a .; imum of 100 acres of any Town, Village or CRD of 100 acres are permiW~lon an interim ba until services from a centralized/decentralized corrununity system are avallafit~h Indi'lidlt~'f 'able water supply wells and septic systems are permittee i8 IIamle~~~_M::;m~t,:~e ~~itt~dl'lHr' RDs of 100 acres or less in size. Policy 4.17 .....,.. ",l i,'''''' ," I:., ':,; i The _ BCe .:;:fiill 'lt~,!~~ ' ilM, approve SRA designation applications in accordance with the provlsiOl~~tdf P~licy'IL~i2 o~~.7 Capital Improv.emen~ ~Iement of the GMP and Dublic facili~ies ursuan' Polic 1.1 'i 'iff n to the followm: lls law enforcement emer en medical services .e rvice .' rnment buildin S and lib 'esfer Categef) ,\ 'H::lslie faeiliees. Final ;~9~"'~I"~eve ~PrTent orde~~jwill be approved within a SRA designated by the BCC in accordance with the CoI1QJ.iT:ffrf~.lUiInagement System of the GMP and LOC in effect at the time of final local devel()p,mentbrCler approval. I ~g,l.icy 4.18..(fecommended amendment) 'Hil~~I;Wl1l be planned and designed to be fiscally neutral or positive to Collier County at the horizon year based on a cost/benefit fiscal impact analYSIS model acceptable to or as may be adopted by the County, The BCC may grant exceptions to this policy to accommodate affordable- workforce housing, as it deems appropriate. Techniques that may promote fiscal neutrality such as Community Development Districts, and other special districts, shall be encouraged. At a minimum, the analysis shall consider the following public facilities and services: transportation, potable water, wastewater, irrigation water, stormwater management, solid waste, parks, law enforcement, and schools. Development phasing, developer contributions and mitigation, and other public/private partnerships shall address any potential adverse impacts to adopted levels of service standards. 21 I P age It is reee~izealn the event that a SRA develooment iH the RL8.\ . includina any related imoacts to Collier County outside of those directlv aenerated bv the SRAmav l!enerates sumlus revenues to Collier Countv:-EtftEI Collier Countv mav choose to allocate a Doni on of such sumlus revenues to ensure that sufficient resources are available to allow Collier Countv to resnond exoeditiouslv to economic onportunities and to comoete effectivelv,_for hil!h-value research. development and commercialization innovation and alternative and renewable enenrv business oroiects. Policy 4.19 (I'"ecommended amendment) Eight Credits shall be required for each acre of land included in a SRJ,\:I'lwhere such Credits were created from a Stewardshi Sendin Area deemed vested under th I ". Credit ratio. Ten Credits er acre shall be re uired for each acre of land included in 3;: e such Credits were created from anv other Stewardshio Sendimr Area. e]leetJtt.~,8 Qpen ~i~e in excess of the required thirty-five percent as described in Policy 4.10 or for Ij that is desi~~ted for a public benefit use described in Policy 4-A-9- 4.20 do not r uire use its. In"'3fder to promote compact, mixed use development and provide the acilities and services to residents of rural areas, the SRA designation e~tjde . jS, accessory uses and associated uses that provide a mix of service~:o~l~nd ive to' 'e residential population ?f a ~RA, as provided for in Po~icies 4.7~l~~ 4.1\~,and "chment C. Such uses shall be Identified, located and quantified III the SR!A':w.aster pIa . Policy 4.20 (recommended amendim~l~ "{i The acreage of 0 en c x ' . ~v~ '0' .. a public benefit use shall net count toward th.e maximum acr~age t its q;~RJjM~!;in: ICY. 4.7 ~ut shall. not count to~ard the consum tlOn of Stewards CreJ Ii_The puUJtose of this pohcy, pubhc benefit uses mclude: public schools (pre.K.-12) an"'!!g~_bl.iC or pr.i~.at.~i'j;ost secondary in~titutions, including ancillary uses; commumty P?rks exce~fg th~l!'I~1Wum acreage requirements of Attadunent C, municipal golf cou~~t~c:aiR~al p_.~.,;...a.. nd ~(;vemmental facilities enehuliHg esseRtialseF' iees..' defined In th. e LDC.,...'ftbffl:Io.lea!fi~'i9~:')iIiC schools shall be coordinated with th. e Collier County School Boa~ff~jbM~(ton1h~interloca agreement 163.3177 F_S. and in a manner consistent WIth 235.193 I.j'~$: ScliJbl$:~ndlr~~ted ancillary uses shall be encouraged to locate III or proximate to Towns, ~ Villages, a"~}18Ffl1~ts subject to applicable zoning and permitting requirements. I I I. ii ~;'i'I.fr.4.2il~recommend~;d amendment) tafi:d~:'withit\::nW ACS,qd\.at meet all SRA criteria shall also be restricted such that credits used to entitle a SRA t~'tlil}\'eSC must be generated exclusively from SSAs within the ACSC. Further, the only form of SRA allowed in the ACSC east of the Okaloacoochee Slough shall be Hamlets lHlEI CRDs o,f 100 acres or less and the only form of SRA allowed in the ACSC west of the Q~~loacoorrfWe Slough shall be CRDs and Villages am) CRD3 of not more than 300 acres aftd ~~iP-rovided, not more than 1000 acres of SRA develooment in the fonn ofVillai!es or CRDs hB.. e. Elf, that CRDs. ar 1.. a \'illag.es sr eRDs sf Rat R.ar.:: thaH 599 aeFeS eaeh, exclusive of any lakes created prior to the effeetiHl ~ate sf tRis amefl.ameJlt June 30 2002 as a result of mining operations, shall be allowed in areas that have a frontage on State Road 29 and that, 85 af the etTeeti. e ~ate sf tflese ameR~meHts, had been predominantly cleared as a result of Ag Group I or Earth Mining or Processing Uses. This policy is intended to assure that the RLSA Overlay is not used to increase the development potential within the ACSC hut instead is used to promote a more compact fonn of development as an alternative to the Baseline Standards already allowed within the ACSC. No policy of the RLSA Overlay shall take precedence over the Big Cypress ACSC regulations and all regulations therein shall apply. 22lPage 16 f t" A 19 { Formatted: Not Highlight 16' l' A 19 Policv 4.22 (recommended Dew policy) When historic or cultural resources are identified within the RLSA throullh the SRA desillnation orocess the avvlicant in conjunction with the Florida Division of State and Historic Resources will assess the historic or cultural silDlificance and explore the educational and Dubhe awareness opoortunities rel!ardiol! sil!Tlificant resources. Pollcv 4.23 (recommended new oolicv)_ Anv develonment on lands not Darticinatiml in the RLS orol1T8m shall be comestible with sUlTOundinllland uses. Within 1-vear of the effective date of this oolicv LDC reaulations hili m n I r . in in f m h rk k WNW. rk k .or r ram to roteet the oi h ime enviro conserve ner and enhance safetY and security. I Formatted: Font: Bold . , ;'" i Group 5 - Policies that protect water quality and quan'thY.,..and the ',ij~,i~taining of the natural water regime and protect listed animal an~ ~Iant.. spe~";i~nd theirh.bitats on land tbat is Dot volDDtarUy iDclDded iD tbe RDral La~d"~~~~~i~~I.~rogram. Policy 5.1 (recommended amendment),'" --Iii >, To protect water quality and quantity a~,,:,~. .'kinteD'.i9ic:,e of1ttlf _,natural water regime in areas mapped as FSAs and desil!nated RestoratiL ones qn'~he Overj~*Map prior to the time that they are designated as SSAs under the Stewards 'p, ,Credit ProSfam ~ ~ Residential Uses, General Conditional Uses, Earth Mining a~iPiote6sing'U~f~' and,~eFi~ational Uses (layers 1-4) as listed in the Matrix shall be eliminat~'!!ifl-.F.SA-&.-,Eonditi~~~JIPse essential services and governmental essential services, except those rt, ,essa. , ", JllicftMe p~ tted uses or for public safety, shall effiy not be allowed in FSAs. I ,[ ",- - rmi m X m from thi restriction r VI k t minimi the extent of im acts an such areas. _", J ' Where_practicable, directionaJ-drillmg'~W~~~fi~ ~n revlOusly cleared or disturbedareas shall be utlilzed for 011 or gas extraction in F~~,~,lrl o~ ',' )mize impacts to native habItats. Asphaltic and concrete batch maki~~;p'~~hal'j~,prohibi e''in areas mapped as HSAs. The opportunity to voluntarily participat~jn the St~~ds'fJIPifredit Program, as well as the fight to sell conservation easements or a freeqr lesser inte~eSl; in tH~ Ip.nd, shall constitute compensation for the loss of these rights. ~~H~:5.Z ; .. . !1:1id ~tect W~~J;""q,~~lit~iand quantity and maintenance of the natural water regime and to protect J listed aOlmal and, p-H~t1t species and their habitats in areas mapped as FSAs, HSAs, and WRAs on i... ..the overlaYi~.. ap that are within the ACSC, all ACSC regulatory standards shall apply, including [1 Jhose that st~qtly limit non-agncultural clearing. , 1,: P'i;'II;;. ..".,. o ~:'tf~.ll' To protect water quality and quantity and maintenance of the natural water regime and to protect listed animal and plant species and their habitats in areas mapped as FSAs, HSAs, and WRAs on the Overlay Map that are not within the ACSC, if a property owner proposes to utilize such land for a non-agricultural purpose under the Baseline Standards referenced in Policy 1.5 and does not elect to use the Overlay, these Groun 5 Dolicies felle iAg regulatie85 are 8fIJ'3lieahle, shall be incorporated into the LOC, and shall supercede any comparable existing County regulations that would otherwise apply. These regulations shall only apply to non-agricultural use ofland prior to its inclusion in the Overlay system, Policy 5.4 (recommended amendment) 23lPage Collier County will coordinate with appropriate State and Federal agencies concerning the provision of wildlife crossings at locations detennined to be appropriate. A maD of these Dotential crossine: locations will be develoDed within 12 months of the effective date of the Growth Manallement Plan Amendment and shall be incomQrated into \tseti ia e.lt!aatiai: community cultural and historical. and transoortatiQn Dlannim!: for the RLSA indudinll all SRAs described in Groun 4 Policies. Policy 5.5 (recommended amendment) For those lands that are not voluntarily included in the Rural Lands Stewardship program, non- agricultural development, excluding individual single family residenc:c,j' shall be directed away from the listed species and sDecies of 50eciallQeal concern (SSLC~, ,.,. . lC's to e defined in the LDC within I-vear of adoDtiQn of this DoBev) and their habitats b~:' o~~~ing with the following guidelines and standards:, " l":j:, I. A w.ildlife su.rvey shall be requ.i~ed f~r ~ll parcels whe,n Ii~ffl~ sp.ecies-<>t!i~L~'s are ~own tQ mhablt bIOlogical commumtles similar to those eXlstmg'Q: :~.,t. te Qr wh~:I\lsted speCIes Qf SSLC's erereteeted seeeies are.u.til.Wni- . . ' ';m,e site. The survey shall be conducted in accordance with the require ';.! ~~btlk~~~;'i;.~!