Loading...
BCC Minutes 05/16/2006 S (EAR) May 16, 2006 TRANSCRIPT OF THE MEETING OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS Naples, Florida, May 16, 2006 LET IT BE REMEMBERED, that the Board of County Commissioners, in and for the County of Collier, and also acting as the Board of Zoning Appeals and as the governing board( s) of such special district as has been created according to law and having conducted business herein, met on this date at 9:00 a.m., in SPECIAL SESSION of the BCC EAR-Based GMP Amendments, in Building "F" of the Government Complex, East Naples, Florida, with the following members present: CHAIRMAN: Frank Halas Jim Coletta Fred W. Coyle Donna Fiala Tom Henning ALSO PRESENT: Randall Cohen, Comprehensive Planning Director David Weeks, Comprehensive Planning Manager Marjorie Student-Stirling, Assistant County Attorney Page 1 May 16, 2006 MR. MUDD: Ladies and gentlemen, if you'd please take your seats. Mr. Chairman, you have a hot mike. CHAIRMAN HALAS: Thank you very much. Good morning, ladies and gentlemen. This is a continuation of the Evaluation Appraisal Report, Growth Management Plan Amendments, basically the EAR-based amendments for 2006 that are a continuation from April 18th. Would you all rise for the Pledge of Allegiance. (The Pledge of Allegiance was recited in unison.) CHAIRMAN HALAS: At this time I'd like to ask anyone that has pagers or cell phones, that they'd be so kind as to turn them off. Thank you very much. RESOLUTION 2006-124: TRANSMITTING THE EVALUATION AND APPRAISAL REPORT (EAR)-BASED AMENDMENTS TO THE GROWTH MANAGEMENT PLAN TO DCA; TO INCLUDE AMENDMENTS W/CHANGES FROM APRIL 18, 2006 AND MAY 16~ 2006 - ADOPTED Okay. At this time I believe we're picking up on -- Randy, did you say we had some issues that we had to clean up prior to moving on to the Conservation and Coastal Management Element? MR. COHEN: Mr. Chairman, we'll get to those when Mr. Weeks shows. And what we'll do first of all is we'll start with the Coastal -- the CCME with Mr. Bill Lorenz presenting, and we'll move forward from that point on in order of the EAR just as directed by the board in the past. CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. Thank you very much. Good morning, Bill. MR. LORENZ: Good morning, Commissioners. For the record, Bill Lorenz, Environmental Services Director. Page 2 May 16, 2006 There are a few things here that I'd like to just kind of cover in general and then also kind of after my general presentation, Gene Calvert here, is to provide you a little bit of an overview on the watershed management plans as well. The CCME, as you probably all recall, went through an extensive set of amendments through the final order requirements. The amendments were adopted in June of 2002. They became effective in July of 2003 as a result of challenges, and we actually didn't adopt Land Development Code amendments until February of 2004. So when the EAR report was prepared in early -- in late 2003, we still did not have a lot of history in developing -- or applying the new CCME amendments. Subsequent to the EAR, we did find that there were a number of places where we felt that we needed to tweak the CCME policies, and they came up in several different areas that basically formed the most -- most of the changes that you're seeing in this set of amendments. First off was, there were some difficulties we've had with applying conservation easements to all projects requiring preserve areas. So we've outlined some -- an amendment that would give us a little bit of flexibility through the Land Development Code amendments to apply conservation easements when they're really needed. And where they aren't we'll make a judgment and have the appropriate conservation mechanism in place, but it won't be so rigorous as a conservation easement. We think this will give some flexibility and cost savings to the applicant, and also staff for review time. Another item that you'll see in the policies is the allowing for stormwater to be in preserves. We're working that through. There are opportunities to have stormwater to go in preserves under certain restrictions, certain times where the -- where the vegetation will be able to handle the stormwater. So we're putting that in this series of amendments, and also Page 3 May 16, 2006 taking you through a Land Development Code amendment to provide the criteria to allow that. So we'll get that -- I think a little bit of better fit than just having a strict prohibition of stormwater and preserves, and the details will come out through the Land Development Code amendment. Another important item that we have in the policies is the ability in the urban area to meet the preservation requirements through what we're calling an off-site alternative, and that off-site alternative is __ typically is, what's been proposed, is either a donation of land or donation of monies to a -- to Conservation Collier, which, of course, is the county's land acquisition program, or the wording in the policy does allow for other governmental agencies that have land acquisition programs for environmental purposes. So we think this probably will give some flexibility for -- especially in the areas where the preserve requirements would require a very small set aside of preserve on a site, let's say -- right now, even if it was 10,000 square feet or a quarter of an acre or less, the plan requires that it be set aside on site, and that -- we -- that doesn't provided for some ecological value, so we want to develop some criteria and standards that would allow for that, what we're calling those off-site alternatives. So that provides flexibility here in the plan. Again, the details will be worked out through Land Development Code regulations. And the other item that's, I think, really important to see is that we've also provided a policy that allows to have some deviations to the standards in the CCME. When we adopted the CCME for the purposes of the final order, we were being very, very specific in the criteria. We were held to a fairly high standard by DCA to ensure that our criteria in the plan were very specific and basically gets you locked into those requirements. We have found, as we've been applying these requirements, that Page 4 May 16, 2006 sometimes it's very difficult to go take a myriad of criteria and apply it to a particular site because you inevitably have some conflicts. So the one policy that will be proposed is we'll allow for some deviations, some ability for staff to apply some flexibility to the requirements. And, again, the details of that will also be worked out in the Land Development Code amendments. Another item is to reduce a lot of the scope of the environmental impact statement, the EIS . You'll see that a lot of the EIS requirements are struck through. We will -- we will, again, provide some Land Development Code amendments that will target the requirement of an EIS to those particular projects where it's really important to have a more comprehensive environmental assessment. Right now the EIS is triggered for certain situations that, quite frankly, could be handled just simply by providing some additional environmental data and not going through the whole process of an EIS. So we want to try to look at that and provide some additional flexibility to match -- when we really do have to require an EIS, that it's truly an area that needs to have that degree of scrutiny. So that's one of the items that you'll see in your amendments. One item also is the -- which is -- I know it -- perhaps you have a speaker or two -- is the section 246, going from -- the current designation is neutral lands. The FLUE required the county to do a study to look at section 24 with regard to Red-Cockaded Woodpecker RCW habitat to determine whether the neutral designation that was previously adopted is appropriate, or does that section have characteristics, like the other sending lands, for RCW s and, therefore, should it go from neutral to sending? In the CCME, there is a policy that addresses the section 24 requirements. So although it's also in the FLUE, you actually -- in the order of the taking of the elements, you'll come to the section, 24, is actually in the CCME. Page 5 May 16, 2006 The --just also to note in your executive summary, the Environmental Advisory Council had several concerns that are listed in the executive summary. One is watershed management plans. And as I noted earlier, after my presentation, Gene Calvert is here to provide you a little bit of a formal presentation on the watershed management plans. Another item that's listed in the executive summary is the -- is preparing information -- preparing standards that will address listed plants. The -- initially we were going to amend the Growth Management Plan to ensure that we have policies that would address the listed plants. Quite frankly, when I went -- after going through it, I was not comfortable with the degree of detail to place it in the Growth Management Plan. So instead of having it amended to very specifically provide for criteria for listed plants, I'm recommending that we defer that effort down the road, do an analysis on exactly how we want to deal with listed plants, and then we can come back and amend the plan if needed. So that's the recommendation that staff and the Planning Commission is recommending to the board. And the other concern that the EAC had, of course, was, a little bit tied with the watershed management plans, but is -- deals with water quality aspects and ensuring that we have -- the plan is properly addressing water quality concerns. And I know that David Weeks, in preparing the executive summary, had summarized some of that for you in the executive summary . There's one other -- one other item, kind of a housekeeping item here. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Where's the county manager when you need him? Here comes the technician. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Riding on his white horse. MR. LORENZ: Just as a -- the two, as I said, housekeeping Page 6 May 16, 2006 items. The first item, Commissioner Henning at the last meeting had noted that, for that particular -- the first policy there that's listed is, we had an incorrect citation on the Florida Administrative Code, so we need to change that citation to the one that's listed above. And the second item was, one of the public had seen that we had failed to eliminate the term animal as an amendment to the one -- the policy that's listed there, and that would -- that would simply limit __ or that was just an incorrect reference. I'm not sure how that got into our documents, but when we found that -- this policy mirrors a policy -- policy 6.1.1 as well. So these two items just need to be cleaned up. And when the board takes a vote on the CCME, I would request that these changes be entered as well as part of the motion. With that, that's kind of all the information I'd had as my introductory comments. And, if the chair willing, Gene Calvert is here to cover the Watershed management plan. CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. Are there any questions before we continue on? COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes. I had one. CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. Commissioner Fiala. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes. You were mentioning the off-site provision in here? MR. LORENZ: Yeah. COMMISSIONER FIALA: And does that help to solve some of the problems that are like in the Gateway Triangle with the small, irregular lots that individually can accommodate preserve and watershed and water treatment and parking and a building as well, and other properties like that? MR. LORENZ: Potentially yes. The details will be worked out in the Land Development Code amendments with regard to, under what circumstances can you go through the off-site alternative. For instance, we will probably be looking at some kind of size threshold. If, for instance, in -- the application of the preserve Page 7 May 16, 2006 requirement specifies that the size -- and I'm just throwing a number out as kind of an example -- would be less than a half an acre, we would then say, okay, that can go -- be mitigated through an off-site alternative. COMMISSIONER FIALA: And, yet, at the same time, we are going to make sure that there's enough land there that they don't build to the very ends of the property so that the water -- the rain can percolate down, right? MR. LORENZ: Well, that's correct. This would not -- this would not affect any other standards such as water management requirements. It would not -- it would not affect any open space requirements, it would not affect any landscape requirements. It would simply affect the area that we would set aside as a preserve area for the purposes of native vegetation retention. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Thank you. CHAIRMAN HALAS: Commissioner Coletta? COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yes. Question, please. The-- what I'd like to know is the negative impact or positive impact as far as the people that live in Golden Gate Estates that want to build in the future or in the agricultural lands surrounding the Estates. How will this change their ability to build their future homes or to expand what they now own? MR. LORENZ: With regard to single-family homes, it won't -- it shouldn't affect single-family homes any more than what we have now. There is a provision in the EIS requirements that under certain circumstances -- and I'd have to look at the language to give you the circumstances -- that sometimes it would trigger an EIS for a single- family residence, and we're trying to remove that as well. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: When you say trying to remove it -- MR. LORENZ: Well, we have removed it. We have removed the requirement in these amendments, and then we'll simply amend Page 8 May 16, 2006 the Land Development Code. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Thank you. CHAIRMAN HALAS: I have one question. When you look at the possibility of using stormwater runoff to basically run into the natural preserves, are you going to have some method of calculating the daily -- the TMDLs, the total daily maximum loads that are going to go into that preserve? MR. LORENZ: Well, the way we're -- the way we're looking at it right now of handling -- of handling that is that we've identified that if stormwater is allowed in a particular preserve area that the stormwater will have to receive some degree of treatment. CHAIRMAN HALAS: Prior to the -- MR. LORENZ: Prior to discharge to the preserve. And we're just, right now, working with the EAC subcommittee in trying to develop some of those criteria. The current thinking is that, for instance, if it's a -- if it's a -- if it's a wetland -- if it's a very high-quality wetland, it's going to require -- we will specify that requires the full volume metric water quality treatment that the South Florida Water Management district requires. If, on the other hand, it's some other type of preserve area, we will -- we specified some minimum treatment standards, but then we would allow the -- we would allow the South Florida Water Management District, through their permitting process, to determine what the appropriate treatment level will be. But that's, again, that's kind of working at -- that's working at the Land Development Code level at the moment, but the policy here specifies that we will adopt standards to ensure that there's no adverse impacts to the preserves. So the litmus test for the proposed Land Development Code amendments will -- to ensure that we do not provide any adverse impacts to the preserves. CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. Is there any other questions? (No response.) Page 9 May 16, 2006 CHAIRMAN HALAS: Ifnot, we'll continue on with Gene. MR. CAL VERT: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Members of the Board. For the record, Eugene Calvert with stormwater management department. I appreciate the opportunity to present you today a little bit of a background of what the stormwater or -- not just stormwater management, but also the county, in fact, is looking for for watershed management planning. I apologize. How do you switch the screen? COMMISSIONER COLETTA: They've eliminated half the problem. MR. CAL VERT: I've got it on a PowerPoint presentation here that's already on the computer. It's on here, but I'm not sure which button to use. There we go. Thank you. I'd like to step you through some slides real quickly and talk a little bit about what watershed planning is all about. To better understand what the planning is -- involves I think you'll better understand what some of the changes in the Growth Management Plan, and particularly the Conservation and Coastal Management, entails. Under goal number two, there are some significant changes to the coastal and -- or the Conservation and Coastal Management Element, and those significant changes do reflect a need to proceed with the watershed management planning. A little bit of background on the planning itself. The Growth Management Plan, or part of the CCME, defines that we should be doing some type of water management planning. In fact, it was referred that we should have completed these things back in 2000, or 1999, I believe -- 2000 . We haven't done that yet. And so what some of the things are that you're going to be seeing in this CCME is to step that timeline up and to proceed with Page 10 May 16, 2006 completing it. It doesn't define how we're going to get there, and that's some of the things I'm going to walk you through real briefly today with. The watershed management plans will provide a blueprint, if you will, or some tools so that we can proceed with development, particularly out in the Estates. That was mentioned, and we'll also look at providing input from the stakeholders, whether it's environmental groups, development rights advocates, et cetera. All those stakeholders will be a part of developing these plans. The Growth Management Plan does define some of the requirements, and that's identified on page 6 under policy 2.1.4 of what should be in these plans. As I mentioned, they don't really define how they should be developed, but they do define some of the things that should be in that plan. Incidentally, I do have a copy of this PowerPoint presentation I'll make available after my presentation to anybody in the public, as well as the board. Watershed management plans will go not only for looking at development in the future, but will also provide us some tools for addressing the NPDES, or the National Pollution Discharge Elimination System, as well as the TMDLs, that was mentioned early. It will provide us some background on how to address those TMDLs. So it's not only to provide that access to the Growth Management Plan, it will also provide us tools to address other issues as well. The task that we're presenting to you today is to complete the Watershed management plans for 10 major watersheds that are developable areas by the year 2010. Now, there are about three watersheds within the county. Three of those watersheds are in areas in the Everglades that aren't going to be developed. So we're look at concentrating our efforts on any of those areas that could be developed in the future, and so we're looking at 10 watersheds. Page 11 May 16, 2006 There are really two main parts to this project. One is to develop a comprehensive hydrologic computer model or a stormwater drainage model, if you will, to address it, that way we can define where some of these flowways are, what the impact might be on some of the development and how the development may impact the drainage. And the second is to actually develop the plans themselves. The comprehensive -- or the water management plan is not just a watershed plan or not just a hydrologic watershed plan, but it's much more. It involves a lot of other things. It involves natural -- many of our natural resources, as well as a balance between human development. The two parts should be developed concurrently. As I said, we had developed a plan as well as a hydrological model. It does rely __ the watershed management plan does rely on information that is used and results are generated from this stormwater study, if you will. It will also take quite a bit of time to develop all of these 10 stormwater studies, and so that's the reason we need to proceed immediately and proceed concurrently. We believe it will take about three years to complete it completely. Phase one of this process is to actually define the project, how are we going to do it, where are we going to it. And we envision using the steering group. We'll