~lda Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission (FFWCC) 'U.S. "~i~~ arid :'writBl.fe Service (USFWS) guidelines. The County shall notify the CC and tiJ:~f.::WS of the existence of any listed species or SSLC' " may ~~~jscove~~ 2. Wildlife habitat management plan"" iSi~!!I~pecies o?SSLC'S shall be submitted for County approval. A plan ~;.. JI.be !' 'd for alluprojects where the wildlife survey indicated listed species or ;I' ~Sla're u . , 'or the site IS capable of supporting wildlife and can be antici . 'ted tQ b~ Isted species Qr SSLC'S. These plans shall describe how t e pro', !-~~.,... e land uses away from listed species QI , and th~r habitat a Management"' ,5 shaq/n~o?l~' te proper techniques to protect listed species QI ',. and'itM1f habitats from the negative impacts of proposed t current and comoleted data and local state. and federa ide an r ''ris shall be utilized to oreoare the recuired manalZement !!i'~.'." . .. :::::1~~~ :~areas l3et..een ..ilalife habitat areas aad areas daminates I9j " ,~,' . ,'Il. Provisions such as fencing, walls, or other obstructions shall be provided)o minimize development impacts to the wildlife and to facilitate and encourage wildlife to use wildlife corridQrs. Appropriate roadway crossings, I: '':W~RfP'.s'ses and signage shall be used where roads must cross wildlife corridors. M'itll!ation for imnactim! listed snecies or SSLC habitat shall be considered in the manal!ement olans. as aODfooriate. i. The felle ,. iHg FefereRees shall 1ge I:lsea, as llflflF8f1Fiate, tEl flfej9are the reElHirea ffiltflag.eH.eHt fl18R3: I. Se I:Jta Fleriaa Hlilti ~f1esies Rees, ery Plan, USFWg, I <)~~. 2. Habitat Ha8agement CHiseliRes fer the Bah! Eagle iR the SSl:Itaeast RegieR, eSFHlS, 1987. 3. l2eslegj BHa Habitat PfSteetisR l'Ieess sf GElflher TeFteise (CeflRerus f1sljflRtmlis) PElflHlatisRS [SHOO 88 Lamls Slates fer Large Seale De.elepmeRt in Flefi€la, Teehnieal Repert }>la. 1, FJefiaa Came aas Fresh 'Vater Fish Cel'Rffiissia8, 1987. 1. Esele!;;) aHa De.eleflffieHt Relates Habitat ReElHireffiel,ta eftlie Hafisa SSFliI9 la) (:\flelsssma eeeruleseeHs), Teehnieal ReJ'lsft ~re. g, FlaAaa Game aHB freSH V.'ater fish CeffimissisA, 19<;'1. 24lPage 161.1 A 19 25lPage 5. IZeeleg-) BAli Hahitat PreteetisR MeeEls sf the SelltAeastem .-I..meriean Kestrel (Fales Spar erills Pal:lll;l.s) 6Fl Large seale ['e' els}3ffleRt Sites 1ft Flenae, ~1eRgalRe Teehnieal ReJ38Ft }fe. 13, FleFiaa Game BRd Fresh Water fisk CS8.R.i3SisR, 1993. h if.:. The County shall consider any other techniques recommended by the USFWS and FFWCC, subject to the provision of paragraph 3 of this policy. 1L Hi-:, When listed species or SSLC'S aTe utiliziml a direetl) ehsen ea. 8ft site or indicated by evidence, such as denning, foraging, or other indications, a minimum of 40% of native vegetation on site shall be retained, with the exception of clearing for agricultural purposes. The County shall also consider the recommendation of other agencies, subject to the provisions of paragraph 3 of this policy. b.Manalle.ment olans. shall.include orovisions forin\inil1~~\~1l hum~n and wildlife mteractlOns. Low mtenslty land uses (e.ll. ~ Dasslve"I(e~reatlOn areas ~olf courses and ve etation res rvation r uin~ ts includi 'culture shall be used to establish buffer areas between 'fe habitaffareas and areas dominated bv human activities. be l!iven to the most current l!Uidelines and relluliUi,.Q.m..J{ :" et'M duce human wildlife conflict. The mana ement~bla'ns sha1 so re the dissemination of information to local resi busin ses ovemmental services about th~ Dresence of wildlife a ract" such a ro riate waster disDosal methods that enable ,res 0 ,'_ "coexisterll;fe with wildlife while minimizing oDoortunites. f~~ve il1 ction 'h as a roonate waste disoosal oractices. ",; , ',,:,;:,Flij:'!j-; ".-:;' c.The Mro , eme~~i Shall. ttain a monitoriml orolITam for develonments eater tha nacres. l'I!:" B'~~iW~i,g:~i!~~':::5,~~~~::G ::::,:.~:;,~ :=:: ~!S,~:~:=i:~~::B:: :::P:::: :.::-::::J ':h::: eenf~" te the gtiiaelil.es esntaine<l in Teelbt:ieal Repsrt flJe. 8, Fleriaa Came ana F~h Water FiSH Csmmis3isl., 1991. THe retlliirea management }'llan shall al~8 ,rile, ias fer a maintenanee flregram ana 5):leeit':t aft afl):lf8flfiate fife sr 1:,"~hanieal flreteeels t8 maifttaifl the natlifal seme esmml::lRit), The ):lIaR shall affle- eHtliHe a fluelie a"areRess pregram Ie eaueate resiaeflts oosut tHe en site prSSf!F e ana the Reea te maiRtaiR tHe aeRie ,egstatiEln. THese reEll:liremeAts shall se eSRsisteHt' ith the Uf'VS SaHth Fleriea Hulti S):le-aies Rese er)' PlaA, H8) 1 <,'<;'9, 5ubjeet Ie the pre, isiens afplH8gFftflH (3) efHus petie). a.Par tHe aald eagle (I1aliaeetus lel:leseeJ9hall::ls), the reEjHirea haeitat ffiaJ.agement plaRs shall estaBlish pfeteeti, e zefles RfBHfta tlle eagle Rest restrieting eeFtaiH asti, ities. The plafls shall alsB aaar-ess restrieting seFtaiA t) fles sf aeti, ities aHARE; the Rest seaseH. THese reElHiremeftts shall 8e eSHsisteflt "ith the er'NS SSl::lth Flsfiaa Ml:llti SJ3eeies Reee . er PlaR, Ha) 1999, sHi:ljeet t8 the firs, isieHs efflaFagr~h (3) efthis pelie)'. a.fer the fea e8slcaasl'i "eeafleelcer Ipieeiaes l3erealis), the reEJ.Hirea kal:1itat ):lreteetiefl J3laR shall eHtliRe meaSl:lres t8 a, eil'i al'i, erse imJ'laets ta asti, e elHsters aRa la ffiir:t:imize imJ3aets t8 fSfagiflg hal3itat. 'Hasre aa"erse effeets eaR Aet Be a\Elidea, meaSHres shall se tal[en tEl mifliFR:i:;>;e en site aiStl:lmaflee 161r" A19 frfll:t eElm~ensate ar m.itigate fer iffiJ3aets that remai!'\. Tkese re.EJ.l:lifements shall ~e seRsisteRt ",itk tRe L'PV/8 Sel:lth HeAda Hl::Ilti S~esies RaE's, Sf) Plan, Hay 199~, sl:IBjest ts the flre isieR efp8r8gr8J38 J) sf this flelie). f, IFI areas "keft! the FleAsa alaelt eear (U!'5HS amerieaHI:IS fJerisaHl:Is) ma) ee flres8Ht, tke maRagement plaRs shall rel'll::lifl~ tkat gar-l;iage \;le JSJaeel:t iH sear j3feef eeHtaiH8rs, at eRe er mere eeRtralleeatieRs. The maRagemeRt fllaFl shall 81se ideFltif) n.etkEl8S t8 inMrm leeal resiaeFlts sf tke eSAeeFFlS relates ta iRtemstisR set " eeFl slasl. eelHS SAa hl:lmans. MitigatisFI fer imflastiFlg haeitat sl:litaeJe fer elaek essr skall138 seRsil:lerea ill the maRagemeRt plaFl. g.Per flrojeets lesated in Prierit) ,I Elr Prient) II P~ther lIaeitst areas, the maRagement fllaH shall l:Iiseel:lrage the destRlstieH ef l:lRsistl:lread, Rati\e ka13itats that are j3fefeffea B) the FleAda pant",er (Felis seR6eler SSf) i) 8) ~~~~~ ~:=';;'i~:e::b:~<3 :<~e,:;e,~7Ir~~~;'~~~~~~.p;=~ ~~~~;;:~': i" !:I,ii " "'f, '../1 " 'I':", '11'i"i;)l>' 3.The County S~llif~~~~p,t~~t-:~~,~h ap~hcable policies of tlus Overlay, consider and utilize recommendationiiii,apCl<~~rtetl$il~~'li~:chnical assistance from the Florida Fish and Wildlife Consei1;,p~if;o ' . 'on and" reCOmmendations from the US Fish and Wildlife Service in issuj .' (fevelBP'tp ~"s on property LOElntaiAiRg utilized bv listed species or SSLC's.lt is ree: ized that r,se ag~ncy recommendations, on a case by case basis, may efl&age str' then the req~ii"ments contained within these wildlife protection policies and any such II "ii\:'1:7?a '. l;;shall be ~,,'~ed consi~tent w.it~ the Gr~wth Management. Plan. However. no I 'redUCtl~~j,?.r}he'"f hfe orotechon Dohcles of Policv 5.5w11I be consldered as these shall I: constitute n11t6l1iu standards for wildlife orotection. I ~ .. li;;~~b~~i\a~~:~:::':dn~~~~~~t:~:y included in the Rural Lands Stewardship program, ColWiirt'ounty shall direct non-agricultural land uses away from high functioning wetlands by limiting direct impacts within wetlands. A direct impact is hereby defined as the dredging or filling of a wetland or adversely changing the hydroperiod of a wetland, This policy shall be implemented as follows: I. There are two (2) major wetlands systems within the RLSA, Camp Keais, Strand and the Okaloacoochee Slough, These two systems have been mapped and are designated as FSA's. Policy 5.1 prohibits certain uses within the FSA's, thus preserving and protecting the wetlands functions within those wetland systems. 26lPage 161'1 A19 27lPage 161,1 A 19 2. The other significant wetlands within the RLSA are WRA's as described in Policy 3.3.These areas are protected by existing SFWMD wetlands permits for each area. 3. FSAs, HSAs and WRAs, as provided in Policy 5.3, and the ACSC have stringent site clearing and alteration limitations, nonpenneable surface limitations, and requirements addressing surface water flows which protect wetland functions within the wetlands in those areas. Other wetlands within the RLSA are isolated or seasonal wetlands. These wetlands will be protected based upon the wetland functionality assessment described below, and the final permitting requirements of the South Florida Water Management District. a. The County shall apply the vegetation retention, open sp,ace and site preservation requirements specified within this Overlay to preserve 'fin' appropriate amount of native vegetation on site. Wetlands shall be prese~y~iif~ part of this vegetation reqUirement according to the following cnteria: :~ h 1. The acreage requirements specified wit~ this Oveli1!l~" shall be met by preserving wetlands with the highest wetlanj:t:;funclionajH~ii,scores. Wetland functionality assessment scores shaH.:,.". b. .e..th. o.s.o... d..~.' ".,..r'...iib. e.d in pa1figraph b of this policy. The vegetative preservatior1!~~m,ents"i~~osed by Policies 5.3 and 5.5 shall first be met through J?reseAli~~~~rtt)r!~~~U~~:having a functionality assessment score of 0.65 or.~')'lttiiform W~,If1nd Mitigation Assessment Method score of 0.7, or greate~i:',:W'ithin o~~ ye3t!'if~om the effective date of this Amendment, the CountY'~h.all de\j~bp specific' .;ritena III the LDC to be used to determine those, i~stanc&:;,~ ,rWhich we,~:~nds with, a WRAP functionality assessment scorT:~OJ65 or al1futorm \\{~and Mitigation Assessment Method score ~f 0.7, o~l~eater must be pre,~~rYFd' in excess of the preservation reqUired ii. ~e~~~~~i5~dJ~" u::I~:~~lW b~~~~rs that are utilized by listed species...Q[ SSLC's, ot~ving as corridqry~for the movement oflisted species or SSLC's, shall,be pres&~~ on'.jtF'iW1lhiand flowway functions through the project shall iii. ~~_~~~'~~~.tshall demonstrate that ground water table drawdowns or j~,i,yersj~?~ will not adversely change the hydoperiod of preserved wetlands on 'Or'~fslte\ifQetenhon and control elevations shall be set to protect surrounding wetI~~s ar1a::l~e consistent with surrounding land and project control elevations and w.ter tables. In order to meet these requirements, projects shall be designed in accordance with Sections 4.2.2.4.6.11 and 6.12 of SFWMO's Basis ~f"~ie:fiew, January 2001. Upland vegetative communities may be utilized to "meet the vegetative, open space and site preservation requirements of this i. Overlay when the wetland functional assessment score is less than 0.65 b. ~ order to assess the values and functions of wetlands at the time of project review, !~pplicants shall rate functionality of wetlands using the South Flonda Water !Management District's Wetland Rapid Assessment Procedure (WRAP), as described in Technical Publication Reg-OOI, dated September 1997, and updated August 1999, or the Uniform Wetland Mitigation Assessment Method, identified as F.A.C. Chapter 62-345. The applicant shall submit to County staff agency-accepted WRAP scores, or Uniform Wetlands Mitigation Assessment scores. County staff shall review this functionality assessment as part of the County's EIS provisions and shall use the results to direct incompatible land uses away from the highest functioning wetlands according to the requirements found in paragraph 3 above. c. All direct impacts shall be mitigated for pursuant to the requirements of paragraph (1) of this policy. 1611 d. Single family residences shall follow the requirements contained within Policy 6.2.7 of the Conservation and Coastal Management Element. e. The County shall separate preserved wetlands from other land uses with appropriate buffering requirements. The County shall require a minimum 50-foot vegetated upland buffer abutting a natural water body, and for other wetlands a minimum 25- foot vegetated upland buffer abutting the wetland. A structural buffer may be used in conjunction with a vegetative buffer that would reduce the vegetative buffer width by 50%. A structural buffer shall be required abutting wetlands where direct impacts are allows~. Wetland buffers shall conform to the following standards: i. The buffer shall be measured landward from the approved j.~risdictionalline. ii. The buffer zone shall consist of preserved native, vegetation. Where native vegetation does not exist, native vegetation compa~i~lejwjth the existing soils and expected hydrologic conditions shall be planted. i' , I iii. The buffer shall be maintained free of Cat~gory I invasiye exotic plants, as defined by the Florida Exotic Pest Plant Council., I ij iv. The following Ian? ~ses are considere~"t,o, be cOlnp'~'ible with 'W~tland functions and are allowed wlthm the buffer: :"'~;'Ji!II:I:",,, ,!i( (1) Passive recreational areas, b9~fdwaJ~filnd r~lj~tshelters; (2) Pervious nature trails; ,;; "I: ' (3) Water management struct,~~s; (4) Mitigation areas; :i (5) Any other conse~~ation !aYQliterated op~ space activity or use which is comparable ini:~attitC;,with tlit!rQ~egoin~:~'ses. v. A structural bu~ may consist o1l'~:s~~pWwal1, berm, or vegetative hedge with suitable fencing:!I;,iii: ,i'j::' f. Mitigation shaJ~iP'e rdftIQJ1c;id'rbr dire~impacts to wetland in order to result in no net ~:t~::'~~t~~:u~~m~~~: 'ii, i...] i. "Noi~l'~.,... ~l~J!\Ve;"I~ fu. fictions" sha.1I mean that the wetland functional score of the p~8sect,lh1tti " ':~,equals or exceeds the wetland functional score of the '~Hh~WJil'~cte1:l!~fitJands. n rity shall be gIven to mitigation within FSA's and HSA's. /'ii. Ld~~~9~stbW.~e or conveyance volume resulting from direct Impacts to wetlands shall bq,c:omp~ted for by providing an equal amount of storage or conveyance capacity..l1n site and within or abutting the impacted wetland. protectio~hShall be provided for preserved or created wetland or upland vegetative c?ml!1~1 ies offered as mitigation by placing a conservation easement over the j~NiHi perpetuity, providing for initial exotic plant removal (Class [ invaSive exotic plants defined by the Florida Exotic Plan Council) and continuing exotic ':1 '(i plant maintenance, or by appropriate ownership transfer to a state or federal agency along with sufficient funding for perpetual management activities. Exotics removal or maintenance may also be considered acceptable mitiuation. fef the less sf neflBnEfs Sf Iistel't !ifleeies haBitat if these IBnEfs if these laRsR are 81088.8 HR.88r 0 eefflemal 8S8gep atisH l'!a9eR\eRt .. iUl. Bef8eflfal maistenaRee resHifefft!Hts -w y. Prior to issuance of any final development order that authorizes site alteration, the applicant shall demonstrate compliance with paragraphs (f) i, ii, and iii of this policy and SFWMD standards. If agency permits have not provided mitigation consistent with this policy, Collier County will require mitigation exceeding that of the jurisdictional agencies. g. Wetland preservation, buffer areas, and mitigation areas shall be identified or platted as separate tracts. rn the case of a Planned Unit Development (PUD), these areas :! i i', I 'Iq):~;!.; i' iv. 28lpage A 19 1611 shall also be depicted on the PUD Master Plan. These areas shall be maintained free from trash and debris and from Category I invasive exotic plants, as defined by the Florida Exotic Pest Plant Council. Land uses allowed in these areas shall be limited to those listed above (3 .e.iv.) and shall not include any other activities that are detrimental to drainage, flood, control, water conservation, erosion control or fish and wildlife habitat conservation and preservation. 4. All landowners shall be encoura!:!ed to consider narticioatiml in any DfOllTams that orovide incentives fundiOl:! or other assistance in facilitatioll wetland and habitat restoration on nrivate lands i,ncJudiol!. but not limited to. federal [ann bill alITicultural conservation nrmrrams. orivate or oublic llrants. tax incentives easements. and~ or less than fee sale to conservation nrOQIams. Policv 5.7 (I'"ecommended new Policy) An develo ment on lands not artici atin sUIToundin land uses. Wi hin 1- shall be im I m n for t lwww.darkskv.or r: ram nillhttime environment. conserve enerlN. and ~7.,ce s Policv 5.8 (I'"ecommended new Policy), iLi When historic or cultural resources are id ' with the Florida Division of State and Hi sil!Ilificance and exolore the educa ., ':m d resources-,- r Ii h in com atible with I i n he Dark Sk to rotect the u in !::i, ;~~ the RLSj'\. the aoolicant in coni unction urces will assess the historic or cultural are '10 ortunities rellardinll sil!Ilificant 291 Pag e A 19 30lPage 1611 A19 16 f'l A 19 if .'A!_, (\ i I I' -'--1" I I,\/)}-\) (ot....-n ('Ii 1,'0 ,I \ \ 'I'. -~ J ( ,\,1' ~. f" '~ ~ ~ ',\1 \1_, r' 'It OILfU ]', I "_~LD~~~~___. . 311 p, (-~ ~ Ilc~c___""~~ Mo.afC<lk~'310l0Can<:om .:Q;l-FO<>lR.""',...,~ .F".....".,__"'..-.. __Sl.......,,_A'H o,.,n_..... ~""-W""_"'i",_ fi"-, RLSA OVERLAY; MAP I COLLIER RlS:\ fIVE lEAH REVIE\'\ _\ N 11 FX"TlNe ^'ITA<-111\UNT ^".STE""A.IIDSIlIP (ItEl>l'l \\'O.kSHEJ ~~"lNItIOtl........~ ~c........... -. ) r.."J ~-.~~ ~.. ~ -.~-- -........- '........, ~_:-:--11=1 hP=-~=.=-.l ~..~.~~ "':O;;:;'~"'1 =---:~, ~.bUI . --- ....--- =:::.- -'-' ..."..!!'....-. -1....__ l..,.aJ -- :::::=:.::::?~==:::=-==-=.?..::==.:.::-=:.-..._--- 32lPage 1611 A 19 AnACHMlIHT8.LMD UIliEur.YE~l5I 11111, It .I. .11.. po:qmeed ~llrtl~1 .....tllDtl-_..tL-1flC ~ :w..,~ 1_"""'1flI4 I't..~ C;tp CoodkonIllU.... - 1 _1I.U!0l 1\..;:I..cr~!!I~---!!..L......-l~n rh"llt.1l'...!L-- ~~ ~a1 f"h~.....rt .....:'.... =:.. l~ ~.... u_ .~~"__I"_;:"'... "n.<:I~ =":.=-~-~-~~~~..,= ~I .:---=--'" ~"':"'''' -- -....... f" -lJUl'$ ~.-- -- -..... I '-II' _~,.. ~..- ' ,,.. ...,.-...... ~ --~-;-;;:;--';j.,,~ )l"l~ ,........_.....)~_. _,.....<1.1 1__ U_ .....'''1 ...~,_.. o.w.y,I"+"r-o-- -""'- .",....'" _d'A F,- " ---,.... I!lll _1'"' -- I IltI.II PWMt ..-. ---... ~ ........:,~..::.., ~- .~- --~ I'-..c----..-....iPii-.1 .......- -- .- -. ,., [.....4Ol.l ............. ICUJ -L_~:.":_ __--L__J --I _I ~- .- ~ 1:-.... I==::" _WW -- -~ - - _,.f ~-."""--I- __III!l'..... .......... . ~_. --f -- -~..., . 1<.............". '.......... !__1Cl':O E=--~': I=E~ ~ ~:::. -l --...- '-...- .......Fl __011_ ........_"'1 I--~' = I ='-:':-. "'__b I --. -- - i--....., _.__~ 1_- .H__Io-i......oOil -..-........ F:f::':' " I...., ~.... I -" __:lSl ............. ~...... 1=-;.;-;:- -i=:'..::..~..i -_.._.__._~- - _~01' _,..w, ....tl.\' =::.~ ---" =1_-- - ". --f::.~~ ~.-.:- ~I;t =-':--~i. t _... r----.. 33lPage !\I_t... ,......c...IDJlB: T~rlf.._l'" LaIlllBWl.tII)'lf" ,..... s.t~..nI.Laip C~.. "G..,.,IIII ::,::'" ..C...~ 1611 AI9 Attat:hmlMTt C.Steward&hlp ReceivlngArh Cl1ol1'11ctlltitticlt lfll'llllllnd approved) -, ~<"l><.o"""""~ ---_.,,-~ ~~~-;:.j,~>~~==..I~~~~~~1~_,::::::::f;~::~t~~:~;1 ," '"., ~ ,,---I..~,~t--...-.., .-~ ... ~. ~ ~-I--...'~-r-J -~-_.- i,~~~~ L:~=-~.J?=:_-_.:.:.j':.::;;...=' C:===-: j r~-~~~11 :~~:1 ~~~~.~;~;~_~~YF'~~~t--~ ".....-.~-- --- -....-- -- I ----.- I --':::'---1 ___....:=-'_:::~,"'1=.:.:::;,._ .-."""",,_ _-=_+:::=~~ j-:; =,,,,-,::. -j 0.:':::;:;:""=1 ~ ----1- -----1' .0::;::::-:,'''':; 1------ -.::-'...- =-7 __ I --:--::;:---1 -t;.::-:':'" <-.".__ I --""'=--=~ '-"-- ~== --- --(---- -.,.--.....,., --"'--',~ ..--........ .-.- _.~.._.,____..v.~__~_..~__ __. ".h,',,~., _.....'" ,:.==,':;:..':::::::-~':""_7:..;..-:::..~.::"":".~.":'"":':' :::..~~-..~..--_ 34lPage 161'1 A 19 -"'_::'~~=-;t-'. ,~ ...,..,:.~- -I-'-:-:::~:==l -..... --",D'''...."......",~...<a ,.."... .."""....._ ~_.~~':'.."'..--:...:::=...____~:~ .,"-.,~,._...,.... -j ........~"I<.--..- A':.'..:..::::;:::.I:::.~;::....... ~ ~ .... _t..........~".....Ioo_ . ~.---- '~~~~~::l.:- ,. --~:-.....,;~:_, . ............ ....---~-- ... -........--_,~....... "''''-__1''''. --'.--...n..,,,, "'_. -"..,.~.. "" ........a.._.. ,', lifJoc!bo"" .. --... .. "_~_l",........ h_l.... ,..._....... :_~,........... - _... ',.- '--"--'''--- -'''--,-...-. -....,~.,--..' 0.0....._........ I~~z:-...:-"':. _.~:.'~=:..~ '>..~..:=::.':"-=:.~ -,-............ --- (__....___.....4 ;......":.:._.._,<......",..._.~~~_~. ........""'......- -,.,.- .~ .---~~..~ ..-.x--...-.. r.,....-""...'.....,....,....." ...:::~~~:';';;"'~-;_ I''-=_''':;:;';_~,'''''' -'-.:I~-- :"""-'~................-..~, b_ AthIe'''''''"tt: C-Slhw_dlft'p RKlIN"U AI.- Ch.I'llcttt'I..Na. [Allcom_Amond_nq IFra,l-..q '_I...._,"-'._n.... --- -"......,--.....~ ~.;&UN ,-.~_.I''''..,...... I_____"".::.~~ ....._..__ ~.....'S..-.,.--'-...:.~_ -,'",.._' ---- ~,___~~~L-;:;-_~~..-J .~...- ...-..::;-'.,_.. .....io<'o::::.~.._._ ..,.....'~.r__~ ...._ ~I..._..._..~.. ..--..-.-..........--- .--~---._, ,~ ...............- 1'.......,1......_ ---- 1NtL,:.:w~ J~ .,:",~.. J ................_-..-....u;.,.:,...........-.,...........oo.o_~-..._ ...--- '...._'...,.[_._,..""""",.._~~....._......._ _........ll".....~...,...,..~._......... -.o.wy-..--..---.-..-..._""'_r""""'.........' _,......r_,,~....__.,. - ..-,-....---........-- --._-~...-...-._"'...-- --...""'-..."'- - ,- 35 I P age ...~.~'-----".._-,_...__.'"_.__._.,---_._..--..........__.~~,~-,,-<>~ 16' 1 A 19 ;1- ..~v:_:'.~/ L,~'ii;i<';::":,:;'A1erS Fiala Halas Henning Coyle Coletta ~(J-6 I 1 A20 '/ ;~""'rp' lED . ,t:.J_.I" _. 