define the purpose, define the scope of the water management plans, determine the content of the plans, and try to standard them. As I said, we have 10 different water management drainage areas, so we'd like to have all those 10 plans be consistent. We'll also provide points of contact with county-owned data. There's a lot of data out there that we can plug into this. There's certainly been a lot of the hydrological studies that have been completed by the Big Cypress Basin that will be a part of this tool as well. We've identified already some of the critical habitat. That will be Page 12 May 16, 2006 a part of the process. So bring all this stuff together. The second phase will be the actual development. In the phase I, we really envision using county staff to develop the -- as a steering group to define the definition, including environmental staff, planning staff, stormwater management staff, and specialized consultants for guidance in facilitating. Under phase II of the planned development, we plan on taking all of the initial group -- initial steering group and then add the stakeholders. And I've listed a few of the stakeholders here, and certainly there will probably be others. But we think it's very important that we have these stakeholders as a part of the planning process. Without their input, we're not going to have a plan that will work for Collier County. Let me restate that -- what the purpose of the water management plans are. To provide a blueprint and guidance for setting goals for land use within a watershed. It identifies special areas of concern. Identifies water quality concerns, development density, wildlife habitat, groundwater recharge, and any type of infrastructure shortfalls that may be in that area. So it is a comprehensive land use tool. The watershed computer models -- which this will actually envision two computer models probably being generated -- one, the hydrological computer model as well as a watershed management computer model that will serve as a core repository of data. In other words, as development comes in, how is that development going to affect and impact the overall watershed management of the watershed? How well is it going to impact the wildlife? How well is it going to impact the drainage, et cetera? And it will also then provide results in a geospatial format, something that we can look at. A GIS format, if you will. As I said, it will be used to assess existing conditions that we have out there. It will also test effects that we may have with development. In other words, what happens if we have 50 percent Page 13 May 16, 2006 buildout or 100 percent buildout in that area, particular area; how is that going to impact wildlife? How is it going to impact water quality? And what are the results of the current regulations in 10 years or 25 years? Do we need to change these regulations to make those addresses? What will be those benefits if we do make changes? Developing the watershed models. We need to determine what the scope of the work is, and that's where that initial group __ spearhead group will be. We need to collect the data, we need to develop a model, and then we need to calibrate that model, and then we need to come up with results that we can use in our development process for the counties. This data will be in layers so it will allow flexibility for us to change items, change what-ifs, if you will. It certainly will be compatible with the GIS in the counties. It will also be compatible with similar models that have been used in other subwatersheds, such as what has already been completed with BCB. Here's our time frame that we think we can get this done. As it's stated in the coastal -- or Conservation and Coastal Management Element, we want to try to complete this in year 2010. I believe we can do that by 2010. We need to start this year and start with some of the definitions that we've outlined with that initial group. County staff can start the process. It will certainly cost some money to do some of these computer development models and everything, and that will come in year 2007. Our stormwater department has submitted a budget request for your consideration that will include costs to carry us through 2007 to 2010. F or the remainder of 2006, as I mentioned, our county staff will work in coordination with the BCB to try to define what we're trying to accomplish and layout a step-by-step framework. We'll determine the scopes and deliverables. We'll determine the sequence of events of what we need to get done first, and we'll also Page 14 May 16, 2006 determine the approach for that development. The cost. We estimate the cost will be about $6 million over a three-year period, and this is based on what it has cost Big Cypress Basin to develop a hydrological model for the South Belle Meade. As I said, there's a lot of information that's out there. The South Belle Meade hydrological data, we'll be able to plug that into our watershed management plan without having to run that model again; however, there are other areas that we do need to actually develop a model. So this -- at this point it's a -- we estimate it to be a $6 million project over a three-year period. And in my budget proposal to you is, I've proposed a $2 million per year budget request. Our recommendation from our staff is to adopt the modifications of the CCME as recommended by the Planning Commission and the staff, and then secondly, to support the development of watershed management plans. Be glad to answer any questions you may have. CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. Thank you for your presentation. Commissioner Henning? COMMISSIONER HENNING: The -- correct me if I'm wrong. After the steering group determines what -- the project definition, are you going to come to the Board of Commissioners for approval? MR. CALVERT: Oh, absolutely, because I envision this to be not only -- we're going to have to come for a consultant to actually do some of the work, and so it's going to have to come to the board for approval of a contract. And I would envision that as we progress through this process, we'll be also not only working with the commissioners, but the Planning Commission as well as the EAC. COMMISSIONER HENNING: The phase two of it is getting out to the stakeholders. Being that the taxpayers are paying for this, don't you think that should be the highest priority, to get that information out to them? MR. CALVERT: Well, the envision was the phase two would Page 15 May 16, 2006 really kick in in fiscal year '07 as we get defined what we're looking at from the staff. Now, we'd certainly welcome the Planning Commission, EAC, or any other taxpayers as we go along developing this scope. I think what's important is to realize that it's not just a stormwater project. It's really a Planning Commission. It's a CDES project. It's a county project. Stakeholders and the public, absolutely. They should be involved. Whether they be involved initially or shortly thereafter, that's something we need to -- COMMISSIONER HENNING: I mean, I just feel that you have special interests out there, and really the end payer of this is the taxpayers. Is there any partnership of other government agencies that can be tapped for resources of funds? MR. CALVERT: We haven't explored that yet. I would certainly hope there may be. There may be opportunities not only BCB, but South Florida or through out legislative, both state and federal legislative advocates. COMMISSIONER HENNING: The -- is there other agencies, government agencies, that are tasked to do this? MR. CAL VERT: Are you talking within Collier County or outside of Collier County? I can -- COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, I mean, I haven't found a government -- well, state and federal. I think they do have jurisdiction of this area, if that answers your question. MR. CALVERT: Certainly. The jurisdictional level from state and federals with water quality issues and endangered species does impact this. I know other counties have taken on the task of developing watershed management plans, and it has been a long process. Broward County, Miami-Dade County have completed some for their areas. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. Is there other state and federal agencies, that part of their charge is to develop watershed Page 16 May 16, 2006 plans? MR. CALVERT: I don't believe so. I think all of their charge is in regulatory -- regulating the clean water act or regulating the endangered species act. But actually in developing the plan, I don't believe there are state and federal agencies responsible for that. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. I've seen a public notice from Big Cypress Basin where they're doing a watershed management plan for the community of Immokalee. Is that something different than what we're going to be developing? MR. CALVERT: Well, I think what they developed wasn't a watershed management plan, but it was really a watershed drainage plan or a master drainage plan. They developed that in coordination with our department to define what the impact of some of these drainages would be. And we're going to use that information both as part of this watershed management plan, as well as our capital improvement program. But it addressed strictly drainage. It didn't address other land use, it didn't address wildlife habitat or anything, just strictly drainage, one that the BCB completed. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. I'm sorry, just one more question. CHAIRMAN HALAS: Sure. COMMISSIONER HENNING: I need to understand how that drainage plan affects what we're trying to do. It appears that it's just the opposite, they want to drain it and we want to retain it. MR. CALVERT: Well, the idea, particularly on the BCB, the one that they did on Immokalee, it defined where the problem areas were, it defined what the historic levels might be or what level we want -- we don't want to exceed for some of our drainage. And, in fact, that's exactly what they did is they defined what we want to retain in some of those areas so that we don't overflow our banks and we don't flood the people out, so that we increase the water Page 1 7 May 16, 2006 quality by increasing treatment. And so it was part of that -- their plan. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Maybe I just don't understand the difference yet. MR. CALVERT: Yeah. The watershed management plan really is a little bit -- is more -- is broader than just drainage. It involves water treatment, it involves recharge of groundwater, and it involves anything that happens within a watershed. Unfortunately, they use the term watershed, and people think of water running off. It's really a way to geographically define an area, because these areas are impacted by drainage runoff and flows. But it is more than just drainage. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Thank you. CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. Commissioner Coletta? COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yes, thank you. Good morning. MR. CALVERT: Good morning. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: The stakeholders, I -- and I appreciate Commissioner Henning bringing that up, because that was also a concern of mine, you know. I think sometimes we're a little shortsighted, and when we look at the stakeholders groups, exactly who they should compose of, Commissioner Henning's right when he says taxpayers, but I would go another step past that and say such groups as a civic association and property owners' association, should be in the original declaration that this is what we're looking for so that we -- these people aren't under the category of others as a catchall, because I think they're one of the most driving forces out there. And if we're ever going to accomplish our goals, we need to have these entities behind us. The other thing was is, of course, the concern, whenever we say watershed preservation, is, exactly who does it impact and at what degree? Can you assure me that what we're talking about today is not designed to make Golden Gate Estates or Immokalee or the Page 18 May 16, 2006 agricultural area of Collier County become the floodplain for the rest of the county? MR. CALVERT: I can, because what this watershed management plan will do is it will identify the issues. It will be up to the board whether they want to block it off or put it into 100 percent development. This watershed management plan will need to be adopted by the board. And so it's going to be a decision tool that the board will be undertaking and decide how much preservation they want. What kind of balance are we going to have between natural resources and human development? COMMISSIONER COLETTA: And, of course, that's very important that we do come up with that balance. That's very important. But at all times, is there any way that, in this particular document of what we're talking about today that we're talking about reimbursement to those people that we may cause harm to by taking away use of their land? MR. CALVERT: That's certainly a good -- while I can't address it specifically today, that's certainly an element that should be considered as we develop these plans. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Thank you very much. CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. Commissioner Fiala? COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes. Are you doing this because the watershed affects our future water sources? MR. CALVERT: Oh, absolutely. Not only our water sources, but our water quality and our way of life. I think it's -- that's the reason I'm very much in support of doing a watershed management plan. It addresses not just water, but as I mentioned before, other wildlife, natural resources, and balance with the human development. So the human development is not out of the picture. It's a part of the picture, just like habitat is, wildlife habitat. COMMISSIONER FIALA: One last question. I noticed in our Page 19 May 16, 2006 preparatory work that it mentioned that you were going to have this done actually by the year 2000. And none of us were here then, so I can ask this question. What happened? We should have been preparing long before all this development took place. MR. CAL VERT: Yes. And I don't really know what happened. Why -- whether it was just not funded through the board, whether there was no champion, if you will, to take the lead. I don't know why it wasn't completed by 2000. It doesn't seem like there was a whole lot of steps going towards this direction. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Thank you. CHAIRMAN HALAS: Is this to be federally mandated eventually? MR. CALVERT: I don't believe the watershed management plan is federally mandated. It may become state mandated. Now, there are elements in that plan that we're going to be addressing as far as TMDLs and clean water and endangered species that we can address in that. But the actual development of the watershed management plan will probably not be federally mandated. CHAIRMAN HALAS: But the TMDLs will be federally mandated, correct? MR. CALVERT: That's correct. It's actually coming through the clean water act down through the state. CHAIRMAN HALAS: So it does have a tie-in? MR. CALVERT: It does tie to it. CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. Does this also, the biggest effect, does this have -- in regards to cleaning up the estuary system? MR. CAL VERT: It certainly has a factor into that, and that's one of the items that are listed in the -- what the watershed management plan should be. Those are two items that were included by the Planning Commission, that they need to address those estuaries. CHAIRMAN HALAS: Because we know we've got some problems with our neighbors up to the north who are fighting Page 20 May 16, 2006 discharges from Lake 0, and, of course, that's going to have an effect as far as watershed management for them up there. So I'm just looking at what the effects are down here with the different watersheds that we have here and how that ties into our estuary system and also into red tide. MR. CALVERT: Absolutely. CHAIRMAN HALAS: So does it have an effect? MR. CAL VERT: You know, definitely there's an effect in through there. It is a balancing act. CHAIRMAN HALAS: A cause and effect is what we have then? Okay. MR. CALVERT: Right. CHAIRMAN HALAS: Is that right? MR. CALVERT: I believe so, yes, absolutely. CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. I'm not trying to put words in your mouth. MR. CALVERT: No. CHAIRMAN HALAS: I'm just trying to get a big picture-- MR. CALVERT: To understand it, yeah. CHAIRMAN HALAS: -- exactly of what this watershed management is going to incorporate as far as for present and in the future in regards to resources here or way of life here in Collier County . MR. CALVERT: And the big thing it will do is give you some tools on how you address the development of land in the future. CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. Are there any other questions? (N 0 response.) CHAIRMAN HALAS: Hearing none, do you want us to -- is there any speakers on this? MR. CALVERT: I believe there may be. MS. FILSON: Yes, sir. I have -- this is J, I have 12 speakers. CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. Would the public like to -- would Page 21 May 16, 2006 you like to call the first speaker? MS. FILSON: Yes, sir. Brad Cornell. He'll be followed by Wayne Arnold. MR. CORNELL: Good morning, Commissioners. I'm Brad Cornell, and I'm here on behalf of Collier County Audubon Society and Audubon of Florida. Appreciate the opportunity to speak to you about the Growth Management Plan EAR amendments that relate to watershed management plans. Weare very supportive of the accomplishment and execution of these plans. They're overdue, as Commissioner Fiala pointed out, by six years, and they're absolutely essential to good planning, good stewardship, and a sustainable community, which we believe we all desire here in Collier County. The objectives under 2.1 need to be done as soon as possible. Mr. Calvert gave you a good outline and description of what we're talking about. This needs to be aggressively scheduled and funded with prioritization of those 10 watersheds. And I believe I saw in his presentation that they would be prioritizing those. Rookery Bay Belle Meade watershed is obviously very important. That's one of our most and most sensitive watersheds in this county. North Golden Gate Estates and Naples Bay, obviously, also is very important, has not had the extensive resource description and management done for it, and the Cocohatchee River watershed also is very high on the list. We need to approach those first. Watershed management plans are much more than just stormwater plans. They include wetland protection, habitat considerations and need -- and a needed restoration wherever the study indicates. The preserves and protection areas must be protected beyond state and federal allowances and permit processes concerned, as their permitting, state and federal permit process, don't necessarily consider Page 22 May 16, 2006 what Collier County watershed needs are. They don't look at that. They just look at the projects. And so that's a real problem. So if anybody's going to look at it, we need to do that, and a watershed management plan is the process to look at that very comprehensively. The county can use a variety of tools to direct incompatible uses away from these protection areas, the watershed management plan protection areas, the wetlands and the habitat areas that are in these watersheds. TDRs, you could acquire the lands, use incentives for landowners, or even use regulation or a combination of those carrots on sticks are the ways that we would recommend that you do, and you're already using these kinds of tools in the rural fringe and the rural land stewardship area. And one final thing I want to note is that there needs to be coordination amongst the stormwater management process, planning process, the floodplain management process, which you heard from Robert Wiley last week, and the watershed management planning process. These are all obviously very related. They involve many of the same elements. You need a central coordinating body to do that. Obviously you look at all the policies, but we need to have some way of coordinating those processes. Thank you very much. CHAIRMAN HALAS: Thank you. Next speaker, please. MS. FILSON: Your next speaker is Wayne Arnold. He'll be followed by Shannon Chesser. MR. ARNOLD: Good morning, Commissioners. Wayne Arnold, for the record. I don't have comments specific to your water management basin studies, and I didn't know if I should address the