'j t., :' ) 2(109 .'1,.lX ,-,J \,j J uary 26, 2009 MINUTES OF THE MEETING OF THE COLLIER COUNTY WATER AND WASTEWATER AUTHORlfY Naples, Florida, January 26, 2009 LET IT BE REMEMBERED, that the Collier County Water and Wastewater Authority in and for the County of Collier, having conducted business herein, met on this date at 2:00 P,M. in REGULAR SESSION at the Collier County Community Development Services Conference Room #609/610, 2800 N. Horseshoe Drive, Naples, Florida, with the following members present: CHAIRMAN: Jack Markel Dr. Fay Biles Lowell Lam Jerry Morgan Dr. Sherwin Ritter ALSO PRESENT: Jamie French, Executive Director, CCWV.'A Ken Kovensky, Sr. Management/Budget Analyst Steve Williams, Assistant County Atty. 1 ~",;G Corres: Date...!2!:l~ ilem#_llin-b~ I"'" 16 I !~~aryA,~ I. Call to Order Chairman Markel called the meeting to order at 2:00 PM. Roll call was taken and a quorum established. Mr. Ritter was welcomed as a new member of the Authority. II. Approval of Agenda - Meeting of January 26, 2009 Dr. Biles moved to approve the agenda. Second by Mr. Lam Carried unanimously 5-0. III. Approval of Minutes - Meeting of September 22, 2008 Mr. Morgan moved to approve the minutes of the September 11, 2008 meeting. Second by Mr. Lam Carried unanimously 5-0. IV. Items Requiring Action by the Authority A. Annual Elections of Officers Mr. Morgan moved to nominate Dr. Fay Biles as Chairman of the Collier County Water and Wastewater Authority (CCWWA). Second by Mr. Lam Carried unanimously 5-0. Mr. Morgan moved to nominate Lowell Lam as Vice Chairman of the Collier County Water and Wastewater Authority (CCWWA). Second by Dr. Biles. Carried unanimously 5-0. Dr. Biles assumed the Chairmanship B. Ave Maria Utility Company, LLP Limited Proceeding 1. Attachment "A" 2. Attachment "8" 3. Attachment "C 4. Attachment "0" 5. Final Order 2009-01 6. Attachment "E" 7. Attachment "F" 8. Attachment "G" Jamie French Executive Director of the CCW A provided a memorandum "Re: Authority Agenda Item - January 26, 2009, Ave Maria utility Company LLP Limited Proceeding" dated January 22,2009. He noted the Utility Company, by letter dated October 23, 2008, requested approval for the authorization of customer fees in 4 categories: a) Adjust Customer deposit amounts. b) Implement a five percent (5%) late charge for delinquent accounts c) Establish a charge for repair of backflow prevention uC vices. 2 ._...."'._-~._....._----<--,~,,_..'"~-,--,,"..~_._,~."- -,. ".'-""-"'~---;'----.----'"' ---.,-.-..--,..- " 161 '1' A20 January 26, 2009 d) Establish a charge for checks returned for insufficient funds. He noted the following on requests "a through d" a) The increase in deposit will be applicable to new customers. Staff recommends approval of the request. b) Staff requested a study from the Utility verifYing the cost burden for the item, the study was not completed. Staff has no recommendation on the Request. c) Staff recommends approval of the Request. e) The Request is in compliance with State of Florida guidelines. Staff recommends approval of the request. David Gensen, Project Manager for Ave Maria Utility Company addressed the Authority noting the following: . The late charge request is in line with State of Florida guidelines and is similar to that imposed by the Collier County Public Utilities Division . The late fee is intended to be an incentive to customers to pay the bills on time. . The cost to the Utility of collecting late payments exceeds 5%. . The Florida Department of Environmental Protection requires Backflow preventers be re-certified on an annual basis. This is the responsibility of the landowner; however, the Utility currently provides the service at no additional charge. The request is to recover the cost of necessary repairs of the Backflow Preventers. . Of the 200 users, approximately 6-12 users fall delinquent. . The deposit is returned if a customer remains in good standing for 23 consecutive months. This is within the State of Florida guidelines and the Collier County Ordinance allows for the Utility to hold ti,e deposit for a term of 25 months. . The deposit accounts accrue interest at a rate of 3% annually . The Utility could request for the change in the length of the deposit, (shorter or longer term); the Authority cannot reduce or increase the length in today's proceedings. . A customer can request an "early" deposit refund if it can be established the account has been in good standing; the request is reviewed on a case- by-case basis. . The current deposit requirement is $100; the new deposit amount will be $160. Jamie French stated the Final Order (#2009-0 I) has been prepared for consideration by the Authority. The reason Staff has no recommendation on the 5% late fee charges is because there is no clause in the tariff proposed by the Utility which limits the amount of time an account can be continually delinquent before the service is terminated. Steve Williams, Assistant County Attorney noted the concern is the Utility may be charged with "unfairness" due to the lack of this clause. One customer may be 3 16 hI A 20 January 26, 2009 allowed to remain delinquent for more than 60 days, while the Utility may choose to terminate another customer after 60 days delinquent (following a 5 day warning, service will be terminated). He did acknowledge the Utility is within legal rights to structure the tariff in this manner. Jamie French noted the decision today may not be reviewed and/or revised by the Authority at a later date, without a request by the Utility. Mr. Morgan moved to approve the (Utilities Requests) - a) Adjust Customer deposit amounts; b) Implement afive percent (5%) late charge/ar delinquent accounts; c) Establish a charge for repair of backflow prevention devices; d) Establish a charge for checks returnedfor insufflCientfunds. Second by Mr. Ritter. It was clarified the motion is intended to approve Final Order No. 2009-01 as written. Carriedunanimously5-~ C. Orange Tree Utilities Company, Inc. Pass Through Rate Adjustment 1. Attachment "R" 2. Attachment "I" 3. Final Order 2009-02 4. Attachment "J" 5. Attachment "K" Jamie French stated the above item has been withdrawn at the request of the Utility. He noted the Memorandum provided to the Authority d~ted January 22. 2009 - Subject: "Authority Agenda Item - January 26. 2009 Orange Tree Utility Company Limited Proceeding" indicates accounting inconsistencies for purchased power. Stephen Lowitz of Orange Tree Utility noted the following: · A number of inconsistencies existed between the information provided in the Application and the Utilities Annual Report. . The inconsistencies are in the area of electrical power costs/charges. . They appear to be "accounting errors" in the 8 - 10% range . He will work with Staff to address the accounting error. The Authority granted the Request to withdraw the item. 4 "~"..~-~. -_.~_.._-,_.~. _.".._".".~-..__.' "''''''---.' '>-"-.'^.~" _..'''."_.~. """'~">""~"~-"" '-,,~'"'-_._'.'.~ .-.- ->'''.''. 16 , iluarA~ V. Staff Discussion A. Regulatory Assessment Fee Adjustment Jamie French provided an update on the costs associated with running the Authority and his Office noting the Regulatory Assessment fee has been increased 1 %. The change will be effective on March I, 2009. Mr. Morgan requested an update from Staff on the following items: - Orange Tree Utility Line Relocation - no update - Big Cypress - no update - Goodland Isles - The Utility has connected to the Marco Island Municipal System. There is the concept of providing a marina in the location of the Utility (improvements). - North Marco - The City of Marco increased the rates to the Utility and an application to address this may be provided to the Authority in the future. - Mega Sewer and Water Plant - (North Treatment Plant) - no update. B. Ave Marie Audit Ken Kovensky, Sr. ManagementlBudget Analyst noted an audit was performed on the Orange Tree Utility due to some discrepancies in the 2007 Annual Report. Following the audit it was determined the Utility overpaid $800 of2007 Regulatory Assessment Fees. This amount will be credited back to the Utility this month. The item does not require Authority action. C. Travel Reimbursement Ken Kovensky noted the Board of County Commissioners approved a mileage reimbursement for County Board/Committee members, etc. The reimbursement is for trip mileage when access of 20 miles, round trip has occurred. VI. Open to Public None VII. Authority Member Discussion None There being no further business for the good of the County, the meeting was adjourned by the order of the Chair at 3:38 PM. COLLIER COUNTY WATER AND W ASTEW A TER AUTHORITY ~~Q0d.~ Chairman ay Biles 5 ~_>""_'._"'''''''_'''''''_ ~,_"~,_,"'_"'_Y.~_"",,w._,, "'_'_"'_~~."'~"~'''''''''"'__'''_''~_''''''_-''_"'''~_"''"'~_'_'_,._ 161rt A20 January 26, 2009 These Minutes were approved by the Board/Chairman on as presented V , or as amended S/#13/09 6 ,'._-.." ~--~.~-..,..,_._---'"~. ,-,__._,~_,,__ ~,_.~_,.","'"....~_,...o~_. ,,,_'",_',,,,",_._"~'._~.__,..,_,.~_...,~ ,'" Fiala Halas Henning Coyle Coletta 1611 A21 ... Vanderbilt 5each M.S.T.U. v Advisor,tj Committee 2705 Horseshoe Drive South Naples, FL 34104 RFCEIVFD MAR .I 0 2009 ':;(d',' , din,. ';__:{)11-.mbs!llne.-~~ MINUTES I. Call Meeting to Order The meeting was called to order by Dick Lydon at 2:00 P.M. II. Attendance Members: Bud Martin, Dick Lydon, Charles Arthur, Bruce Forman, Bill Gonnering County: Darryl Richard - MSTU Project Manager, Tessie Sillery - MSTU Operations Coordinator, Caroline Soto - Budget Analyst, Michelle Arnold - Director of ATM, Connie Deane Others: Jim Fritchey - CLM, Chris Tilman - Malcome Pirnie, Darlene Lafferty - Mancan, Michael Ward - RWA, Jackie Bammel, Lew Schmidt III. Approval of Agenda Change: VIII. Title should read "Project Update" Add: VIII. 0.1. Meeting with Michelle Arnold IX.A. Public Meeting Preparation - Connie Deane IX. B. Dunes Beach Club Parking Charles Arthur moved to approve the agenda as amended. Second by Bruce Forman. Motion carried unanimously 4-0. IV. Approval of Minutes - December 4,2008 Bruce Forman moved to approve the minutes of December 4, 2008 as submitted. Second by Charles Arthur. Motion carried unanimously 4-0. V. Transportation Services Report A. Budget Report - Caroline Soto distributed and reviewed. (See attached) ~ Operating - Remaining Open P.O. $131,024.27 ~ Ad Valorem Tax $240,110.45 (Outstanding) B. Project Manager Report - Darryl Richard distributed (See attached) . . (VA-24) RWA Survey for FPL Power line Underground Install~rForres. Project - Phase I - Mike Ward reported the following update: D ,te;O -1 -D. i. Survey was ready for FPL review - Submission to FPL on f/~ tJJ.-LI -"--~'-~'--~--~~~"'-"---"--_.