other comments that I have in the Coastal and Conservation Management Element at this time. If I do, just a couple of points that I would highlight that Mr. Lorenz pointed out in his summary presentation, and those both relate Page 23 May 16, 2006 to the use of preservation areas in the county. We like the idea that -- moving toward an idea where you can do off-site mitigation for some of the preservation and to deal with the standards in the Land Development Code. And, secondly, the idea that we can have limited use of our preservation areas for stormwater management. That's been done in the past specifically with the wetland areas with water quality pretreatment. And I think this just furthers the notion that that is an acceptable practice and what -- the standards that are to be adopted in the LDC, we would encourage you to agree with the Planning Commission and pursue that. Thank you. CHAIRMAN HALAS: Next speaker, please. MS. FILSON: The next speaker is Shannon Chesser. She'll be followed by Michael Reagen. CHAIRMAN HALAS: Yeah. Just before you start, I'd like to make sure that everyone that is going to speak, if you're representing an organization and not yourself, you need to register up at minutes and records, which is on the fourth floor. It's $25. And it's a yearly fee. So if you're here as a lobbyist for a particular group, you need to register before you can speak. Y '? es, sIr. UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: Would that include a grass-roots organization? CHAIRMAN HALAS: No. UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: Thank you. CHAIRMAN HALAS: Just a group that's -- if you're a lobbyist for a particular group, then you need to register. Okay. UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: Thank you. CHAIRMAN HALAS: If you're here just on your own, then you don't. But if you're here to represent an organization, you need to register upstairs. Okay. Page 24 May 16, 2006 UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: Thank you. CHAIRMAN HALAS: Thank you. Continue. MS. CHESSER: Good morning. My name is Shannon Chesser, and I'm duly registered and all that good stuff. And I'm here this morning on behalf of the Collier Business Community Political Action Committee. We are a coalition of business leaders from a variety of Collier's major industries, hospitality, agriculture, healthcare, banking, finance, retail, and many others. We're created to advance the free enterprise system and to help you and work with you to identify ways to improve the quality of life for all Collier County residents. And I'm here this morning because we have some concerns about several of the EAR amendments that you'll be reviewing today. And I wanted to let you know that we've formed an action group to further study some of the recommendations, and we're really looking forward to working with you in the coming months to establish good public policy. CHAIRMAN HALAS: Thank you very much. MS. FILSON: The next speaker's Michael Reagen. He'll be followed by Brenda Talbert. MR. REAGEN: Good morning, Mr. Chairman and Commissioners. My name is Mike Reagen, for the record. I'm the president of the Greater Naples Chamber of Commerce. I've been asked to read a statement to you by Jeffrey Fridkin, who's the chair-elect of the chamber, who I'm told is in court this morning and may not be here. And I quote, Dear Commissioners, the executive committee of the Chamber of Commerce met in special session yesterday morning and asked to relay our housing concerns to you. The lack of affordable housing in -- for all employees in Collier County is a severe danger to the present and continued quality of life Page 25 May 16, 2006 for all our citizens. You in the general public know well about the data, much of what's been shared by well-attended forums, numerous meetings of governmental and civic groups, and well highlighted by the Naples Daily News series. The leaders of Collier County's business community agree with the Florida legislature, this is a very complex issue affecting the entire state. While no one knows exactly completely how to solve the workforce housing crisis, the state legislature has crafted a series of programs which we should all consider in the months ahead. We're concerned that there are new impediments, perhaps in many to workforce housing throughout the proposals that you'll be considering today. Reasonable men and women can understandably view the same issues differently and make different conclusions. Debate's healthy and usually leads to very positive solutions. We should not, obviously, limit any public comment nor debate in the days ahead. The chamber believes that we need to work to seek reasonable solutions. The chamber believes that we, as a community, ought not be hindered from considering all possible remedies. The chamber believes no topics, no tools, no geographical areas of Collier County should be excluded nor exempt from being considered as part of the solution in the future. Rather the chamber urges you to keep all options open and on the table for possible future use. The chamber urges you not to take steps today that will limit the community's ability to creatively cooperate to keep our workforce housing crisis from getting worse. Respectfully submitted, Jeffrey Fridkin and on behalf of Mr. Fridkin, end quote. Thank you, Commissioners. MS. FILSON: Next speaker is Brenda Talbert. She'll be followed by Robert Mulhere. Page 26 May 16, 2006 COMMISSIONER HENNING: Mr. Chairman, I think what we have is comments on different elements of our amendments. CHAIRMAN HALAS: Yeah. And I'd like to -- and I think we want to keep focused in regards to the issues that we were discussing. So if you'd like to -- COMMISSIONER HENNING: You know, maybe-- CHAIRMAN HALAS: -- retract until we get to that point in time when we discuss -- MS. TALBERT: I would prefer that. CHAIRMAN HALAS: -- coastal high -- coastal high hazard area and the densities in there, I think that would probably be the realm that we want to be in. Right now we're just discussing watershed management. So if anybody's got any comments on watershed management, we'll take those comh1ents. Is there any other speakers on this watershed management? MS. FILSON: Yes. On watershed management? CHAIRMAN HALAS: Yes. MS. FILSON: Well, the speaker slips aren't real clear. I can call the names. CHAIRMAN HALAS: Anybody raise their hands in regards, that they want to speak on watershed management? Okay. Three. UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: I'm here if you have questions. MS. FILSON: Okay. Nicole Ryan, she'll be followed by Nancy Payton. MS. RYAN: Good morning. For the record, Nicole Ryan, here on behalf of the Conservancy of Southwest Florida. And the conservancy really appreciates the opportunity to comment on watershed management plans and have the opportunity to comment on all of the EAR-based amendments and review them. The EAR is a really good process for looking through the growth plan, seeing what targets have not been met, seeing what needs to be Page 27 May 16, 2006 modified and updated. And the watershed management plans really struck us as the one area where the county needed to get up to speed. Your Planning Commission has recommended that watershed management plans be completed -- implemented by the year 2010, and this is something that we do support. The current GMP states that these plans should have been done by the year 2000. But in doing some further research, the original 1989 CCME actually had watershed management plans due in 1993, so we're even further behind than we had thought. The good news is that we now have the opportunity to correct this. The bad news is, just think how we could have used these watershed management plans as a planning tool if we would have had them in place. So it's really important that Collier County, with the rate of growth that we're experiencing, the rate and pace of development, that we do get these in place in a timely manner. And the presentation that was given this morning, I think, was very, very good. It showed an aggressive timeline. It showed coordination between not just the stormwater and transportation department, but all of the county departments, which is very, very important, because this is more than just a stormwater issue. This takes into account wetlands, areas that should be protected, areas that could potentially be restored, habitat. All of these different components need to be put in there. Stakeholders will be something that will be very, very crucial for this; in addition, having other agencies that could bring expertise, that could bring plans and data that they have already completed and completed to the table so that everything can be compiled. So very, very impressed with what we saw this morning, and we'll be looking forward to being part of that process. In addition, this is something more than just a missed deadline, a missed opportunity. This is something that if Collier County really Page 28 May 16, 2006 wants to take some control over the total maximum daily load requirements that will coming down to us, we need to do that now. We don't want to get into a pattern of expensive retrofits that are mandated by state or federal government. This gives us the opportunity to take a look at what will work for our community, for our counties, and for our watersheds. So we, again, plan to be part of the process. We support the 2010 deadline, and we appreciate all the work that staff and you commissioners have done on this item. And I would just make a brief comment about the stormwater in preserve question, because that was brought up earlier. And just to mention that the water management district uses presumptive criteria when they give permits for stormwater and stormwater management, so it will be very important that Collier County, if stormwater is allowed into preserves, that there's some sort of monitoring plan so that we know that there would be no adverse impact from the stormwater crossing over into preserves. Thank you. CHAIRMAN HALAS: Yeah, wait. I got a question from Commissioner Henning. Commissioner Henning? COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, that was before when I was trying to make a statement, and didn't finish, but -- CHAIRMAN HALAS: Thank you very much. MS. FILSON: The next speaker is Nancy Payton. She'll be followed by Judith Hushon. MS. PAYTON: Good morning. Nancy Payton, representing the Florida Wildlife Federation, and we're here to support the presentation that just was given for a comprehensive approach, and we feel it is comprehensive to local land use planning. Local land use planning is the responsibility of the county. There aren't local -- other regional, state, or federal agencies that are responsible for land use planning, and that's why it's important that the Page 29 May 16, 2006 county take the lead on this and take this responsibility before something Draconian comes down from the state or federal agencies. Weare curious to know how this will mesh with the rural fringe and the rural stewardship plans, as well as the habitat conservation plan that's under discussion and evaluation by your committee. But we do think they could be a good fit and could work well as this process goes forward. Because we support landscape or macro planning, we encourage funding of this project in this upcoming budget cycle, and also to be sure that it's completed in 2010. Thank you very much. CHAIRMAN HALAS: Thank you. MS. FILSON: The next speaker is Judith Hushon. And Mr. Krasowski, did you want to speak on this issue? MS. HUSHON: Okay. I'm on the EAC of Collier County, and I also chair the subgroup that reviewed these amendments before they came to you and brought them through our committee. And we were extremely interested and concerned about water quality. That was really one of our major themes as we were reviewing this. And the concern is twofold. One, that what we have built that is in place and are building even now, that the water quality is ensured in future years. We don't want to be back retrofitting. So we want to be sure that we're doing our jobs properly. And that was why we asked -- there's one request that's built into this which will have a monetary request to do some studying that some of these very elaborate pond surface water management treatment systems are, in fact, working as the modelers tell us they are working. But we have no other way of knowing that they are really working that well. The modeler, we have to take his word for it. And in fact, there's some question on where he got some of his data. So we as an EAC are concerned about that; that's why we've asked to bring that up. In terms of watershed management plans, yes, we really need Page 30 May 16, 2006 these. Because as you -- and we, like you, look at it piecemeal. And we don't even see a lot of projects out, for example, in North Golden Gate Estates because they aren't covered in the same way by the planning. And so we don't even get a chance to look at water issues and things related to those. This is part of the reason this is so critical right now, these watershed management plans, and we can't put them off. They really need to be done soon and quickly. South Florida Water Management District has done a lot of modeling, water modeling. We need to bring this into our county planning and incorporate it, we need to bring it in with the species information that we've been collecting about where the endangered -- threatened and endangered species are, what we need to do to preserve them. This is part of the HCP effort as well as just in general on reviewing each project. We are a little bit concerned that plants were written out. We had really written listed plants and animals -- or animals and plants, it doesn't matter -- because we do have a number of species of plants that are fairly unique down here, and we don't like them just clear-cut. We'd like them to be either relocated or into preserved areas as much as we can. So that was a concern. And the fact that we wrote that language out has me a little concerned. It wasn't -- that happened at Planning Commission level. And we think that this can help us when we come around to TMDLs and other water quality issues that will be coming up as part of what's going to be happening. But any watershed planning that we can do now is for our future. Ifwe don't do it now, we don't have an area to watershed plan for. It will be built out. We just can't wait to start this effort. Thank you. CHAIRMAN HALAS: Thank you. MR. COHEN: Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission, I Page 31 May 16, 2006 just wanted to point out also in your packet at the back of your executive summary at the end of that, you have a memorandum from the EAC that deals particularly with the watershed management issue because they felt so strongly about that issue. Thank you. CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. Thank you. Is there -- that's the last of the public -- MS. FILSON: I believe that's the last one that actually says watershed on it. Most of them just say CCME. CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. We'll close the public hearing at this time on watershed management. Is there any further discussion? What guidance would you like to give us? Okay. Commissioner Fiala? COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes. I had understood that we added back in the listed plants as well as animal species. MR. LORENZ: Commissioner, on page 30 in the CCME policy -- excuse me -- 7.1.6, we state that we will evaluate the need for protection of listed plants, and within one year of the adoption of these amendments, we'll adopt land development regulations. So we put the policy in for us to do an analysis, and then come back with Land Development Code amendments. COMMISSIONER FIALA: You know, I think we ought to study it while we keep listed plant species in there. Better that way than maybe eradicate something that we're sorry for later. I think it would behoove all of us to leave that in there. Would that be acceptable to the other board members? COMMISSIONER HENNING: No. Let's -- I'm going to make a motion to accept the watershed management plan as staffhas presented. CHAIRMAN HALAS: Do I hear a second? COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I'll second that. If I may Page 32 May 16, 2006 comment? CHAIRMAN HALAS: Sure. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I didn't want to put down Commissioner Fiala's suggestion. I'm just very concerned that we need to take this one step at a time because there are certain anti growth elements out there that will do anything they can to stop all growth, and if they have an open run with -- the listing of any particular piece of plant species out there, lizard or whatever, they could find anything in anyone given area to bring a particular proj ect, like a needed road, to a dead stop. And so I mean, not that you're wrong. You're absolutely correct that we've got to approach this with great care and thought before we COMMISSIONER FIALA: And I agree with you, because sometimes people will use any excuse in the world. What I was -- the thing that popped into my head were those rare orchids that they found that they didn't even know still existed. And I'm thinking, you know, there might be other things that we should at least somehow preserve, you know, to -- until the study is completed. And if it -- if it doesn't need to be there, good. Maybe we could make some provisions whereby during the study, any listed plants that are, you know, rare or endangered maybe are, you know, just removed or placed in another area until such time as this study is completed. We have like four years yet, and I'd hate to see them obliterated. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I have no problem, you know, with always looking at what's out there, but I don't want to leave it too open ended. I think what we have here before us is a workable document. And any issues like that that the environmental community brings forward, I'm sure we'll respond on a case-by-case basis to it. I know I will. CHAIRMAN HALAS: Commissioner Coyle? COMMISSIONER COYLE: I'm going to need the attention of Page 33 May 16, 2006 staff to get this question answered. You presented to us a proposed change which eliminated the word animal. So that sentence now needs, any listed species. That includes animal or plant. MR. LORENZ: That's correct. That particular -- COMMISSIONER COYLE: Cite, okay. MR. LORENZ: -- policy does, yes. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Now, how does that particular policy relate to the intent of the rest of this element? MR. LORENZ: Okay. That particular policy -- and I'll get to it -- is 6 .1.2( 4) on page 19. And the net effect of this policy is, this policy sets the priorities for what native vegetative communities or habitats will be preserved as part of the preservation requirement. And what it says is that wetland or upland areas known to be utilized by listed species, that does take care -- that does require -- that does look at listed species as plants and animals as well. What we have not done, however, is we have not gone in very explicitly to identify all the listed plants. We need to have a little bit more criteria to do that. The EIS -- the EIS provisions does provide an identification of the listed plant species, but we don't have any criteria to determine exactly how that's going to work through. And that's why we need to really identify the criteria much more definitively with that one policy. COMMISSIONER COYLE: So bottom line is, the intent of this change does not ignore plant species but it provides for a more detailed report within one year, which will address those plant species? MR. LORENZ: That's correct. COMMISSIONER COYLE: And you've done that primarily because it is a more complex matter and more time-consuming and it's going to take you a little more time to deal with it; is that a fairly correct statement? MR. LORENZ: That's correct. We do not have -- what we don't Page 34 May 16, 2006 have in here is we do not have specific standards that say, if you find this particular plant, you have do this with it. That's where -- that's where we want to evaluate those requirements. We do, however, identify that if you do have listed plant species in an area, that begins to create that priority setting for the whole habitat or vegetative community to be part of our retained vegetation. So to that degree it's in there. But as you try to work through a variety of those kinds of priorities, listed plants in and of themselves will not make 100 percent of the difference, I guess that's what I'm trying to say. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay. Thank you. CHAIRMAN HALAS: Commissioner Coletta? COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yes. Listed, you're talking about those that are endangered, not -- MR. LORENZ: Well, that's one -- Commissioner, that's one of the problems because plants are different -- they have a variety of different listings and a variety of different sources for a variety of different reasons, and so that's why we have to -- that's why we have to identify specifically what plants have what reasons to be listed, and then how we will identify the protection mechanisms in the future. So that's one of the problems with regard to just trying to say we are going to handle listed plants and adopt all the lists. So that's why we want to develop some more criteria to bring back to you. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Let's go back to the list. Who's the keeper of the list? MR. LORENZ: Well, these lists would be -- there's a federal -- and I don't recall the citations at the moment, but there's a federal list and there's some state lists as well. U.S. Department of Agriculture, and then the state Department of Agricultural Services maintains several lists. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: But we don't define list? It's any level of government list that exists out there? Page 35 May 16, 2006 MR. LORENZ: Well, what we were -- what we would-- initially we were proposing would be to utilize those federal and state lists, but then it was pointed out to me that a number of those plants on those lists have listings for a variety of different reasons, not necessarily for protection. And then the next question that comes is, what -- what specific plants are we really truly needing to protect in Collier County and how -- what would be the appropriate mechanisms? Can you -- for instance -- COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Well, what we're authorizing you to do is look at it. MR. LORENZ: Look at it. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: But we're not taking an action at this point in time. Okay. I understand. CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. Commissioner-- MR. LORENZ: Mr. Chair? CHAIRMAN HALAS: Yes. MR. LORENZ: If you may give me a couple of seconds, I would like to address an answer that I provided Commissioner Coletta before. I think I need to explain a little bit more after we go through this. CHAIRMAN HALAS: Sure, please do. MR. LORENZ: Commissioner, you had asked earlier about the effect of these amendments on landowners in North Golden Gate Estates, specifically single-family residents. And I just want to -- and I related to you about the EIS requirements. I do want, however, to give a little bit more -- I need to give you a little bit more complete answer. And on page 28 under policy 62.7(3), we do have a reference with regard to North Golden Gate Estates, and, of course, that would affect single-family residences as to, as the watershed management plans and programs become developed, those plans may identify some Page 36 May 16, 2006 very sensitive areas with regard to watershed management planning that, of course, may encompass, in the North Golden Gate Estates, North Golden Gate Estates' residences. And in the middle of the paragraph there, paragraph 3, it says, the county may issue single-family building permits within or adjacent to such wetlands subject to appropriate mitigation requirements which preserve the functionality of the wetland within the applicable watershed management plan. So this policy amendment envisions that as the watershed management plans move forward, they may address some specific criteria for single-family residents within North Golden Gate Estates, so I just -- COMMISSIONER COLETTA: But at this point in time we're not addressing it, and we're not talking in any shape or form about going in there and taking properties -- MR. LORENZ: Correct. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: -- especially homesteads, to be able to make room for water retention? MR. LORENZ: Correct. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Thank you. CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Last fast comment. CHAIRMAN HALAS: Commissioner Fiala, yes, go ahead. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes. I'm so delighted with this, I'm excited and eager to see it go forward, all of the results that come out of it, and I really appreciate Commissioner Coletta and Commissioner Coyle for clearing that up. I thought you had eliminated the plant species, and I see, no, you did not. It's just addressed in a different way. But that's -- I just want to tell you, thank you. CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. Are there any other discussions? MR. COHEN: Mr. Chairman? CHAIRMAN HALAS: Yes. Page 37 May 16, 2006 MR. CO HEN : My understanding is that there are some other speakers that want to discuss other issues with respect to the CCME, and I know that you closed the public hearing after discussing watershed management plans. I didn't -- I think it was probably the understanding that you were finished with those particular issues. And my understanding is, in talking to Ms. Filson, that there are other speakers that want to address some other issues. MS. FILSON: I do have six additional speakers for CCME -- CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. MS. FILSON: -- that are other subjects other than watershed. CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. Commissioner Henning, you had a -- COMMISSIONER HENNING: The motion is just to accept what was presented for the watershed management plan, not the whole entire chapter of the CCME. CHAIRMAN HALAS: Right. That's what we're still talking about is strictly the watershed management plan, is that what -- COMMISSIONER HENNING: Because I have other things in the -- MS. FILSON: I don't believe that's what the others are registered for. It just says CCME, but you asked everyone to raise their hand, and there was only three. CHAIRMAN HALAS: In regards to watershed management. Is this still dealing with the watershed management plan? I don't believe so. Okay. I think we clarified that. Okay. So we have a motion on the floor and we have a second. Motion by Commissioner Henning and a second by Commissioner Coletta. Is there any further discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN HALAS: If not, I'll call the question. All those in favor, signify by saying aye. Page 38 May 16, 2006 COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye. CHAIRMAN HALAS: Aye. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye. CHAIRMAN HALAS: Opposed, by like sign? (N 0 response.) CHAIRMAN HALAS: Carries. Okay, next element. MR. COHEN: Mr. Chairman, we still are on the CCME, and I believe we have some other speakers with respect to the comments in the presentation that was made by Mr. Lorenz. CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. MS. FILSON: Shall I call the speakers now? CHAIRMAN HALAS: Yes. I thought -- that's why I asked if they would raise their hands, and -- MS. FILSON: Bob Krasowski. CHAIRMAN HALAS: Didn't I make that clear? MS. FILSON: Robert Mulhere. MR. MULHERE: I'll pass. MR. KRASOWSKI: Did you call my name? MS. FILSON: Yes. Rich Yovanovich? MR. KRASOWSKI: Good morning, Commissioners. I'm not so sure this is the right time I'm supposed to speak, but I'm looking to -- CHAIRMAN HALAS: Is this for the -- is this for -- what we're discussing -- MR. KRASOWSKI: CCME. CHAIRMAN HALAS: Yes, but we're discussing watershed management plan. That's -- is that what you're speaking on? MR. KRASOWSKI: No. I want to make comments on the coastal zone management. CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. That's going to be -- that's going Page 39 May 16, 2006 to come up at a later time. MR. KRASOWSKI: Okay. Excuse me. I'll-- CHAIRMAN HALAS: This was only for the watershed management zone. MR. COHEN: No. Mr. Chairman, let me clarify that, for the record. Mr. Lorenz made his original presentation pertaining to the whole CCME, and then Eugene Calvert made the presentation with respect to the watershed management plans. You, as a body, made a motion with respect to the watershed management plans, but not on the entirety of the CCME. So it would be appropriate to take comment on the CCME from the general public at this point in time, then make a formal motion on the entirety of the CCME as well. CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. I thought we were going through one element at a time. MR. COHEN: And the CCME is one element, and then the watershed management plans are a component of the CCME. CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. MS. FILSON: Okay. So shall I call their names again? CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. MS. FILSON: Bob Krasowski. He'll be followed by Robert Mulhere. Are you still going to pass, Bob? MR. MULHERE: Yes. MS. FILSON: Okay. He'll be followed by Rich Yovanovich. You're passing? Okay. Go ahead. MR. KRASOWSKI: Good morning again. Gee, I wish Commissioner Coyle would stick around when I have comments, being that he's the commissioner for my district. But he's -- he always seems to have to take a break when I come up here. It's a matter on record. You see it on the videos. I'm here today to comment on the coastal zone management system, and there's like 13 different elements of it, and the one in Page 40 May 16, 2006 particular that I'm interested in -- and I think this process is just great, let me start off with that. I've been to several other layers of this as this has moved forward to you. But the thing I wanted to mention today was that, you know, the county's charged with making a plan within this -- the overall plan, and it's supposed to protect endangered species and wildlife. And there are levels at the federal level and the state level that address this Issue. But most recently, we've had a -- our beach renourishment program, and the beaches are looking very good, you know, along the place where they've been done. But because the project was started late, previous projects that the contractor was on, he couldn't finish on time. So he got here late, started late. So the whole project had to go into the turtle nesting season, which is really a shame that we here, with all our competent planners and designers and naturalists and environmental groups in Naples, Collier County, can't manage a program that doesn't injure or require an incidental taking, which is, in other words, a collateral damage allotment for beach renourishment while turtles are mating and nesting, okay? And right around Mother's Day, too. This is just terrible. So what the real-- annoying about this, or whatever, is that that modification to that plan that allowed for this activity to continue into the nesting season didn't come before you. It was an extension of what you had approved in the beach renourishment program before. But the point where that started impacting other rules and laws and actually started negatively affecting endangered species, I think, should have been kind of a -- more of a community decision. There were -- there was a presentation or a visit to the city council on the city beaches where they are now, an explanation of what they wanted to do as far as getting an extension. And -- but I don't know to what degree that was advertised. But Page 41 May 16,2006 certainly you're the permit holder, you're the people that receive a challenge. The challenge is period still open. So it's better to do things first and work them through before we find ourselves in a position where in order to interact on the issue, we have to go through a state process in requesting a hearing officer and stuff. So as it pertains to today, I hope you can tighten up these laws and rules so that if anything does deviate from the norm to the extent where it damages endangered species -- and we are doing it in Collier County. Ecotourism, Collier County? No more after this. You know, you have to call it something else. So I'd like you to look at that and try to tighten that up. And thank you very much for your attention to my comments. CHAIRMAN HALAS: Thank you, Bob. MR. KRASOWSKI: Those of you that stayed around and listened. MS. FILSON: The next speaker is Bruce Anderson. Bruce will be -- he's here. He's here, Bob. The next -- he will be followed by Brian Settle. MR. ANDERSON: Good morning, Mr. Chairman, Commissioners. My name is Bruce Anderson from the law firm of Roetzel and Andress, and I want to quickly address several points in the Conservation Coastal Management Element. Policy 111.14, it's been -- it's the old policy 1.1.5, changes the wording to delete the requirement that the county try to avoid the unnecessary duplication of effort with other governmental agencies. And I just wonder why we would want to take that out of the plan. Don't we want to try to reduce expenditures here at the local level that duplicate other agency's work? Secondly, policy 6.1.2 -- CHAIRMAN HALAS: What page is that on, Bruce? MR. ANDERSON: I have that on page 19, and I'm working from the April 6th draft. Page 42 May 16, 2006 COMMISSIONER HENNING: That's correct. CHAIRMAN HALAS: Draft? MR. ANDERSON: The date's up in the corner, 4-6-06, upper right-hand corner. CHAIRMAN HALAS: On page 19. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Eighteen. CHAIRMAN HALAS: Eighteen? COMMISSIONER FIALA: Starts on 18, but-- MR. ANDERSON: Yes, yes. My comments are directed towards page 19. It's paragraphs small g, 1 and 2. I wanted to ask you to move the definition of native vegetation to the Land Development Code rather than put it in the comprehensive plan. And one of my rationales for that is that -- and this is applicable to all -- all the language that you put in the comprehensive plan. The more specific you are, the more you are ceding authority to the state, and you give them a club with which to beat you with later on. And I just wanted to encourage you to keep that in mind. And remember that the comprehensive plan is supposed to be a general document, like a constitution, and you should strive to avoid putting too many specifics in the plan in case you want to change them later. You don't want to have to go on your hands and knees begging the state for permission to do that. I would ask you to move the definition of native vegetation to the Land Development Code, or in the alternative, eliminate the inconsistency between paragraphs one and two. You'll notice that paragraph one says, for the purpose of this policy, native vegetation is defined as a vegetative community having 75 percent or less canopy coverage. It only refers to canopy. Yet in subparagraph two when we talk about native vegetation, we talk about canopy, understory, and ground cover. And in order to be consistent, we ought to either add that to the definition contained in paragraph one so that we're not just talking about canopy, or entirely Page 43 May 16, 2006 move the definition to the Land Development Code and workshop it through with a definition. The 75 percent or less canopy coverage, let me give you an example of how that can be applied, and I'm sure staff will correct me if I've misinterpreted this. But having 75 percent or less canopy coverage, if you have a piece of land that has 70 percent coverage of Melaleuca, and underneath that Melaleuca tree you have 100 percent red pepper hedge, both of which are exotics, that under this definition, that qualifies as native vegetation. And my last comment is directed at policy 6.1.6 which is on page 21. It's a small but subtle change in the wording, the kind that lawyers like to pay attention to. And it narrows the definition that was agreed upon and accepted back in 1999 when the rural moratorium was imposed first about what constitutes existing uses. And there may be existing uses which do not fit within the narrow parameters that are set forth in this policy, but that takes that away, and it limits the definition to only those that fall within these narrow definitions in here. And there may be instances where there are existing uses out there that don't neatly fall within here, and I think we ought to just stick with the definition that everybody understood and agreed upon some seven years ago. Thank you very much for your time. CHAIRMAN HALAS: Thank you. MS. FILSON: The next speaker is -- CHAIRMAN HALAS: Just before we go, does the staffhave anything to bring up in regards to the re -- the changes that Bruce Anderson brought forth? MR. COHEN: Mr. Chairman, I think we should point out on page 19 with respect to paragraphs one and two, where Mr. Anderson talked about the conflict in the language and the definitions, that's the language that's originally been in the plan. That's not added language. Page 44 May 16, 2006 I just wanted to point that out. That's been in the plan for some time. MR. ANDERSON: Everything's on the table. CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. Thank you. Commissioner Henning, you had a question? COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, while we're here, why don't we correct it, if it's sending a mixed message? And I just want to clarify G -- I think it was g. Mr. Anderson was bringing it up. I'm seeing that one statement ends with f, so I'm not sure if it's beginning of 1. -- or 6.1.2, Mr. Anderson, or is it -- goes into -- CHAIRMAN HALAS: Could you -- COMMISSIONER HENNING: Goes into -- where it goes into parens, one, two, three, and four, under four it two goes into -- it goes as far as f, so it may have been removed. MR. LORENZ: Let me -- for the record, Bill Lorenz, environmental services director. Let me -- there's actually -- Bruce Anderson is speaking to the definition of native vegetation. Not only does it appear on page 19 under paren 1 and paren 2, but it also appears in -- on page 15 as paren 1 and paren 2, so it's in those two policies. So if we were to make a change, just -- I'm just setting the stage here that it's going to have to be addressed in both of those policies. For the board's consideration, the vegetation -- the definition of native vegetation, this was brought up in the Planning Commission, and the Planning Commission actually kind of tabled the -- well, maybe I shouldn't use that word, but came back to this particular item to see whether staff and the -- and Bruce could work out with anybody kind of wording changes. And at that particular point we couldn't develop any wording changes. So the Planning Commission dismissed the -- or rejected the proposed changes or changing this policy both paren one and paren two. The one thing we would like to point out is that -- is that the two Page 45 May 16,2006 -- the two -- those two paragraphs, the first paragraph really is defining native vegetation as being -- looking at the canopy coverage that's less -- with the canopy coverage having less than 75 percent exotics. If that's -- if that's what you have, that is -- that whole area will be defined as native vegetation. That's the existing policy in the growth management plan. The paragraph two which address the canopy, mid-story and ground cover, a point of that policy is that when you preserve that community, you must preserve the canopy mid-story and ground cover as well, all the -- not -- nonexotics. So it's two different concepts here in parentheses one and parentheses two. Parentheses one gives us the definition of what area would be considered a native vegetation community for purposes of calculating the preservation requirements. Parentheses two establishes that you must preserve all of the vegetation, but the canopy, the mid-story and the ground cover, that's not exotics. So that's the difference between parentheses one and parentheses two. CHAIRMAN HALAS: Commissioner Coyle? COMMISSIONER COYLE: This does not make sense to me. Maybe the people who wrote it understand its purpose, but it doesn't make sense to me. To me it says that, you know, if you have 75 percent or less Melaleuca or other invasive exotics plant species, then it meets the requirement of native vegetation, and you've got to retain it. I don't understand why you have to retain 75 percent Melaleuca or red pepper or anything else. But it is confusing, and I think the point that's being raised, even though it's not new language, our objective is to get something that makes sense passed here, rather than ignoring past problems or misinterpretations. And I would -- I would like to see some clarification of this, because from the standpoint of a lay person, I don't think it makes any sense at all. Page 46 May 16, 2006 MR. LORENZ: Well, just in -- let me answer the question. The reason why we established that 75 percent is at the canopy level. Let's say you have up to 75 percent Melaleuca. You can remove those Melaleuca trees. You can then have -- the rest of the trees would exist, 24 -- 25 percent of the coverage of the native trees. You remove the Melaleuca, you then -- you then allow for that area to get re-established with native vegetative communities. And we have -- we have anecdotal evidence of that. We have observations that that does occur. So when we established this policy back -- you know, back in 2002, that was the standard that we could apply. And staff is comfortable with that standard. We have discussed the possibility, as Bruce has indicated, of providing some additional -- perhaps additional language here to the definition that would allow us to look at maybe an altered state of the ground cover or the mid canopy, and then that criteria would be in the Land Development Code regulations. But anyway, that's to address your concern. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Well, it very clearly says that native vegetation is defined as a vegetative community having 75 percent or less canopy coverage of Melaleuca or other invasive exotic plant species. Now, that is the definition of native vegetation. MR. LORENZ: Yep. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yet those species are not native vegetation. They are exotics. That is confusing. Is there a better way to phrase this? MR. LORENZ: Well, I think it's a matter of degree. If you have -- for instance, let's just, for sake of argument, to explain the concept, let's say you have native vegetation and you say all native vegetation. If you have one branch of -- one stem -- one tree -- one Melaleuca tree within that whole area, then that would no longer be native vegetation, so -- and I don't think that we want to go that far. The threshold then is to say, how much exotics can you have Page 47 May 16, 2006 embedded within that vegetative community such that when you remove those exotics you can have that vegetative community function as a natural community? It's been our observation that you can go up to 75 percent in the canopy, remove that, and still have a viable functioning native vegetative community as your preserve area. COMMISSIONER COYLE: So you couldn't say that a nature vegetative preserve area is any preserve area that consists of at least 25 percent of nonexotic plants? MR. LORENZ: That would be the other way of saying it. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Wouldn't that make more sense? MR. LORENZ: It would do the same thing but it would -- but that's right. You're saying it on the one side -- part of the glass is half full or -- COMMISSIONER COYLE: Well, it's just not clear here which one you want eliminated. You're not saying in this paragraph. MR. LORENZ: Well, we can certainly reword it that way to state the positive side of it, if you will, as opposed to the negative side in the definition. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Make it easier for me. MR. LORENZ: We can do that. CHAIRMAN HALAS: Clearer for the average man that's going to read this, or woman. I think you need to rewrite that. MR. LORENZ: Okay. MS. FILSON: And Mr. Chairman, I still have two additional speakers for CCME. CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. Cong or -- Congressman, yeah. You just got promoted. Commissioner Coletta? COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Well, thank you. After that I have nothing more to say. CHAIRMAN HALAS: Commissioner Henning? COMMISSIONER HENNING: I'll wait till the -- we're in the speakers. Page 48 May 16, 2006 CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. MR. ANDERSON: Mr. Chairman, could I have ask a clarifying question on your last direction? CHAIRMAN HALAS: Yes. MR. ANDERSON: Your last direction, is that 25 percent intended to apply just to canopy, or is it also intended to address the situation where you have 74 percent coverage of Melaleuca and 100 percent understory coverage of pepper hedge, so that the 25 percent is applied canopy, understory as well? CHAIRMAN HALAS: I think what we're trying to say here is that -- what we're trying to do is eliminate as much of the exotics as possible. And so we're trying to come up with a good clarification on that. Commissioner Coyle, would you like to chime in on this? COMMISSIONER COYLE: Well, I just think that the 25 percent should apply to both. If the combination of canopy and undergrowth or undercover is 25 percent or more, that is a healthy functioning native vegetation preserve. That's what I would like to see. MR. ANDERSON: I agree. Canopy understory and ground cover, those are the three items that they mention. Otherwise, what we're really talking about is not preserving native vegetation. We're talking about restoration. Thank you. MR. LORENZ: If I will, one of the things we're getting into -- and this was a little bit of the debate from when we had it at the Planning Commission, is there may well be -- as we change these numbers here up on the fly, all of a sudden we start to get into some unintended consequences. F or instance, if you're looking at an area that, perhaps, has an awful lot of mid cover or ground cover, like grasses but yet you've got a lot of -- a lot of trees that fit the definition, with this -- with that -- going to that kind of definition, now all of a sudden you have a site that you say is zero vegetation, you're not going to preserve any of it. Page 49 May 16, 2006 And that's where we start running into some problems in creating some of these more technical criteria here up at the podium for the policies. At the very least, what I would request is that if we wanted to take a further look at this, then we could identify, for instance -- within the definition we can make the change that you all have directed us to make in terms of rewording the definitional change, and then we can look at some wording to say that the Land Development Code would identify criteria to look at altered mid story and ground cover conditions, come back to with you a Land Development Code amendment to work out those kinds of details. But I would be -- I would reserve that later, because we could run into some problems as we make some changes right here, and not fully aware of all of the potential consequences. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Mr. Chairman, if I could, just to follow on. It was not my intent to try to draft language right now. I was merely trying to provide some guidance to staff with respect to what they might be able to do with the change that is well thought and you can bring it back to us for review. It's just that I think it is important that we try to clarify any of this language that is cumbersome. So I would agree with you. I don't want you to draft something on the fly or change this on the fly. Let's just, you know, take it into consideration, come back to us with a recommendation, and that's really where I'd like to go with this. CHAIRMAN HALAS: And really make it more clear so that it's understandable so there's no -- there's no way that people can sit there and work around the code. I really think we need to address it so that it's very clear, okay? At this time we'll take a 10-minute break for our court reporter, and I'd like to have everybody back here at 10:48. Thank you very much. Page 50 May 16, 2006 (A brief recess was had.) CHAIRMAN HALAS: Ladies and gentlemen, could you please take your seats so we can proceed. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Other than staff, everyone's here. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Would everyone take their seats, please. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: There's the voice of authority. CHAIRMAN HALAS: Thank you very much. If we can get staff up here so we can proceed. I believe we have some speakers that are registered that we want to continue with. MS. FILSON: Yes, sir. I have two additional speakers. Brian Settle. He'll be followed by Lou Vlasho. Brian Settle? MR. SETTLE: I'll pass. MS. FILSON: Lou Vlasho. And he's your final speaker on this subj ect, Mr. Chairman. CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay, thank you. MR. VLASHO: Good morning, Commissioners. I hate to see Brian Settle pass, as he knows more about the subject that I'd like to talk to you about. My name is Lou Vlasho. I'm a resident of Pelican Bay. I happen to be vice-chairman of the Chamber of Commerce, and I happen to be chairman/president of the Greater Naples Better Government Committee. I'm here -- CHAIRMAN HALAS: Lou, are you here to speak on -- MR. VLASHO: As an individual and taxpayer. CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. Thank you very much. COMMISSIONER FIALA: On CCME? MR. VLASHO: I assume that's the right topic, coastal area. CHAIRMAN HALAS: Yep. MR. VLASHO: Yes. I'm here to talk about a specific issue, but Page 51 May 16, 2006 every time I come to one of your meetings, I am constantly amazed and appreciate the effort that you go through and the vast area you're probably responsible for and the details that you get into, so I commend you and thank you for your service. I want to speak about the area west of -- and south of 41. Although I do not purport to be an expert on the area of affordable/workforce/essential services housing, I am a very engaged, involved individual businessman and taxpayer. I was there when the first efforts were made to get the public aware of the lack of essential services housing. I also attended most of the meetings that were held on the issue. I was there when the president/publisher of the Naples Daily News was asked to work on the series focused on this issue. And I was there when the local/state delegation was asked to do something about it. Affordable/workforce/essential housing services is a huge problem and a very complex one. I believe the community is now focused on this issue. I'm here to ask you to not piecemeal the solution to this problem. On a regular basis I am asked by individuals who say, do you know anything about this? And they always come up with the solution. And I say thank you, and then I walk away saying -- having two reactions. The first being, I wish it was that simple, and the second is, isn't it good that they're talking about it? My comments on this are summarized really by two places that might surprise you. The first is -- the first one will surprise you -- is the editorial in this morning's paper, and I'd just like to read it. All options in parts of the county belong on the table. If a developer can make the numbers work and address concerns that may be brought up by neighbors, so be it. The neighbors must have their voice for or against such proj ect. And the second deals with the letter that was read from the chairman of the chamber. I was in that meeting yesterday where we Page 52 May 16, 2006 called a special meeting to discuss this, and I'd like to just reiterate two points. The chamber and I believe no topics, tools, or geographical area of Collier County should be excluded nor exempt from being considered to be a part of the solution, rather we urge you to keep all options open and on the table for possible future use. Please do not piecemeal this problem. I think we're on the verge of coming up with concrete programs, comprehensive programs. Relating to the president's speech last night, don't piecemeal it. Look for a comprehensive program, and don't talk about one issue. Let's wait till we have the whole area. Thank you for your time. MS. FILSON: And Mr. Chairman, we have one additional speaker. She will be your final speaker. Nancy Payton. CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. MS. PAYTON: Thank you, Nancy Payton representing the Florida Wildlife Federation. And I wanted to address policy 6.1.2B, which deals with deleting the references to -- CHAIRMAN HALAS: What page is that on; do you know? MR. COHEN: Mr. Chairman, it's on page 18 of the CCME. CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. Thank you. MS. PAYTON: You're welcome. It references the vegetation cover for section 24. In section 24, as you recall, when the compo plan amendments from the final order were first transmitted, or were transmitted, section 24 was designated sending area. In the interim between adoption there were landowners that objected. And as a result, at the adoption hearing, there was agreement that a study would be done to determine -- or reconfirm the findings of county staff that, indeed, rose to the level of sending land. And there is a section in the future land use element that specifically addresses section 24, but it is referenced in the CCME. So I'm asking for clarification of how we're going to deal with this, Page 53 May 16, 2006 because if this is deleted in the CCME, it's coloring what we're going to be discussing in the future land use element. And do we discuss section 24 now and determine whether it should be sending, which we strongly agree it should be sending and always have, and the data analysis has supported that, or do somehow we put this policy in limbo until later today when we discuss section 24 when it comes up in the future land use element? I just don't want to see this deleted before we resolve the issue, which we don't think is a very hard one, but I'm sure there are going to be people objecting. CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. MR. COHEN: Mr. Chairman, Mr. Weeks will weigh in on this right now. MR. WEEKS: Mr. Chairman, for the record, David Weeks, Comprehensive Planning Department. Staff had initially proposed that we wait until we get to the future land use element, because that's where the most substantive change will occur actually changing the future land use map. But Ms. Payton is correct that that will, in some sense, leave this element in limbo. My suggestion would be that you go ahead and complete the CCME and take your vote on it with the understanding that whatever action you would take in the future land use element regarding this section 24 -- CHAIRMAN HALAS: Will reflect-- MR. WEEKS: -- would be reflected in this element here. CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. MR. WEEKS: So in short, I would recommend we wait till we get to the FLUE. CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. Thank you. MS. PAYTON: So this would be in limbo till then? MR. WEEKS: Yes. MS. PAYTON: Very good. Thank you. Page 54 May 16, 2006 CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay, thank you. MS. FILSON: And that was your final speaker, Mr. Chairman. CHAIRMAN HALAS: Thank you very much. Public hearing is now closed. Commissioner Henning? COMMISSIONER HENNING: The -- on page 2 it references state statutes that relate to the coastal conservation element, and the -- avoiding duplicate regulations, I would imagine that we're going to have some language in the Land Development Code to clarify that? MR. LORENZ: The -- this was a change, I think, that Comprehensive Planning Department made. Just let me make one point, is that goal 13, which starts on page -- well, it was on page 48, which is the last page of the CCME, deals -- deals completely with the duplication of effort. So it's, to some degree, policy 11 -- I assume that the change the comprehensive planning made was to recognize that it was covered more specifically in goal 13, but I guess I'm neutral as to whether we want to take it out here or leave it in here. COMMISSIONER HENNING: It says, revised text page 51. Policy 13? No, wait a minute. I'm sorry. You said, Mr. Lorenz, it's on the last page, 48? MR. LORENZ: Correct. Let me get out --let me get the-- because you don't have the full CCME in front of you. This is just the revisions. Let me pull this out for you. MR. COHEN: Let me just -- for the record, let me just point out that the changes that are under the introduction section that start on page 1 of the CCME and go to page 2, the reasons those were added were, there -- in all the other elements -- in the majority of the , elements there was a summary basically of what those elements were explaining, you know, what that portion of the plan actually does. The CCME was lacking in that regard, and that's why this introduction was added, to provide clarity and also direct people to Page 55 May 16, 2006 various goals and objectives so it would be more user friendly. So that's why the comprehensive planning staff added this particular introduction. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. The -- state statutes also says -- talks about protection of property rights. Can we make that number 14? Is the board willing to do that? COMMISSIONER FIALA: Protection of property rights? COMMISSIONER HENNING: Right. COMMISSIONER FIALA: You want them to go back and get more? COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, we could put that in the Land Development Code. CHAIRMAN HALAS: If you -- could you be more -- do you have any more specifics on that? COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, I -- I agree with a lot of statements that are made here, is, the Growth Management Plan is a -- is a policy and goals and the details within the Land Development Code, and just the statement of protecting property rights in Collier County, I think, is very important. CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. MR. COHEN: Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission, I think legal counsel probably would want to weigh in because we're talking about private rights both from a state standpoint, and also from a federal perspective as well. MS. STUDENT -STIRLING: I just want to offer a comment. I believe that what this provision addresses are the requirements of 163 for a Conservation and Coastal Management Element. In another location that deals with the whole growth management scheme in its entirety, there is a provision about protection of property rights, and the compo planning process needs to take property rights into account. So that goes beyond the Conservation and Coastal Management. It covers the entire plan. Page 56 May 16, 2006 And I believe that there is a provision that deals with this in a future land use element that doesn't appear in here because it's been in there since 1989. But it talks about the balance of these requirements against the protection of private property rights. And David, you could probably correct me if I'm wrong, because I'm talking based on recollection. So from the over -- there's an overall principle for private property rights that goes through the entire plan. And since the future land use element addresses land use as well as a lot of the conservation items as well, section 24 being one that it also addresses, that language is found in there. To give you some comfort level, I can go up and get an existing plan and show you where that is. COMMISSIONER HENNING: I think you already have. You gave me that comfort level. MS. STUDENT-STIRLING: Okay. COMMISSIONER HENNING: The next thing, on page 23, policy 6.2.3, it goes on -- there's some strike-throughs, and then it goes on, northeast portion of Collier County, excluded in community of Immokalee, are contained in the RLSA, the rural stewardship area. Shouldn't it say that are contained? Are you following me? MR. LORENZ: Yes. COMMISSIONER COYLE: No, it's correct. COMMISSIONER HENNING: It's correct? MR. LORENZ: Yeah. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yeah. Protection measures for wetland and wetland systems located within those areas are continued in the rural land stewardship area. It's plural, so it works. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. That question was answered. Mr. Lorenz corrected that. The -- page 41, objective 12.1, it's a change in the category three hurricane event from a maximum strike-through at 28 to 18. It was changed. Now, did Mr. Dan Summers weigh in on this? Page 57 May 16, 2006 MR. LORENZ: Yes. That's who I'm looking for. The emergency management section is responsible for these policies. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. Well, you've answered that question. Well, with that I'll make a motion as amended and as -- amended by staff comments or corrections, and also part of my motion is we, the Board of Commissioners, the final outcome of section 24 in the fringe will reflect the changes in the coastal management area. Does that suffice? COMMISSIONER FIALA: Can I ask you a question before I second that? Does that -- when you were talking about changes, does that include Bruce Anderson's suggestion? COMMISSIONER HENNING: Of the definitions, moving the definitions in the Land Development Code, yes. MR. SCHMITT: We have a proposal. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Well, I'll second that just so that we have this open for discussion. MR. LORENZ: Yes. The definition that we just worked on here with the staff, the first sentence, if you will, reverses the order of native versus exotics, so we're talking about -- and I'll just read it for the record. The purpose of this policy, native vegetation is defined as a vegetative community having 25 percent or more canopy coverage, parentheses, or highest existing vegetative strata, closed parentheses, native plant species, period. The vegetation retention requirements specified in this policy are calculated based upon the native vegetation that conforms to the definition. Then we add this language, within one year of adoption of this amendment, the county will adopt LDR specifying criteria to address altered conditions of the mid-story and ground cover as part of the native vegetation definition. Page 58 May 16, 2006 COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. I include that in my motion if that satisfies Commissioner Coyle's concerns. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yep. It's fine. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. It's part of my motion. COMMISSIONER COYLE: I think it's a good solution. Thank you. COMMISSIONER FIALA: My second stands. CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. We have a motion on the floor for approval and -- by Commissioner Henning and a second by Commissioner Fiala. Any further discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN HALAS: Hearing none, I'll call the question. All those in favor, signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye. CHAIRMAN HALAS: Aye. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye. CHAIRMAN HALAS: Opposed, by like sign? (No response.) CHAIRMAN HALAS: Carries. Okay. MR. COHEN: Mr. Chairman, next Mr. Weeks had a couple items that he wanted to refer back to as cleanup items, then after that we would move up to the Intergovernmental Coordination Element. CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. MR. WEEKS: Again, for the record, David Weeks, of your comprehensive planning staff. Mr. Chairman, these are both housecleaning matters, but because they are changes to what you previously voted on in your April 18th hearing, we believe that it's appropriate to bring this back to you and have you formally take action. Page 59 May 16, 2006 There is the solid waste subelement, policies 1.1 and 1.2. The language that is shown in blue and highlighted in yellow is being added. You can see policy 1.1 simply has one word added, multifamily. That's just for accuracy of how that program works, that multifamily is included along with the single-family, which is what is done through the tax bills and also commercial. And then, secondly, in policy 1.2 we've simply added an ordinance number. Again, housecleaning matter, but we needed your action, please. CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. Is there any discussion? COMMISSIONER FIALA: Motion to approve. CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Second. CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. We have a motion to approve the changing of the language in these two policy statements. Motion made by Commissioner Fiala, seconded by Commissioner Coletta. All those in favor, signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye. CHAIRMAN HALAS: Aye. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye. CHAIRMAN HALAS: Opposed, by like sign? (No response.) MR. WEEKS: Thank you. Next is from the transportation element. This is the Traffic Concurrency Exception Area Map. And the housecleaning matter here is to remove the area known as the Sandpiper Village PUD, owned by Mr. Jack Antaramian right there at the south side of U.S. 41 at its intersection with Davis Boulevard. That property was annexed into the City of Naples, so it's no longer under county jurisdiction. This change correlates with changes we've yet to get to in the Page 60 May 16, 2006 future land use element where we've also deleted properties from maps there. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Move to approve. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Second. CHAIRMAN HALAS: I believe we have a speaker on this issue. MS. FILSON: I'm not clear, but I'm going to call his name and he can confirm. Bob Mulhere? MR. MULHERE: Not on this issue. MS. FILSON: Oh. You had transportation. Okay. CHAIRMAN HALAS: All right. We have a motion on the floor and we have a second; is that correct? The motion was made by Commissioner Henning and a second by Commissioner Fiala. Any further discussion on this? (N 0 response.) CHAIRMAN HALAS: Ifnot, I'll call the motion. Those in favor, signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye. CHAIRMAN HALAS: Aye. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye. CHAIRMAN HALAS: Opposed, by like sign? (No response.) MR. WEEKS: Thank you. CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. MR. COHEN: Okay. Mr. Chairman, the next item that's under consideration is the Intergovernmental Coordination Element, and Mr. Corby Schmidt from comprehensive planning will present that item to the board. MR. SCHMIDT: Good morning. CHAIRMAN HALAS: Good morning. Page 61 May 16, 2006 MR. SCHMIDT: Again, for the record, my name is Corby Schmidt, senior planner with comprehensive planning staff. The Intergovernmental Coordination Element is an important part of the Growth Management Plan. When you last saw it, you had few recommendations for change. Those changes have been made, and it is limited to terminology changes and clarification. Other than that, there's nothing notable. So if you have questions, I'd be glad to address them. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Any questions on the part of the commission? COMMISSIONER HENNING: Motion to approve. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Second. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: We have a motion for approval by Commissioner Henning and seconded by Commissioner Fiala. Is there any other discussion? (No response.) COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Hearing none, all those in favor -- well, I'll go ahead and call it. All those in favor, indicate by saying aye. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye. CHAIRMAN HALAS: (Absent.) COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Opposed? (N 0 response.) COMMISSIONER COLETTA: And the motion passes 4-0. MR. SCHMIDT: Thank you. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Great presentation. MR. COHEN: He's very succinct. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Mr. Chairman, there are quite a few people, I think, here on the Future Land Use Element, affordable Page 62 May 16, 2006 housing. I'm just asking if we could go to that and try to address all those and have a vote before lunch. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I think that's an excellent idea, but I'm going to turn it back over to the chair. Commissioner Henning was just noting the fact that we have a number of people here on the affordable housing issue, and he thought it might be an appropriate time to bring it up. CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. Do you feel that we can take care of this issue here that we're presently on, or do you feel this is going to consume a lot of time? COMMISSIONER HENNING: Myself? CHAIRMAN HALAS: Yeah. COMMISSIONER HENNING: I'm not going to say too much. CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. I mean, if we get through the ice, we'll go right into the next -- into the FLUE. I believe that's what we're going to get involved in on the affordable housing issue; is that correct? MR. COHEN: Yes, Mr. Chairman. You've acted on the Intergovernmental Coordination Element, and it would probably be appropriate, if you wanted to move forward with affordable housing, for David to give a brief overview of that, and also have Mr. Giblin as well provide that, and then you could entertain your speakers. CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. We'll get moving on with that. MR. WEEKS: Good morning, Commissioners. The most substantive changes to the Future Land Use Element do, in fact, pertain to density. In the EAR, the Evaluation and Appraisal Report that you adopted in 2004, you called for the elimination of three density bonuses, and those are within your packet. The first is to eliminate the density bands that exist around the mixed -- most of the mixed-use activity centers. Secondly, to eliminate the residential infill density bonus. Both Page 63 May 16, 2006 of those allow up to a three-unit-per-acre bonus; to eliminate the roadway access density bonus. That's a one-unit-per-acre bonus for projects that have access to two or more arterial or collector roads. And finally, to eliminate the traffic congestion area density reduction, which is a one-unit-per-acre reduction, and replace it with a coastal high hazard area density reduction of one unit per acre. Again, all of these are reflected in the future land use element that is in your binders. Correspondingly -- or similarly, you've made changes to impose a cap on residential density within the coastal high hazard area of a maximum of four units per acre. That will be applicable for new zonings coming before you, as you typically see rezoning from agricultural to residential. Policy 5.1 in the Future Land Use Element is an exception to the rule, but we have drafted language that also provides that for an existing commercially zoned property that would like to be rezoned residential, that if it is within the coastal high hazard area, it would also be limited to four units per acre maximum. What this results in then is the only exception for the density of four units per acre as the cap in the coastal high hazard area, would be existing residential zoning. For example, mobile home zoning, RMF -16, et cetera, that which already exits which allows a density in excess of four units per acre. Similarly, if the property owner should wish to rezone that property that is already zoned greater than four units per acre, policy 5.1 would allow that to occur. It's not a vesting policy. But it's something similar to it. It is recognizing that these properties do not conform to our density rating system, to this proposed cap of four units per acre, and so we use a public facility impact analysis. And if the proposed development has no greater impact than the existing development, then -- so long as the density is not, in fact, increased above the existing zoning, then that zoning change could be Page 64 May 16, 2006 approved. That policy has been in the plan since 1989, though it has been modified a handful of times over the years. Just a couple of notes about the coastal high hazard area. A rough estimate of the acreage within the coastal high hazard area within the coastal urban portion of the county, excluding the rural fringe area, excluding the conservation areas of the county, roughly 15,000 acres. And of that, roughly 2,300 acres are zoned agricultural. And as you know, most zoning changes that you see are rezoning from the agricultural district to an urban density, most particularly land unit development. A third major issue has to do with guesthouse rentals. At your affordable housing workshop as well as your gap housing workshop in 2004, you gave staff general direction to pursue additional means of promoting affordable/workforce housing in this community. One of those ways that staff had proposed was to allow the rental of guesthouses. This would principally impact the Golden Gate Area Master Plan, most specifically Golden Gate Estates, and the Immokalee Area Master Plan because it has such a significant amount of undeveloped acreage or nonresidential acreage. In the urban -- coastal urban designated area that is subj ect to the Future Land Use Element, the greatest impact would be for the remaining agriculturally zoned properties and for large lot subdivisions such as Pine Ridge. As a practical matter, staff does not believe that the rental of guesthouses would become a wide practice within the coastal urban area. We believe that most of the agricultural properties are viewed as more valuable to be rezoned to a higher density than to remain at some very low density of .2 units per acre, one unit per five acres, and be able to have a guesthouse. We don't think that's economically viable. Similarly, though it's relatively small in total size, the Pine Ridge subdivision is large enough, the lots are, to accommodate guesthouses. But we simply don't believe that many persons would be willing to Page 65 May 16, 2006 take advantage of this provision. So I won't say anything further about this until we get to the other two master plans where I believe it has greater applicability. A fourth provision, major change, to the Future Land Use Element pertains to the affordable/workforce housing term itself. As you know, you fairly recently amended the definition in the Land Development Code. And now gap housing is included within that broad terminology. There are a few provisions within the Future Land Use Element, most particularly the rural fringe mixed-use district and the Davis Boulevard/County Barn Road subdistrict, and I believe the research and technology park subdistrict, that call for the use of affordable and workforce housing. It uses both terms. At the time that these provisions were added, the definitions were different. Affordable housing applied only to 80 percent or less of median household income, workforce housing applied to 100 percent or less of median household income. The gap housing provision did not exist. Staff recommends that we maintain those levels, those old definitions, if you will, as that was the original intent, the 80 percent and the 100 percent or less. Planning Commission, however, has recommended to you that you use the new broader definition in the Land Development Code, which would include the gap housing. On that point of -- well, no, excuse me. An additional major change is the affordable/workforce housing within the rural parts of the county. When you gave your general direction, it was staffs understanding that you had a broad application intent, that is, you were not focused just on the coastal urban area, that the promotion of affordable/workforce housing would apply to the coastal urban area, to the Immokalee urban area, the rural land stewardship area, and to the rural fringe mixed-use district, and staff has proposed those changes. One of the changes in the rural village portion of the rural fringe Page 66 May 16, 2006 mixed-use district is to change the language to be consistent with the Land Development Code. In the future land use element, it simply provides for a density bonus if a rural village provides affordable/workforce housing. The Land Development Code provides for that bonus, but it also mandates the provision of affordable/workforce housing. So we are proposing, and the Planning Commission has endorsed, a change that will require the affordable/workforce housing but still allow it as a bonus. The way staff has written it, however, is not exactly consistent with the Land Development Code, and we do need to make a change to that language. Simply put, we need to eliminate some of the language that we've proposed to add. And specifically I'll put that on the visualizer. This is on pages 43 and then 44 of your Future Land Use Element. And as is handwritten there, we simply need to remove the phrases that are in brackets. That will make this provision read the same as it is in the Land Development Code, and that was our intent. That's page 43, and then here's page 44. Again, deletion of -- proposed added language should simply be removed, that was just within brackets. In the rural land stewardship area, staff proposed to add the requirement that affordable/workforce housing be provided. There is no such requirement at present. It is simply a bonus provision. And again, in staff viewing your directions, very broad and most particularly considering that based upon our projections, the majority of the future growth in this county will be within the RLSA area, staff has recommended and the Planning Commission has endorsed that affordable/workforce housing be required within the towns and villages within the RLSA area. We do need to modify the language a little bit from what is within your packets. That language is a little bit too restrictive, and it was not our intent. We were trying to make the language read the Page 67 May 16, 2006 same as is within the rural fringe mixed-use district that we were just discussing, but staff has failed to do so. We need to modify the language a bit, and I'd like to come back to that later. I know there's -- I expect there to be some speakers on that point. I would also like to mention that there is a policy within the RLSA overlay, policy 1.22, which specifically requires that five years after that program, stewardship program, was adopted, that we must evaluate the program. We must prepare a review of the program of how it's been used, of how effective it has been, and then that review would occur by both the county and the Department of Community Affairs. That policy does not preclude the county from making changes to the RLSA program. Now, I mention that because during a meeting yesterday it was brought to our attention that at least some individuals believe that we should not be amending this program until we get to the five-year point, but staff disagrees with that. Finally, and what is probably the most contentious issue of a major change in the Future Land Use Element is the affordable/workforce housing density bonus by right. Again, referring back to your workshops in 2005. You did not give specific direction to staff, at least we did not hear specific direction as to how you wish to have that provision implemented. Staff has taken a crack at it. We've proposed a mechanism for allowing the density bonus by right. And the Planning Commission did not endorse that provision, though they did for the Immokalee community. And again, we'll get to that when we get to the Immokalee Area Master Plan. The density bonus by right provision, in effect, is an eight-unit-per-acre bonus, or close thereto, depending upon the zoning of the property for which the density bonus is sought. Let me explain. The base density that is eligible within the coastal urban area is Page 68 May 16, 2006 four units per acre, or three if you're in the coastal high hazard area. That's proposed in these regulations. If your property is zoned RSF-4, then right now you are eligible, entitled, to four units per acre. If you sought the density bonus by right, you could be granted up to -- you could be granted four-units-per-acre bonus to get you to a total of eight, so you achieved a bonus of four units per acre. But if your property is zoned agricultural, you only have .2 units per acre by right. The way these regulations are crafted is that the density bonus unit by right would both give you your base density of four units per acre plus your four-unit-per acre bonus density. So in that example you would be getting a 7.8-unit-per-acre bonus. I don't want to harp on this. I just want to stress though that the bonus can be up to almost eight units per acre because you're being awarded both the base density and the density bonus, both of which during the public hearing process, is subj ect to your purview . You make the decision as to whether or not the base density is granted or not and whether or not bonus density is granted. The limitations proposed would be that a property must be 10 acres or larger in size and is limited by zoning district to agricultural, single- family, and I believe the RMF -6 zoning districts. The benefit of a density bonus by right program is to create a certainty in the process, a certainty in the outcome for those that propose such developments, it results in a decrease in their cost because they do not have rezone application fees, they do not have to pay land development consultant fees to get through the process, and because they don't have to go through the public hearing process to rezone their property, the time is much shorter. The potential downside, if you want to call it that, is that you take away the opportunity for the public to have meaningful input. By meaningful input, I mean they don't have the ability to come before the Planning Commission and this body to raise concerns, whether Page 69 May 16, 2006 they be compatibility, whether they be public facility impacts or some other concerns. Because as an administrative process where staff is the one that would award the density, the public can show up to staffs office and raise as many issues as they will, but as long as that proj ect complies with the criteria established in the Growth Management Plan and the Land Development Code, then staff must approve that proj ect, and those would be objective criteria, not subjective. Staff would not be able to, for example, review a project and say, you know, those people are right, this is not compatibility, we're going to deny that. We don't have that authority. That type of authority lies with the Board of County Commissioners and, therefore, would not be available in an administrative process. There's two ways to implement the density bonus by right through the Land Development Code. One would be to say that regardless of what your existing zoning is, you can make your application if you meet all the criteria and it is approved. That would require substantial amendments to the Land Development Code, because as I think you know, the agricultural zoning district, of course, limits density to one unit per five acres. This provision would allow up to eight units per acre on a property zoned agricultural. It would allow multifamily dwellings where presently the ago zoning district only allows single-family. Development standards, I think, would need to be changed as well, because those development standards, the setbacks, the height restrictions, et cetera, in the ago zoning district are applicable to a one-unit-per- five-acre development and development of agricultural uses and other types of allowed uses in the ago zoning district. So in essence, I think we would be creating a scenario A and a scenario B within the various applicable zoning districts. Here's the business as usual, here's your development standards, your allowable uses. If you're doing the affordable/workforce housing Page 70 May 16, 2006 development bonus by right, here's your set of development standards and allowable uses. A second way of doing that would be to still require a rezoning of the property to a zoning district that would allow the uses that are being proposed. For example, if the affordable/workforce housing proj ect was going to contain multifamily structures, then still require that land to be rezoned to a multifamily rezoning district. All that would be considered, however, would be the types of uses, the development standards, things of that nature. What would not be subj ect to your consideration would be the density. That density by right would still exist. This would be somewhat like the TDR program in the rural fringe for a rural village where the property owner comes in for a PUD zoning as is required but they are getting their density through the transfer of development rights program which is an administrative by right process. Commissioners, I believe that covers the major issues for the Future Land Use Element. CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. Thank you very much. Commissioner Henning? COMMISSIONER HENNING: Mr. Weeks, the -- I guess there's a lot of concern about, the example would be, Riviera Golf Course. If we approved it -- and I think I heard you correctly -- it would apply to the urban area and all the zoning districts. And then I have some follow-up on that. Would that density by right affect scenarios of Riviera Golf Estates? MR. WEEKS: No, sir, not specifically, because the -- in that particular case the property that was discussed for the affordable housing is zoned GC, golf course. The zoning districts that this will be limited to -- I'm searching for that specifically --is the agricultural zoning district, the residential single-family zoning districts, and the RMF -6 zoning districts. Page 71 May 16, 2006 COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. MR. WEEKS: I would point out that there's certainly the potential that there could be those zoning districts that are adjacent to -- that are undeveloped and might be considered for an affordable/workforce housing density bonus by right application that might be adjacent to other properties that are developed with single- family or some other type of residential land use. It is always possible -- and staff believes we will need to make some significant amendments to the Land Development Code to implement any such density by right program, we could establish additional criteria. We could do our best to address the compatibility issue and the public facility impact issues, perhaps spacing criteria, one project to another, perhaps a limitation on what zoning such a proj ect would be allowed to be next to, or conversely requiring it to be separated away from certain zoning districts. There's some additional details that could be added both to these provision and Future Land Use Element and in the Land Development Code. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. I mean in all petitions, whether it be affordable or not, when we've done some amendments, staff has opined that it is compatible through the neighboring, if it is residential. So I'm not sure if that applies. And I guess the concern, after thinking it out and after listening to some of the other concerns, is, is it proper to give a right of density for, in this case, affordable housing on an existing land use of residential? And, you know, it's my opinion, I don't think it is. But if we would say, you have a density by right in unplatted lands in the urban areas, how would -- how would you apply that? Would that be golf courses or would that be -- I mean, we don't want --we don't want to put it in areas of, you know, conservation areas either. MR. WEEKS: Ifwe simply said unplatted lands, that means acreage parcels, that means properties that are not of a subdivision Page 72 May 16, 2006 plat. Typically that is your agricultural zoning district. Not exclusively, but principally is the zoning district where we see acreage parcels. COMMISSIONER HENNING: I guess I'm saying I'm more inclined to do that, because I believe that, Commissioners, the only way that we're going to get it in the urban area is you take the government impediments out by having to ask government for -- to build a community of affordable housing. And I know it's happened in the previous -- previous boards that it's an issue when neighbors come up and say, well, we don't want that affordable housing in our -- next to us and so on and so forth. And I just think government works best -- the example of Ronald Reagan, he stated that government has a tendency to regulate it if they need something by incentivizing with tax dollars. And if it starts moving, and then they regulate it, if it moves too fast, then they tax it. And I think the point he was trying to get at is, if you want to make things happen, take government out of the process. And I think it's -- if we allow our staff to say how -- what the community is going to look like and make sure -- if it fits our concurrency management plan with transportation and water and sewer, so what? You know, what's the big deal? And if we say just in the urban area of Collier County, I must say it's going to, in my opinion, it's going to be in the coastal high hazard area. I just feel that we need it all over in the urban area. Maybe we can give less money to Norm Feder, if we have those elements of the people who work in the shops, in the stores, in the retail, in the manufacturing. It's just a better planned community. I can go along with that if we can do something like that. And then I can also go along with removing the 16 units per acre in the coastal high hazard area or the other density bonuses, remove those. But if we can't do it by right or if we can't get in the urban area, then I just can't go along with anything else. Page 73 May 16, 2006 Thank you. CHAIRMAN HALAS: Commissioner Coletta? COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Well, originally I thought I was going to have to counter Commissioner Henning's comments, but in reality I've got to say I agree him. I have nothing to add to that. I think probably it might be best just to listen to the speakers and then go from there. CHAIRMAN HALAS: I've got one question. How would this affect traffic concurrency if we have density by right? MR. WEEKS: Commissioner, we don't know. We don't have that information. We don't know how broad -- how broadly this will be used. We do have some ability, as I think you know when we're reviewing site development plans, still to determine if a problem is concurrent or not. I believe that's the circumstance with Wal-Mart down on 951 below U.S. 41 east. They've got their zoning in place, but they cannot get their Site Development Plan approved because of concurrency Issues. So I think we still have that stopgap to prevent a proj ect from being approved and allowing development when a road is not concurrent. CHAIRMAN HALAS: Is that a concern? When you say density by right, I was just wondering how that would impact our -- the roads. If we didn't have the ability to build that, then why would we want to have density by right? But then again, if you say, well, that supersedes what the capacity of the road is, it doesn't matter. Then there's some concerns there. MR. WEEKS: Commissioners -- I'm sorry. In deliberating this, as I see it, you're going to be doing a balancing act. The past commissioners have already done a balancing act for the existing regulations in considering the traffic -- excuse me -- the urban coastal fringe subdistrict, which is completely within the coastal high hazard area. That's where the density is limited to four units per acre with the Page 74 May 16, 2006 exception of affordable housing. So the past commissions have already done a balancing act between the need for affordable housing and hurricane evacuation. And in this case because concurrency's in place, I don't quite see it as such a balance between public facilities and affordable housing so much as it is a balancing act of the provision of affordable housing, the need for that as opposed to any concerns there might be for eliminating the public hearing process. CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. My other concern is -- and I'm not sure if we can address it in this forum today -- but it's in regards to, if we allow density by right in coastal high hazard areas and we have in place a means of deferring impact fees, what are we going to do in regards to people who we defer the impact fees because of the fact that we want them -- to make them eligible for affordable housing, but yet what's happening in the State of Florida is more and more insurance companies are pulling out of coastal high hazard areas in regards to insuring those homes. Are we going to be put in a box to where we're going to have to come up with some way of compensating for those people in coastal high hazard areas for insurance? Because they've got to carry a mortgage. MR. WEEKS: Commissioner, I don't think I can answer that. But let me mention one thing, and I may have not been following completely Commissioner Henning's comments. But let me make this clear about what the proposed regulations say. The density bonus by right is not applicable to the coastal high hazard area. I believe Commissioner Henning was suggesting that he would support that if it was. CHAIRMAN HALAS: Yes, that's exactly what, I think, is on the table here today. MR. WEEKS: I just want to make it clear, staffs proposal would not have it be applicable to the coastal high hazard area. Obviously Page 75 May 16, 2006 you will make the final decision. CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. Any other discussion before we open it up for public speakers? MS. FILSON: Mr. Chairman, I have 37 public speakers, and several of them have signed up more than once, just so that you know. Margaret Perry. CHAIRMAN HALAS: If the subject is -- if I could ask your indulgence. If the subject has been covered and you don't have anything else to add, I'd appreciate it if you would waive. But if you do have new items of interest as we call the public speakers forward, please feel free. And we have a three-minute time limit. Okay? Please call the first one. MS. FILSON: Margaret Perry. She'll be followed by Chuck Mohlke. MS. PERRY: Good morning, Commissioners. I'm Margaret Perry from WilsonMiller. I'm here representing some of the eastern Collier property owners. The Town of Ave Maria is the only approved SRA within the rural land stewardship area. When the DRI and SRA were approved in June of last year, the project was justifiably considered a model for addressing the affordable housing issue. The development order for Ave Maria calls for the following conditions: 200 very low income units, 700 low income units, and 1,000 moderate income units on site. This represents 1,900 units or approximately 17.5 percent of the total approved units to be located on site. In addition, a 28-acre off-site location was designated to accommodate up to 150 Habitat for Humanity units. If I understand staffs proposed language correctly, a sample 4,000-acre town would result in the requirement of 800 affordable housing units. After the final order was received, the rural land stewardship area Page 76 May 16, 2006 overlay and the rural fringe area were evaluated separately, and separate GMP and LDC language resulted, and for good reason, they're not the same. The resulting language in the GMP and LDC is not the same, the base density's not the same, the bonus density and credit system is not the same. Just because changes are proposed for the rural fringe should not mean they should apply in the rural lands. One of the goals of the rural land stewardship area contained in the GMP states that the program will be reevaluated in five years. I know David addressed that they can propose amendments if so, but we would prefer it be weighted until the five years has passed and receive great input from the property owners themselves. The executive summary also indicates that in order to provide equity, the affordable housing provision proposed for the rural fringe should also be applicable to the rural lands. We don't understand the justification. And if that's the case, shouldn't this provision be applied to the entire urban area also? Why is it arbitrarily being applied in the rural areas of the county only? And if the goal is to provide equity, shouldn't the rural lands also be awarded the bonus of.5 units for each unit constructed? Also, consideration should be given to allowing flexibility by providing off-site affordable housing sites outside of an SRA. And we're for a contribution to the affordable housing trust fund. We monitored the EAR and subsequent summary report detailing proposed amendments to the future land use element. An amendment of this magnitude was certainly not contemplated. To my knowledge property owners within the rural lands have not been advised of this pending amendment, have not provided any input or received notice that changes to the conditions of approval were -- which would dramatically affect their property. I would urge the board to remove the proposed language relative to the rural lands, and appreciate your time. Page 77 May 16, 2006 CHAIRMAN HALAS: Thank you, ma'am. MS. FILSON: The next speaker is Chuck Mohlke. He'll be followed by Wayne Arnold. MR. MOHLKE: For the record, my name is Chuck Mohlke. I am a resident of District 4. If it please this honorable board, I appear here as the chair of the Collier County Democratic Party duly registered in that regard. I propose for the board's consideration that the ERA-based (sic) workforce housing amendments now under consideration are, in effect, an unfinished work in progress. A work in progress in the sense that today's public hearing is, for many of us, the first opportunity for public discussion of the revised content of the amendments transmitted to the board recently by the Collier County Planning Commission. The Planning Commission transmitted amendments appear to represent a de facto elimination in Collier County's coastal high hazard areas of workforce housing density bonuses and set-asides, and a denial of the effective use of infill parcels to develop low market housing suited to the needs of low and moderate income families. If, if high hazard areas are defined as those seaward of the State of Florida coastal construction control line and within the federal emergency management, FEMA, designated high-risk velocity zones, that would be understandable. But if the coastal high hazard area is defined broadly as an area generally west and south of U.S. 41, that's an entirely different matter. If the broad definition applies, what we have then is, in our view, differential application of something staff is well familiar with; rule 9J-5(12)3-C7 that limits development in coastal high hazard areas and requires the relocation or replacement of essential infrastructure away from high hazard areas. Frankly, it's one thing to adopt a coastal management element objective limiting public expenditures that prohibit local governments Page 78 May 16, 2006 to subsidize, subsidize development in coastal high hazard areas when they're implementing a different 9J-5 rule, (12)3-B5, and something entirely different to define workforce housing density bonuses and set-asides as public expenditures subsidizing development, which they are not, which they are not. To my knowledge, no such concern was expressed when the board adopted recently substantial deviations to the Sabal Bay development of regional impact. I did not hear that discussion during that -- those deliberations. If the underlying concern here is to reduce exposure on our residents and the homes they live in from major weather events, the issue can be well addressed by a well-documented pre- and post-disaster development plan, not selective application of density bonuses and set-asides while eliminating incentives to provide workforce housing on undeveloped coastal area infill parcels. I thank the board for listening to these comments, and they may be subsequently included in a letter to DCA, depending upon what the board's action is today. Thank you. MS. FILSON: The next speaker is Wayne Arnold. He'll be followed by Rich Y ovanovich. MR. ARNOLD: Good morning, Wayne Arnold. If I could, Mr. Chairman, my comments are specific to your commercial activities and offices and infill commercial provisions of the code. They're not really germane to your density bonus discussion. Would it be more appropriate to address those when you get to that part of the agenda? CHAIRMAN HALAS: Yes. MR. ARNOLD: Thank you. MR. YOV ANOVICH: Good morning. For the record, Rich Y ovanovich. I also have some comments that are not related to the density bonus provision, so I'll address those later. But a couple of comments I do have. First of all, I agree with what Margaret Perry said regarding rural land stewardship area. That Page 79 May 16, 2006 was a proj ect that took many years of discussion and working together to come up with a plan for the area. There were some provisions included in that which will dramatically change how the program will work in the rural land stewardship area with very little, if any, consultation with the landowners out there. So we would request that we be given an opportunity to work together to come up with a plan to address affordable housing. It's not broken. The one project that came to you for Ave Maria obviously addressed the issue. We know the issue needs to be addressed. Nobody out there wants to ignore the issue, but we want to work through that issue systematically and together with the county instead of it happening without any real discussion amongst the property owners. So we would request that that would be removed from this at this time and that we deal with it at the five-year window. I mean, you picked five years for a purpose, to see if it would work, not to say, okay, a couple years into it, we're not sure if it's working or not. I think the evidence is to the contrary. It has worked, so we would request that that be removed. Regarding other density provisions that you're discussing eliminating. The proximity to the activity center density provision. That's the provision that basically says if you're within a one-mile radius, you can get a density -- you come to the commission, you ask for a rezone, and you can get, potentially, a density bonus of up to three units per acre. I would suggest that you want to leave those types of provisions in. They are provisions that we have to go through the rezone process anyway, and it may give you an opportunity to negotiate with the property owner some other manner -- mechanisms to address workforce housing, gap housing, and affordable housing other than the standard forum you have with the matrix. Page 80 May 16, 2006 You know, the matrix may not fit every development. A developer may come to with you a proj ect that makes some sense but the matrix doesn't