~'~"--'~'--"---',-,," ii Antl"p,led 2 week '"m"o",d time fmm~~ ' , 1 A 21 III. Contact with John Leer for Comments - next week Chris Tilman requested that Comments be submitted via email. · (VA-23) Ballpark Estimate & Committee Approval for Payment(s) to FPL for Engineering Deposit(s) - Darryl Richard reviewed timeline: i. FPL Approval of Survey (written) ii. Submission of Payment to FPL iii. Estimated 3-4 months for the Design Process Discussions developed and it was reported that Embarq was underground. Charles Arthur reported the following count for Residence/Business that required conversion from Aerial Utilities to Underground: i. Residence - 27 ii. Business - 1 (The Lighthouse) VI. Landscape Maintenance Report - ClM - Jim Fritchey reported the following: Basic Maintenance was being conducted . Fertilization - scheduled next week Installation of Dwarf Firebush - by next week Discussions ensued concerning Plantings on Gulf Shore Dr. that may be in the County ROWand were installed at homeowner expense. The suggestion was made to advise the Homeowner(s) after a determination was made and prior to the removal of Plantings. VII. Old Business A. Ordinance Modification - None B. Chair Report - Dick Lydon - distributed (See attached) VIII. Project Update A. Utilities - Charles Arthur - Previously discussed V. B. B. Maintenance - Bruce Forman Lew Schmidt reported attention was required for the Plumbago Jim Fritchey responded that the Plumbago was experiencing problems with Chili Thrips and insecticide was being applied. C. Tax Analysis - Bud Martin - Discussed under VIII. D. D. Liaison - Dick Lydon 1. Meeting with Michelle Arnold - Dick Lydon reviewed the following topics that were included in the Chair Report and discussed at the Meeting: a. He perceived the Sunshine Law should not be applicable as monies were not being spent at this time by the MSTU 2 16' 1 A 21 / b. $23,000 a year was being spent for the purpose of doing work to enhance the Tax duplicates of the County c. Local Residents have voiced discontent for the following - )) The yearly dues paid to Landscape Vanderbilt Dr. )) The amount of monies used to install numerous Highways in the County whereas Vanderbilt Dr. Projects were paid by Local Residents. Michelle Arnold noted that the contributions paid toward Staff were to service the Vanderbilt Beach area. Tax Analysis - Bud Martin - distributed and reviewed Taxable Value Totals for Vanderbilt Beach MSTU. (See attached) IX. New Business A. Public Meeting Preparation - Connie Deane distributed Transportation Division Public Information Meeting Checklist. (See attached) The following was discussed and agreed upon: o Public Meeting date - March 9, 2009 o Title - Vanderbilt Beach Public Meeting Update o Provide Landscaping Graphics o Request attendance of an FPL Representative o Notification Letter mailed to Property Owners - Service provided by Mancan o FPL Slide Presentation o Display Flow Chart o Request a flashing light Board - Available to County Departments and Constitutional Offices and clarification was needed to determine: i. If the Vanderbilt MSTU was classified as part of the County ii. Or if the equipment was authorized to be used by A TM Department for the MSTU o Advertizing- i. News Release ii. County Government TV Access iii. VBRA email blast iv. VBRA Newsletter o Time: 7:00 - 9:00 p.m. o Press Release (local Papers) o 20 yard signs on the Finger Streets - Paid by the MSTU Discussions developed concerning an increase in Line Item Other Miscellaneous ($3,500.00.) Bud Martin moved to approve an increase (Line Item 25) Other Miscellaneous to $4,000.00. Second by Charles Arthur. Motion carried unanimously 4-0. It was agreed to provide refreshments and to be funded by Line Item Other Miscellaneous. 3 161' 1 A21 Charles Arthur moved to approve the purchase of refreshments. Second by Bruce Forman. Motion carried unanimously 5-0. o Projector - Provided by the County o 4 Easels - Provided by the County o Public Sign in sheets B. Dunes Beach Club Parking - It was noted that Limited parking was available and Visitor parking was haphazard. It was stated that Police notification was the best approach. X. Public Comment - None XI. There being no further business for the good of the County, the meeting was adjourned at 3:30 P.M. Vanderbilt Beach MSTU Advisory Committee G These minutes approved by the Committee on as presented or amended 3'~~ fc-., The next scheduled meeting February 5, 2009 ST. JOHNS PARISH LIFE CENTER 625111TH Ave. Naples, FL. 4 .".'_,"___."~_.__M,,,_"_~'_m^_ "~____""-'-'~__~_'_ '__.'__'''''''_''''''''_'"""_,~__~,_"__",,,,~..._____=_,,,,,.~~__.......~~~, ,C;ECEIVED FE8 10 2009 Fiala Halas Henning -r Coyle Coletta ~/ ,i B 1 January 12,2009 ",>1,'\1 of County eomm~WS MINUTES OF THE HEARING OF THE COLLIER COUNTY SPECIAL MAGlSTRA TE Naples, Florida, January 12,2009 LET IT BE REMEMBERED that the Collier County Special Magistrate, in and for the County of Collier having conducted business herein, met on this date at 9:00 AM in REGULAR SESSION in Conference Room #610 of the Collier County Community Development and Environmental Services Building, located at 2800 N. Horseshoe Drive, Naples, Florida, and the following persons were present: SPECIAL MAGISTRATE: Honorable Brenda Garretson Sue Chapin, Secretary to the Special Magistrate ALSO PRESENT: Marjorie Student-Stirling, Assistant County Attorney Jennifer Waldron, Code Enforcement Investigative Supervisor Misc. Corres: Date: 0 -0 item#JIo TC \ I " Dies to 16 I IJlrl/:o9 I. CALL TO ORDER The Meeting was called to order by the Honorable Special Magistrate Brenda Garretson at 9:00 AM. All thosc testifying at the proceeding did so under oath. A. Hearing Rules and Regulations were given by Special Magistrate Garretson. Special Magistrate Garretson noted that, prior to conducting the Hearing, the Respondents were given an opportunity to speak with their Investigating Officcr(s) for a Resolution by Stipulation; looking for compliance without being punitive. RECESS: 9:10 AM RECONVENED: 9:30 AM II. APPROVAL OF AGENDA Jennifer Waldron, Code Enforcement Investigative Supervisor, proposed the following changes: (a) Under Item V(B), "Hearings," the following cases were DISMISSED by the County as requested by the DeputylPark Ranger: . Agenda # 2, Case # SO 165410 - BCC vs. William Daniel Verdonk . Agenda # 3, Case # SO 164644 - BCC vs. Kuldipak Rawat . Agenda # 6, Case # PR 041898 - BCC vs. Shawn Stuhen (b) Under Item V(B), "Hearings," the following case was DISMISSED by the County due to payment: . Agenda # 5, Case # PR 040629 - BCC vs. Patricia Foley Sue Chapin, Secretary to the Special Magistrate, stated the following stipulated cases would be heard in order of presentation: · Agenda # 14, Case # CEV 20080012120 - Victor H. & Silvia L. Velasco . Agenda # 12, Case # CEV 20080015476 - BCC vs. David L. Houston · Agenda # 8, Case # PU 4457 - BCC vs. Tarpon Cove Community Assn. Inc. c/o Platinum Property Mgmt., LLC . Agenda # 15, Case # CELU 20080014352 - Andres Bermudez & Balgi Guerra The Special Magistrate approved the Agenda as amended, subject to changes made during the course of the Hearing at the discretion of the Special Magistrate. III. APPROVAL OF MINUTES The Minutes of the Special Magistrate Hearing held on December 5,2008 were reviewed by the Special Magistrate and approved as submitted. 2 16 I \1 B 1 Janu I 2009 IV. MOTIONS A. Request for Abatement of Fines - NONE B. Motion for Continuance 9. Case # CO 02302 CEVFH 20080010155 - BCC vs. Sanibel Taxi The Hearing was requested by the Respondent who was not present. Assistant County Attorney, Ma~jorie Student-Stirling and Collier County Code Enforcement Investigator Michaelle Crowley were present. Violation(s): Code of Law & Ord., Chapter 142, Sec(s). 142-51(A), 142-58(F)(3) Operated a motor vehicle as a vehicle for hire, making a passenger pickup in Collier Co. without first obtaining a PV AC-issued Certificate to Operate Violation Address: Vanderbilt Beach - Meters Ms. Student-Stirling stated Gerald Stern, the Attorney for the Respondent, recently underwent surgery and requested a Continuance in order to fully recuperate. The County did not object to the request. The Special Magistrate GRANTED the Respondent's Motionfor a Continuance. C. Emergency Motion to Amend Order Case #2006080472 - BCC vs. Jean Claude Martel The Hearing was requested by Collier County Code Enforcement Investigator Thomas Keegan and Property Maintenance Specialist Joe Mucha. The Respondent was also present. Violation(s): Ord. 04-58, Sec. 6, Subsecs. 1,4,9,11, 12B, 12C, 121, 12L, 120, 12P, 19A, 190, and 20 Repeat Violation - Minimum Housing violations - Health, Safety and Welfare issue Violation Address: 3152 Karen Drive, Naples, FL 34112 The Respondent stated his residence address is 3190 Karen Drive, Naples, FL 34112. Investigator Keegan stated the County requested the Special Magistrate amend a previous Order which stated the Respondent was to pay a civil penalty of $1 ,000.00 together with fines of$500.00 per day if a mobile home located at 3152 Karen Drive was not repaired or removed by December 16, 2006. To date, the mobile home remains in disrepair. He further stated two individuals are living in the mobile home without water or electrical service, and there is litter and other debris piled around the structure. It is a fire hazard as well as a health, safety and welfare issue. 3 16 I 1 'Bmlry 12,2009 The County's request to amend the previous Order to allow the County to abate by contractor bid-out to demolish and remove the mobile home and accompanying litter. All costs wi II be assessed to the Respondent. The Respondent stated he wanted to repair the property so that he could rent it since it is the only property that he has. He was unable to repair it sooner because he had been incarcerated, and the tenants have nowhere else to go. The Special Magistrate stated the situation has been on-going since October 16, 2006 without any resolution to the problem, and would grant the County's motion unless the Respondent could prove he would fix the property within the next 10 days. The Respondent stated he objected and he would "go bazooka." He submitted a letter to Code Enforcement concerning his situation. The document was reviewed by the Special Magistrate, marked as Respondent's Exhibit "I," and entered into evidence. The Special Magistrate stated the Amended Order would allow the contractors to inspect and assess the property before submitting bids. Assistance could be requested from the Sheriff s Department if necessary. Investigator Keegan also asked that the Order provide for the tenants to immediately vacate the premises. The Respondent stated he wanted "them to stay away from me," and that he had a baseball bat which he "hasn't used yet." The Special Magistrate cautioned him against making threats and suggested he should consult his attorney. He again asserted that he could fix the property. Property Maintenance Specialist Mucha stated the mobile home had been heavily damaged during the last hurricane and would take thousands of dollars to properly repair it which, in his professional opinion, was not worth the investment. Finding the Notice of Hearing had been properly served, the Respondent was found GUILTY of the alleged violation(s) and was ordered to ensure the structure was immediately vacated. The Respondent has been unable to repair the mobile home; therefore, the County is authorized to demolish the structure by contractor bid-out and assess the cost for the abatement to the Respondent. The County may request assistance from the Collier County Sheriff's Department in order to obtain compliance. V. PUBLIC HEARINGS A. Stipulations: 4 1611 ~u112, 2009 14. Case # CEV 20080012120 - Victor H. & Silvia L. Velasco The Hearing was requested by Collier County Code Enforcement Investigator Renald Paul who was present. The Respondents were not present. Violation(s): Collier County Land Development Code Ord. 04-41, as amended, Sec. 2.01.00(A) Vehicles with expired plates in residentially zoned property. Violation Address: 5323 18th Ave. SW, Naples, FL 34116 A Stipulation was entered into by the Respondents on January 9, 2009. The Investigator stated the Respondents agreed to the terms of the Stipulation and agreed to pay the Operational Costs. Finding the Notice of Hearing was properly served, the Respondents were found GUILTY of the alleged violation(s) and ordered to obtain a current registration for the vehicle, and store it in an enclosed structure or remove itfrom the property on or before January 16, 2009, or afine of $50. 00 per day will be imposedfor each day the violation remains thereafter, unless altered by a subsequent Stipulation or Order of the Special Magistrate. If the Respondents have not complied by the deadline, the County is authorized to abate the violation by contractor bid-out antl to assess the costs to the Respondents. Ifnecessary, assistance may be requestedfrom the Collier County Sherijf's Office. The Respondents were ordered to pay the Operational Costs incurred by Code Enforcement during the prosecution of this case in the amount of $117.61 on or before February 12, 2009. The Respondents are to notify the Investigator within 24 hours of a workday to concur the violation(s) had been abated. 12. Case # CEV 20080015476 - BCC vs. David L. Houston The Hearing was requested by Collier County Code Enforcement Investigator Thomas Keegan who was present. The Respondent had been present earlier and entered into a Stipulation but left before the case would be heard. Violation(s): Collier County Land Development Code Ord. 04-41, as amended, Sec.2.01.00(A) Unlicensed / inoperable vehicle parked/stored on village residential zoned property. Violation Address: 2629 Holly Ave., Naples, FL 34112 A Stipulation was entered into by the Respondent on January 12, 2009. The Investigator stated the violation was abated on January 9, 2009 and the Respondent agreed to pay the Operational Costs. 5 16 I 1" Jalt J, 2009 Finding the Notice of Hearing was properly served and finding the violations did exist but were CORRECTED prior to the Hearing, the Respondent was found GUILTY of the alleged violation and was ordered to pay the Operational Costs incurred by Code Enforcement during the prosecution of this case in the amount of$117. 70 on or before February 12, 2009. 8. Case # PU 4457 - BCC vs. Tarpon Cove Communitv Assn" Inc. c/o Platinum Propertv M!!:mt" LLC The Hearing was requested by the Respondent and was represented by Leonard M. Formaro, as Property Manager. Public Utilities Code Enforcement Operations Coordinator George Cascio was also present. Violation(s): Ord. 1997-33, Sec(s). 6.A.6 Unauthorized alteration of back flow prevention assemblies at 710, 720, 730, 740, 750, 760, 770 and 780 Tarpon Cove Dr. respectively, and 954 Carrick Bend - health, safety & welfare Violation Address: 710,720,730,740,750,760,770 and 780 Tarpon Cove Dr. respectively, and 954 Carrick Bend A Stipulation was entered into on behalf of the Respondent by Leonard M Formaro, as Property Manager, on January 12. 2009. A copy of a letter authorizing Mr. Formaro to represent the Tarpon Cove Community Association, signed by the President of the Association on January 7, 2009, was introduced. It was marked as Respondent's Exhibit "I" and entered into evidence. The Investigator stated he met with Mr. Formaro and the plumber involved, and the violation has been abated. Finding the Notice of Hearing was properly served and finding the violations did exist but were CORRECTED prior to the Hearing, the Respondent was found GUILTY of the alleged violation and was ordered to pay a civil penalty in the amount of $250.00, and the Operational Costs incurred by Code Enj(Jrcement during the prosecution of this case in the amount of$50.00, together with an administrative fee of $5. 00, on or before February 12, 2009. Total amount due: $305.00 15. Case # CELU 20080014352 - Andres Bermudez & Bal!!:i Guerra The Hearing was requested by Collier County Code Enforcement Investigator Renald Paul who was present. The Respondent, Andres Bermudez, was also present. Jorge Quinones served as translator. 6 16 I i' B 1 January 12,2009 Violation(s): Collier County Land Development Code Ord. 04-41, as amended, Sec. 2.02.03 Storage of paver bricks in front yard of the residential property Violation Address: 2172 45th St. SW, Naples, FL A Stipulation was entered into by Respondent, Andres Bermudez, on behalf of his wife. Balgi Guerra, and himself on January 12, 2009. The Investigator stated the Respondents agreed to the terms of the Stipulation and agreed to pay the Operational Costs. The Respondent, through the translator, stated he understood and agreed to the Stipulation. The Respondent questioned his options regarding storage and was referred to the Investigator for further explanation. Finding the Notice of Hearing was properly served, the Respondents were found GUILTY of the alleged violation(s) and ordered to cease storage of paver bricks in the front yard and place items in an enclosed structure or remove the paver bricks from the property on or before January 27,2009, or afine of $50. 00 per day will be will be imposedfor each day the violation remains thereafter, unless altered by a subsequent Stipulation or Order of the Special Magistrate. If the Respondents have not complied by the deadline, the County is authorized to abate the violation by contractor bid-out and to assess the costs to the Respondents. Ifnecessary, assistance may be requestedfrom the Collier County Sheriff's Office. The Respondents were ordered to pay the Operational Costs incurred by Code Enforcement during the prosecution of this case in the amount of $117.43 on or before February 12, 2009. The Respondents are to notify the Investigator within 24 hours of a workday to concur the violation(s) had been abated. B. Hearings: 13. Case # CEV 20080011820 - BCC vs. Lionel & Lizette Froloff The Hearing was requested by Collier County Code Enforcement Investigator Renald Paul who was present. The Respondents were also present. Violation(s): Collier County Land Development Code Ord. 04-41, as amended, Sec.2.01.00(A) Vehicles with expired plates in residentially zoned property. Violation Address: 5234 28th Place SW, Naples, FL 34116 The Investigator introduced five photographs which were marked as County's Exhibits "A" through "E" and were admitted into evidence. The Notice of Hearing was posted at the property and the Courthouse on December 18, 2008. 7 16 I 1 Jama 1200~ The Respondents stated they applied for renewal of their registration at the Golden Gate office and were told they had to apply for a new vanity plate. They were given a temporary registration by the DMV until the plate arrived. The plate was delivered to the wrong office and then apparently misplaced by the Golden Gate office. The Respondents stated they were in possession of the new plate and would affix it to the van. Finding the Notice of Hearing was properly served, the Respondents were found GUILTY of the alleged violation(s) and ordered to obtain and affIX a valid license plate to the vehicle by 5:00 PM on January 12, 2009, or a fine of $50.00 per day will be imposed for each day the violation remains thereafter, unless altered by a subsequent Stipulation or Order of the Special Magistrate. The Special Magistrate ruled if the valid license plate was affIXed to the vehicle on or before 5:00 PM on January 12, 2009, the Operational Costs of $117.61 would not be assessed. The Code Enforcement Investigator will verify compliance and notify the Special Magistrate. If there is no compliance, the daily fine will begin accruing on January 13, 2009 and payment of the Operational Costs will be required on or before February 12, 2009. 1. Case # SO 165884 - BCC vs. Gelco Corp The Hearing was requested by the Respondent who was not present. Collier County Sheriffs Office Deputy Fred Klinkmann was present. Violation(s): Code of Law & Ord., Sec. 130-67 Parking in handicapped space. No visible permit. Violation Address: 6650 Collier - Walmart The Deputy stated he observed the violation on November 11,2008. He stated the vehicle was a leased/rental car. Certified mail was sent on December] 6, 2008 and received by the Respondent on December 30, 2008 as verified by the U.S. Postal Service. Fincling the Notice of Hearing was properly served, the Respondent was found GUILTY of the alleged violation(s) and ordered to pay a civil penalty of $250. 00, together with an administrativefee of$5.00, on or before February 12, 2009. The Respondent was ordered to pay the Operational Costs incurred by Code Enforcement during the prosecution of this case in the amount of $50.00 on or before February 12, 2009. Total Amount Due - $305.00 4. Case # SO 165419 - BCC vs. Jeffrev Moats The Hearing was requested by the Respondent who was not present. Collier County Sheriffs Office Deputy Paige Long was present. x 16) 1 BJ1ary 12,2009 Violation(s): Code of Law & Ord., Sec. 130-67 Parking in handicapped space. Violation Address: in front of Florida Motor Sports The Investigator stated the motorcycle was parked on the "hash marks" (striped marks) adjacent to handicapped space. The Special Magistrate confirmed the striped area is part of the entire handicapped space. Finding the Notice of Hearing was properly served, the Respondent was found GUILTY of the alleged violation(s) and ordered to pay a civil penalty of $250.00, together with an administrativefee of $5. 00, on or before February 12, 2009. The Respondent was ordered to pay the Operational Costs incurred by Code Enforcement during the prosecution of this case in the amount of $50.00 on or before February 12, 2009. Total Amount Due - $305.00 7. Case # PR 041231 - BCC vs. Omar Jesus Barreda The Hearing was requested by the Respondent who was not present. Collier County Park Ranger Deputy Barry Gorniak also present. Violation(s): Code of Law & Ord., Sec. 130-66 Failure to display a paid launch fee receipt Violation Address: Bayview Park The Ranger introduced two photographs of the vehicle and trailer, and a copy of the new parking meter which were marked as County's Exhibits "A" through "C," and were entered into evidence. The meter provides instructions for payment and placement of the paid launch receipt. He further stated the Respondent requested the Hearing and Notice was sent to the address provided by the Respondent. Finding the Notice of Hearing was properly served, the Respondent was found GUILTY of the alleged violation(s) and ordered to pay a civil penalty of $30.00, together with an administrative fee of $5.00, on or before February 12, 2009. The Respondent was ordered to pay the Operational Costs incurred by Code Enforcement during the prosecution of this case in the amount of $50.00 on or before February 12, 2009. Total Amount Due - $85.00 RECESS: 10:50 AM RECONVENED: 11:15 AM 9 16 fl B January 121009 V. PUBLIC HEARINGS B. Hearings 11. Case # CEAU 20080013129 - BCC vs. Ernesto & Rosaura Villa, and Juan & Bricevda Rodas The Hearing was requested by Collier County Code Enforcement Investigator Carmelo Gomez who was present. The Respondents were not present. Violation(s): Florida Building Code, 2004 Edition, Chapter I Permits, Section 105.1 Sections of stockade fence in disrepair Violation Address: 307241 st Terrace SW, Naples The Certified Mail was mailed to the owners' address in Lehigh Acres, but was returned to the County as "undeliverable." The address was obtained from the Property Appraiser's office and the tax rolls. The Investigator stated the Notice of Hearing was posted at the property and the Courthouse on December 23,2008. He introduced two photographs of the fence which were marked as County's Exhibits "A" and "B" which were entered into evidence. He stated three panels of the fence were broken and have not been repaired. To date, the owners have not responded to any of the notifications. The Special Magistrate noted the Florida Building Code has been adopted by Collier County and incorporated into the County's Code and Ordinances. Finding the Notice of Hearing was properly served, the Respondent was found GUILTY of the alleged violation(s) and ordered to obtain either a Collier County Building Permit or a Collier County Demolition Permit, all required inspections and a Certificate ofOccupancylCompletion, on or before February 12, 2009, or a fine of $IOO. 00 per day will be imposedfor each day the violation remains thereafter, unless altered by a subsequent Stipulation or Order of the Special Magistrate. If the Respondent has not complied by the deadline, the County is authorized to abate the violation by contractor bid-out and assess the costs to the Respondents. Ifnecessary, assistance may be requestedfrom the Collier County Sheriff's Office. The Respondent was ordered to pay the Operational Costs incurred by Code Enforcement during the prosecution of this case in the amount of $117. 8 7 on or before February 12, 2009. The Respondents are to notify the Investigator within 24 hours of a workday to concur the violation(s) had been abated. C. Emergency Cases: NONE 10 . 16 I; l.nuB lt009 VI. NEW BUSINESS: A. Motion for Imposition of Fines: 1. Case # CESD 20080007891- BCC vs. HSBS Bank USA National Assoc.. Tr. c/o EMC Mortl!ate Corp. The County was represented by Code Enforcement Investigative Supervisor Jennifer Waldron and Investigator Renald Paul. The Respondent was not present. Original Violation(s): Code of Laws & Ord., Chapter 22, Article II, Sec. 22-26(B) & Florida Building Code, 2004 Edition, as adopted by Collier Co., Sec. 104.5.1.4 Permit for built pool expired, Certificate of Completion never obtained Violation address: 31604th St. NW,FL 34120 The Notice of Hearing was posted at the Courthouse and the property on December 19, 2008. U.S. Mail and Certified Mail were sent on December 18,2008. To date, no response has been received. The Supervisor stated the initial Order was issued on September 5, 2008 and the violations have not been abated. The County requested imposition of Operational Costs in the sum of$117.60, together with fines of$7,600.00 for the period from December 6, 2008 through January 12, 2009 (38 days @ $200/day), for a total amount of$7, 717.60. The Special Magistrate GRANTED the County's Request for Imposition of Fines in the total amount of$7, 717.60, and notedfines will continue to accrue. 2. Case # CESD 20080007775 - BCC vs. HSBS Bank USA National Assoc.. Tr c/o EMC Mortl!ate Corp. The County was represented by Code Enforcement Investigative Supervisor Jennifer Waldron and Investigator Renald Paul. The Respondent was not present. Original Violation(s): Code of Laws & Ord., Chapter 22, Article II, Sec. 10.02.06 (B)(1)(A) I 0.02.06(B)( I )(E)(I) & Florida Building Code, 2004 Edition, as adopted by Collier Co., Sec. 104.5.1.4 Tiki hut built on residential property without obtaining Collier County permits Violation address: 31604th St. NW, FL 34120 II 16 J IJanuBl1009 The Notice of Hearing was posted at the Courthouse and the property on December 19, 2008. Certified Mail and regular U.S. Mail were sent on December 18,2008. To date, no response has been received. The Supervisor stated the violations have not been abated and the initial Order was issued on September 5, 2008. The County requested imposition of Operational Costs in the sum of$I17.69, together with fines of $7,600.00 for the period from December 6, 2008 through January 12,2009 (38 days @ $200/day), for a total amount 01'$7,717.69. The Special Magistrate GRANTED the County's Requestfor Imposition of Fines in the total amount of$7,717.69, and notedfines will continue to accrue. 3. Case # CEPM 20080007331 - Dian & June Edwards The County was represented by Code Enforcement Investigative Supervisor Jennifer Waldron and Property Maintenance Specialist Joe Mucha. The Respondents were not present. Original Violation(s): Collier Co. Code of Laws & Ord., Chapter 22, Article VI, Sec(s). 22-231, Sub(s). 1-5, 121, 12K, 12N, 12P, 12R, 19A, 19C, & 20 Vacant rental ~roperty with several Minimum Housing violations Violation address: 465424t PL SW, FL 34116 Regular mail was sent on December 18,2008. Certified Mail was delivered on December 22, 2008. The property and the Courthouse were posted on December 22, 2008. The initial Order was issued on August 15,2008. A second Hearing was held on October 3, 2008. The fines were stayed for a period of 60 days, but were retroactive to October 3, 2008 since the violations were not abated. The County requested imposition of fines in the total amount of$25,250.00 for the period from October 3, 2008 through January 12,2009 (101 days @ $250/day). The Operation Costs of$118.04 were paid. The Special Magistrate noted there may have been an error in the initial Order. On August 15, 2008, compliance was ordered to occur by August 22, 2008. On October 3, 2008, the County asked for fines to be assessed. The Respondents were given an additional opportunity to comply. While the tines were retroactive to the October 3rd Hearing Date, the period trom August 22nd through October 3rd was not addressed. The Special Master veri tied the County wanted the Amended Order to impose fines 12 1611 1112,2009 from the initial date of August 22,2008 through January 12, 2009, and ordered the Defendants to be re-noticed. She noted the County's motion should also be amended. Specialist Mucha stated the property is in foreclosure with HSBS Bank. The Special Magistrate ordered the matter placed on the next docket and notice sent to the Respondents. VII. OLD BUSINESS: A. Request to forward cases for Foreclosure - Collections: NONE VIII. CONSENT AGENDA: NONE IX. REPORTS: NONE X. NEXT HEARING DATE - Friday, February 6, 2009 at 9:00 AM The Hearing will be located at the Collier County Government Center; Administrative Building "F," 3rd Floor, 3301 E. Tamiami Trail, Naples, Florida. There being no further business for the good of the County, the Hearing was adjourned by Order of the Special Magistrate at 11 :48 AM. COLLIER COUNTY SPECIAL MAGISTRATE HEARING Q~(\~ cial Magistrate, renda Garretson - These Minutes wyre approved by the Special Magistrate on _td:>. ~ I JvcJq as presented~, or as amended~. ]] RECEIVED !~AR 2 3 2009 ~~i:~ ~~~ I 1 HenOlng:I:!t-- Coyle V /;1 ~ December 12, 2008 Coletta ~ / "\' ';'\l';' ~':~'~:Y"-':-:':; MINUTES OF THE MEETING OF THE COLLIER COUNTY PUBLIC SAFETY COORDINATING COUNCIL 82 IS Naples, Florida, December 12,2008 LET IT BE REMEMBERED that the Collier County Public Safety Coordinating Council, in and for the County of Collier, having conducted business herein, met on this date at 2:00 PM., in REGULAR SESSION, at the Human Resources Conference Room, Building "B," 3301 East Tamiami Trail, in Naples, Florida, with the following members present: CHAIRMAN: Commissioner Fred Coyle Chief Judge Keith Cary, Chief Circuit Judge (Absent) Judge Cynthia Ellis, Circuit Judge, Designee for Chief Judge Cary (Absent) Rich Montecalvo, Designee for Stephen Russell, State Attorney Mike Orlando, Designee for Kathy Smith, County Public Defender Chief Greg Smith, Sheriff's Office, Designee for Sheriff Don Hunter Charles Rice, Director, County Probation (Absent) Pamela Donelson, State Probation Circuit Administration Christine Holmes, Administrator, Batterers Intervention Program David Schimmel, CEO, David Lawrence Center Chief Scott Salley, Sheriff's Office (non-voting) ALSO PRESENT: James Mudd, County Manager Skip Camp, Director, Facilities Management Mike Sheffield, Assistant to County Manager Amy Patterson, Impact Fee Manager Misc. Cones: Date: iO -D 'lem # LIo 1. LId----- ""-51(' 161 1 B 2 December 12, 2008 I. Introduction A. Call to Order Chairman Fred Coyle called the meeting to order at 2:01 PM. B. Approval of Minutes of September 18,2008 PSCC Meeting Mike Orlando moved to approve the Minutes of September 18, 2008 Meeting as submitted. Second by Christine Holmes. Carried unanimously, 7-0. II. Old Business A. Discussion Regarding Identifying and Tracking Inmates in need of Mental Health Services - David Schimmel and Chief Scott Salley (Copies of both PowerPoint presentations were distributed to the Committee.) David Schimmel stated the purpose of his presentation, entitled" Mental Health and Substance Abuse Diversion, " was to outline a number of initiatives of Mental Health and Substance Abuse Diversion treatment. Presentation Topics: . The Criminalization of Mental Illness . Crisis Intervention Training ("CIT") - Lt. George Welch, Sheriffs Department CIT Program Coordinator, was commended for his work . Juvenile Assessment Center ("JAC") . Adolescent Drug Court . Mental Healtb Court . Competency Restoration Program . Forensic Program . Domestic Violence Services . Community Jail Diversion Programs Christine Holmes stated the Department of Juvenile Justice contracted with a private company to administer an early intervention program to support referral of higher-risk children for comprehensive assessment. David Schimmel stated Judge Monaco's Truancy Court implemented regular drug testing and 70% tested positive for drug use. Ms. Holmes stated an increased number of truants were identified and will be tracked for a year+ to determine if they enter into the Juvenile Justice System. Mr. Schimmel stated diversion programs were the most cost effective use of tax payers' dollars. Discussion ensued concerning the criteria used to determine if an individual has a mental health problem. Mental Health professionals utilize a Diagnostic and Statistical Manual. There are approximately 500 different types of mental health 2 161 '1 B 2 December 12, 2008 problems which encompass mood, personality, behavioral and bio-chemical issues. A comprehensive assessment is essential to diagnosis. David Schimmel stated less than 5% of resources at the David Lawrence Center were diverted to illegal aliens. He stated the greater concern was the ability to provide basic core services to adequately protect the Community's needs. Chairman Coyle asked if it were possible, in order to prioritize resources, to target a specific segment of the population to ensure that the health, safety and welfare of the Community were protected. Mr. Schimmel stated the goal of diversion programs is to place people in the right program for the best possible outcome. Chief Scott Salley presented "Collier County Jails: Impact of Mental Health Issues and Possible Sentence Reform. " Presentation Topics: . Mental Health Services in Collier County's Jails . Recent Trends in Collier County Mental Health Services . Reasons for Increased Service Needs for Mental Health Issues . Mental Health Costs . Impact of State Budget Costs . Safety Issues - increased risk of injury to officers and other inmates due to mental health inmates who can be dangerous residing in jail cells for 8+ months before receiving court-ordered treatment. Chief Sally cited Deputy Sgt. Alexander who received an award from NAMI ("National Alliance for the Mentally Ill"). He stated Sgt. Alexander had been reluctant to attend CIT classes, but has since informed staff he has not been required to physically restrain an inmate since completing the training. Chief Salley stated the Sergeant's change of attitude was a direct result of the effectiveness of the training classes. . Possible Sentence Report in Florida - State Secretary of Corrections, Walter McNeil, suggested increasing the amount of time inmates spend in County jails to reduce crowding in State prisons - Inmates are currently held up to one year in local jails - Suggested stay: from 12 to 18 months - Cost shift by State will result in larger costs for local jails Pamela Donelson inquired about the source of Chief Sally'S research which she stated was in opposition to the position advocated by the Secretary of Corrections. ] 1611 B 2mber 12, 2008 Chief Salley expressed his surprise and stated he would examine the research provided to him and would forward his sources to her. County Manager Mudd stated one source was from Tallahassee and another was from an article provided by the Florida Association of Counties and has been reported throughout the State. Pamela Donelson stated the first action taken by the Secretary after he assumed office was to abolish the policy of "Zero Tolerance" to keep inmates out of jail and his complete platform supports re-entry. Chief Salley stated the re-entry program is highly regarded and supported by the Sheriffs office and continued his presentation. . Collier County Inmates - 12 to 18 month Sentences . Additional Jail Costs - Cost in 2007 - $922,411 - Extended Cost in 2008 - projected to $942,70 I Ms. Donelson stated her deputy met with last month Sheriff Hunter who stated Collier County was not interested in accepting a Technical VOP ("Violation of Probation") Letter used in other Counties to keep those on probation out of jail. When questioned regarding the Technical VOP Letter, Ms. Donelson stated it is used as an alternative to incarceration when there is a technical violation of probation that does not pose a danger to the community, for example, an individual on probation is charged with a parking violation subsequent to the original charge of driving without a license. There was further discussion of the State Secretary of Corrections' platform. It was suggested that participation by all Counties in the Criminal Alien Task Force's ICE Program, which deports repeat offenders, would be one way to reduce the jailed population of illegal aliens. Chairman Coyle stated if the Legislature made such participation mandatory, Florida taxpayers would be saved millions of dollars. Discussion continued concerning how the State identifies illegal alien populations in its jails. Chairman Coyle stated unless a uniform program is implemented on a State-wide basis, benefits will only be short-lived. He further stated Tallahassee doesn't understand the problem of illegal immigration within the State of Florida. B. Projected Impact on the Collier County Jail of the State's Inmate Shift Proposal- Chief Greg Smith (A copy of the position paper authored by Sheriff Don Hunter and his research staff was distributed to the Committee. Attached was a copy of the Criminal Justice 4 16 , ~l' B 2 December 12, 2008 Reform Initiatives supported by Hillsborough County as discussed at a previous meeting.) Cbief Hunter's positions: . The concept of a "non-violent" offender is a false . The relationship between incarceration and crime is complex - there are varying degrees . Research does not indicate that jails, either in Florida or nationwide, are filled with "petty, first-time offenders or low-level drug offenders" . The use of diversion programs is widespread and programs have been expanded . The root causes of problems must be identified and treated to deter recidivism . Enforcement = jail time = lower crime rate Pamela Donelson stated all issues must be identified including mental health issues, treatment, and living issues before an offender is released from j ail to avoid creating a revolving door scenario. C. Jail "Snap-Shot" Report - Chief Scott Salley (A copy of the Jail Data Report was distributed to the Committee.) . The number of documented gang members was reduced . 66 inmates were transported to ICE through the Criminal Alien Task Force D. Approval of Chief Judge Cary's Recommendation to fill the vacancy of "County Court Judge Statutory Member" on tbe PSCC - Chief Judge Cary (Tabled until next meeting) Chairman Coyle stated in September, 2008, the Committee approved submitting the Booking Fee Report, based on Judge Fred Hardt's recommendations, to the Sheriffs office. He inquired about the status of the Report and was informed the policy change had been implemented. Ms. Donelson reiterated the position of the State Secretary of Corrections is to work together with all Counties to reduce costs at local levels. She stated she would obtain more information to present at the next meeting. Chief Salley stated Florida spends more money on crime than on education. '111. New Business A. Brief Discussion on Correctional Facilities Impact Fee Update - Amy Patterson and Skip Camp . The 3-year update of the Correction Facilities Impact Fees is in the process of completion . The effective date ofthe last full study was November, 2005 . Impact Fees provide a funding source for the construction or expansion of growth-related Capital Improvements 5 1611 82 December 12, 2008 Changes to data: . Inventory was increased by 63% - included was the Naples Jail which was completed since the last full study . Cost and interest components were updated . Equipment costs were updated and include the full equipments costs related to the new jail . A land value component was added in anticipation of the requirement to site a new jail (must have land for the structure) and includes the value of the current jail's land . A credit component was included . A population-driven approach was determined to be the most accurate method to assess the demand for correctional facilities (also used by law enforcement and EMS) Fee Schedule: . Modified to include additional land uses to better classifY land uses for new developments . There will be a 50% increase in fees averaged over the entire Fee Schedule . The Study's calculations are preliminary and have not been approved by the Board of County Commissioners . The Study will be presented to the Advisory Boards including the Productivity Committee and the Development Services Advisory Committee to review . The Board will hold an advertised public hearing before making its decision regarding adoption of the Fee Schedule In response to a question regarding yield, Ms. Patterson stated due to the decrease in population and the lack of new construction, the goal is to remain revenue neutral to the fees that were collected in 2007 ($1.3 M). Chairman Coyle stated the primary function of Impact Fees was to charge new residents for their impact upon Collier County's infrastructure through new construction. If new residents are not moving to Collier County, there will be no additional revenue. IV. Comments/Suggestions Chief Scott Salley stated a report on school truancy could be presented to the Committee in the future focusing on the impact of truancy on the crime rates. Christine Holmes stated the schools are actively involved in Truancy Court as well as the Juvenile Assessment Center but information has never been tracked before as it is now. Pamela Donelson stated she would suggest to Secretary McNeil that he attend the next meeting and would coordinate with Mike Sheffield regarding future dates. Chairman Coyle suggested that the Committee consider drafting a letter to the local Legislative Delegation outlining recommendations concerning Collier County's 6 16 I ,1. B 2ember 12,2008 priorities. He asked each member to prepare suggestions for discussion at the next meeting. V. Public Comment (None) There being no further business for the good of the County, the meeting was adjourned by order of the Chair at 3:35 PM. COLLIER COUNTY PUBLIC SAFETY COORDINATING COUNCIL These Minutes approved by the Board/Committee on as presented _~r as amended . -3 /;? /07 7