work, and this gives you a tool to negotiate that provision if you leave the residential infill provision -- I mean, the proximity to activity center provision in. Also you have a residential infill provision that applies to projects that are less than 20 acres. Again, that's part of your TDR program. You're talking about today, you're eliminating the density bonuses that are associated with the residential infill. Well, that's contrary to your TDR program. You're taking away opportunities for people who own TDRs to have them utilized in appropriate areas. And finally, in your mixed-use activity center provisions, you get -- you get some density for being in an activity center. We would propose that instead of requiring that all of those units be utilized within the activity center, that if a project that comes in not only -- that's within an activity center but also within -- that has property outside of the activity center, that we be allowed to transfer those units still within the project boundaries and use them within the project if you're using that for an affordable housing portion of the project. And it would enable a developer to put these units together in a smaller area, still within their development, provide amenities, maybe site it closer to some public facilities that will be required to be provided through the zoning process or through a D RI process, and that you provide an exception to the rule that says you can't transfer out of the activity center for affordable housing. And I registered for multiple clients on this, so if you'll bear with me, I'll be done in another minute or so. And finally, I think the density by right provisions can be utilized and can work. We talked about that before at a public workshop. We're not asking for any exemptions from concurrency, so we'll always be subject to that. What we're suggesting is that you do an overlay similar to the Page 81 May 16, 2006 overlay in the rural fringe area. You have development standards that will be designed and in the Land Development Code. If the project complies with those land development regulations, it would be allowed to have density by right. And I think that that program can be worked out in the urban area and can be an incentive for developers to come in and avoid -- avoid the uncertainty of the rezone process. But with appropriate development standards in the Land Development Code, I think everybody can be protected. With that, those are my comments related to the density prOVISIons. CHAIRMAN HALAS: Thank you very much. MS. FILSON: Your next speaker is Robert Mulhere. He'll be followed by Bruce Anderson. MR. MULHERE: Thank you. And it's still morning. Good morning. Bob Mulhere with (sic) the record with RW A and representing also various clients on these matters before you. Couple of comments relative to the -- either including the affordable housing density provisions within the coastal high hazard area or excluding them. There's been a little bit of discussion relative to a rationale for not including them based on hurricane evacuation concerns, and I think it's valid to say that with the present -- and I think your own emergency management expert concluded that that really was not an issue, early notification, and having appropriate evacuation routes really is the issue that will address that matter. It's just as dangerous if you're -- if you concede that it's dangerous, it's just as dangerous for folks who are not living in affordable housing as it is for those who are. That argument really has no merit. I did want to say, you recently adopted a road impact fee increase, and included in that packet -- I think the consultant was Steve Tindale of Tindale, Oliver -- was an appendix which was entitled, travel patterns of low-income residents, and that appendix Page 82 May 16, 2006 quantified the trips particularly as they related to Collier County, of residents who -- of low-income residents, and those trips were significantly lower, significantly lower, than the travel patterns of folks outside of that income level. I would suggest that one of the things you may want to look at as you move forward is a more in-depth analysis of that, because I believe that has a direct bearing on the modal. And the number of trips that you're assuming you're putting on the road, you may not actually be putting those number of trips on the road, and you may be able to provide some incentive for affordable housing based on a lower number of trips. In fact, I think that report also suggested that the lengths of trips were also quite a bit shorter. Those are the two components that would have an impact on the road system. With respect to the removal of the general density bonus provisions in your plan -- I think Rich Y ovanovich spoke to them -- one being the activity provision, when you're approximate to an activity center, you can ask for up to three additional units. The other being residential infill. The outcome of removing those bonuses will, without question, result in higher land costs, which will, without question, result in a more difficult time in providing housing across the spectrum of affordability. It's a simple matter of economics. Those density bonuses are not very high. You have the final say-so. People have to come through a rezone to get those. And moreover, they may not make sense in every situation, but they may make sense in some situations. And I'll move on. The -- Mr. Weeks put on the record a change to the-- CHAIRMAN HALAS: Bob, how much longer do you have? MR. MULHERE: One minute. CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. MR. MULHERE: Thank you, I appreciate that -- to the rural Page 83 May 16, 2006 fringe affordable housing language wherein he's clearing up the conflict between the LDC and the compo plan, and the one change was, there is a half a unit bonus for each affordable unit that's provided in the rural fringe. If that change goes forward as Mr. Weeks suggested, then I think that would be consistent with the comprehensive plan intentions. As far as the RLSA affordable, I think it's inappropriate at this point in time to put that same condition in the RLSA lands. As you've already heard, Ave Maria came forward and actually probably was a model of providing the full spectrum of affordability from very low all the way up. And I think the other thing is, there's been no contemplation relative to adding that now as to what kind of incentives might go in the plan hand in hand with that requirement. In every other circumstance, you're providing incentives. Incentives make sense because you lose money when you build affordable housing units. So there's really -- this is a bit premature, in my view, until you've had a little bit more time to study that and find out what might be an appropriate incentive, even in the RLSA where everyone else -- everywhere else you're providing incentives. CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay, Bob -- MR. MULHERE: That limits my comments on that. CHAIRMAN HALAS: Thank you. MR. MULHERE: I do have some other comments on some other portions. MR. COHEN: Mr. Chairman? CHAIRMAN HALAS: Yes. MR. COHEN: We've had some specific comments with respect to RLSA, and it's going to probably kind of go on a little bit. It may be appropriate for Mr. Weeks to address that at this point in time. CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. MR. WEEKS: Mr. Chairman, just briefly. I'd just like to make Page 84 May 16, 2006 sure the commission is aware that the Ave Maria town was a DRI, development of regional impact, and as a result, it goes under more stringent review. State and regional agencies are involved in the process, and that at least plays some part in their affordable housing commitment that they made. Staffs position, again, is simply that we do not believe that the RLSA, again, the area where the majority of the future growth in this county is projected to occur, should be left to a case-by-case review. We believe that there should be a regulatory requirement. Perhaps not the figures that staff has proposed, but we do believe there should be some requirement from a perspective of simple equity. In the rural fringe it's a requirement, in the urban area it is not a requirement, but on the other hand we're proposing this density bonus by right. Each of the major areas of development in the county, and that is the urban area, rural fringe, RLSA, we are proposing some type of change to either allow or specifically require affordable housing. And as to the urban area, coming up in this 2006 cycle of LDC amendments, is the inclusionary zoning requirement. So if that passes, even the urban area will have some requirement to provide affordable/workforce housing. CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. MS. FILSON: Should I carry on? CHAIRMAN HALAS: We've got some more speakers. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: No, I understand that, but there was some comments that I need to come back, since we're not on the speakers now; staff took a moment. Now, what you're proposing, I think I heard you very clearly, is that the changes that you have down here for the rural lands sort of is balanced out by the right of density in the urban area; that's what you're saying, the items before us for the right, the density right? MR. WEEKS: I don't know if I want to say balanced. But the Page 85 May 16, 2006 idea is that we want all areas -- COMMISSIONER COLETTA: That's correct, but-- MR. WEEKS: Correct. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: -- when this comes before us for final decisions, I would like the element that has to deal with rural lands to be at the end. So if we're going to be fair in our decisions, we have to see how this commission's going with it, and then we can probably give direction to staff that would have more meaning at that point in time. That would be my only hope at this point in time. MR. WEEKS: As far as the order of the Future Land Use Element goes, the urban area occurs first, the rural fringe, and then the RLSA is in the back, located last. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Fine. Then we're right there where I need to be. CHAIRMAN HALAS: Commissioner Henning, did you have a question? COMMISSIONER HENNING: No. CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. Let's continue on with the speakers, please. MS. FILSON: Bruce Anderson. He'll be followed by Andy Woodruff. MR. ANDERSON: I really registered to speak on other items, and I'll wait and do that then. I don't have anything to add to the other speakers, except to tell you that the changes to the density rating system that you're proposing, however well intentioned they may be, are just another step of ceding your authority and discretion that you already have to the State of Florida when you put it in the comprehensive plan. And I urge you to reject those changes and retain your authority and discretion. Thank you. CHAIRMAN HALAS: Thank you. MS. FILSON: And what I have on your speaker slip, Mr. Anderson, is just FLUE, so I have no idea which -- okay. Page 86 May 16, 2006 MR. ANDERSON: I understand. MS. FILSON: The next speaker is Andy Woodruff. He'll be followed Brad Cornell. MR. WOODRUFF: I'm also registered to speak on other issues unrelated to what you're discussing now. CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. MS. FILSON: Well, I have no way of telling. CHAIRMAN HALAS: That's the best way. If you -- if your name is called and it's not on a particular item, please just say you waive at this point in time and that you want to speak later. MS. FILSON: Brad Cornell. He'll be followed by Fred Thomas. MR. CORNELL: I'm here to speak about guesthouses. Do you want to take that under this discussion? CHAIRMAN HALAS: Well, that's part of-- COMMISSIONER COLETTA: That's under the master plan. CHAIRMAN HALAS: No, that's under the master plan. MR. CORNELL: Okay. But it also shows up under the FLUE, so I don't know where you're going to have that. MR. WEEKS: Mr. Chairman, it is part of this whole package of density changes. I would suggest that we entertain the comments at this point. CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay, all right. MR. WEEKS: My comment earlier was that it's most applicable to the master plan, but it is a provision in the FLUE. CHAIRMAN HALAS: All right. MR. CORNELL: And I couldn't find it in the master plan except to say that guesthouses were being excluded from density calculations. MR. WEEKS: Right. What may be -- let me explain this -- in your binders for the Future Land Use Element and all the other elements, reflect the Planning Commission's recommendation. So because they did not endorse some of these changes we're discussing, they do not appear in your element; however, as an attachment to your Page 87 May 16, 2006 executive summary, we do provide language that the planning -- that staff proposed but that the Planning Commission rej ected that includes the guesthouse language. MR. CORNELL: I'm Brad Cornell-- oh, go ahead. CHAIRMAN HALAS: Well, I just want to -- I want to make sure everybody's getting a fair amount of time here. So if you could rap this up in a minute and a half, I'd appreciate it. MR. CORNELL: I'll be as quick as I can. CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. MR. CORNELL: I wanted to speak on one other thing, then I'll come back later. I won't speak about that now. Well, I'm Brad Cornell, for the record, on behalf of Collier Audubon and Audubon of Florida. And regarding guesthouse, affordable housing density issues, I believe this is a short-sighted approach to affordable housing. It compromises roads and schools, fire, police, infrastructure. The density is not counted even though it could potentially double the density in North Golden Gate Estates. These uncounted rental units will impact the balance of the TDR supply and demand in the rural fringe mixed-use district, and it changes the balance of impacts in the SRAs versus the mitigation of the -- in the rural land stewardship area, the balance of impacts versus mitigation preservation. It changes the market analysis that had already been done relative to the density of those things because this density isn't counted. I don't understand why we're going down that road. A better approach would be to examine the whole North Golden Gate Estates and assess the comprehensive needs for infrastructure, affordable housing, roads, commercial, and natural resource protection. Then you take a -- you look at a variety of tools and policies that could be evaluated for using to solve those issues, and those could Page 88 May 16, 2006 include things like a road program, which I know is being aggressively pursued, subdivision, perhaps, in selected areas, Valose (sic) two and a quarter acres, landowner incentives, TDRs, land acquisition, mitigation areas, and commercial area insertion in strategic areas. You know, doing it without counting the density is a very short-sighted way to do this, I believe. It's not that affordable housing isn't important, but you can get to it in a more comprehensive way through better policies. Thanks. CHAIRMAN HALAS: Thank you very much. MS. FILSON: Next speaker is Fred Thomas. He'll be followed by Ray Cadwallader. MR. THOMPSON: Good afternoon. Even though I retired as the executive director of the housing authority four years ago, I'm having a real problem dealing with this issue the way we're dealing with it, density, whatnot. Collier County is in a crisis situation, and I gave -- I sent a -- I gave a letter to each one of you, and there's a copy of it going into the record with my comments. But we're in a crisis situation. It is very expensive to do business here, because the greatest price that we add to business here is employee turnover. It's the hidden cost that increases the cost of everything for doing business here in Collier County. We've also degraded the services provided by our teachers, our firemen, our police officers, and our health professionals. They can't do a good job unless they can go to church with the people they serve, meet at movie theaters with the people they serve, visit with the people they serve. There's no way a police officer can be an effective police officer ifhe doesn't know the community. Now, we've got some police officers that haven't been out in some of the streets that they have to patrol. Page 89 May 16, 2006 There's no way that a teacher can do an effective job of teaching your children the culture, the understanding of what's going on if they don't share that culture with you, and they can't do it unless they have been integrated in the community in the physical way that you can bump into them at the market, bump into them at church, see them at social functions, et cetera. We need to do something to solve that problem. I make a suggestion that we do residential over commercial. By doing residential over commercial, not like we're doing it now, not by densities and all the rest of that stuff, because residential over commercial won't have an impact on roads, because those folks do not have to get in the car like everybody else has to do when they want to get a loaf of bread and quart of milk. They can just walk down to the store, they can just walk to the movies. See? But by doing that residential over commercial and allowing it by the number of the floors that you allow over commercial as opposed to density, the number of floors you allow over commercial, you make it possible for folks to mix and mingle with the rich folks around the corner at church and not have to be able to afford that kind of price, and everything gets better for everybody in our community. We need to stop being isolationists, stop putting those people over there and those people over there, and learn to go back to the old- fashioned community where everybody can help Huck Finn become a solid citizen. And as I said, I've got my written statements, you have a copy, and you have a copy for the file down here. And I -- but we need to look at this, folks. We're destroying the ambience of this community. We've got artificial costs inflation built throughout this community because we will not look at the fact that we have to integrate people within the community, get back to a sense of community where people can mix, mingle, talk, have the partnerships that make a community work. It takes a whole village to raise a child, Page 90 May 16, 2006 and we just keep eliminating that village. Thank you. MS. FILSON: Next speaker is Ray Cadwallader. He'll be followed by Harold Weeks. MR. CADWALLADER: Mr. Chairman and county commission members, I have had the privilege over the last four years to serve on the Affordable Housing Commission and witness a lot of the activity of that commission. I also would like at this time to compliment Mike Davis for what he did. As a legislators -- former legislators, myself back in Ohio, his task was a Herculean task, and I don't know how he pulled it off, to tell you the truth. Secondly, I would like to compliment the Naples Daily News. I'm handing out to you now one of the sheets that they had in their proposal, and it outlines about 18 bullets of activities that will be qualified for the large slug of money that's coming potentially to us from the state. And the one document that I'm handing out to you is an excellent representation of the state legislation. And you should -- and I tell the world this, I tell everybody in this room this, you should review that and see how it can be taken advantage of in your community. I can see four or five advantages that it can be taken with my background in the affordable housing area. Other than that, I thank you very much. MS. FILSON: The next speaker is Harold Weeks. He'll be followed by Robert Brian Crim. MR. WEEKS: Harold Weeks. I'm a member of the NAACP chapter of Collier County. What I'd like to do today is bring to your attention the need for all levels of affordable housing people. You should be interested -- if you have any type of disaster plan within your community, you should realize that if you have these folks living amongst you, you have an emergency staff ready at hand, not only from the top, which you're Page 91 May 16, 2006 calling gap housing, but to the bottom. At the top possibly, I don't want to segregate any of you, but you have the police, fire, teachers, medical teams, plumbers, electricians, carpenters. At the lower end, you have your workforce, you have your hands, you have your grunts that these people are going to call on to do the heavy work. If they're already there in a difficulty disaster or emergency situation, you don't have to go anyplace else to look for them, you don't have to go 20 miles away and bust them in. If they own -- if they own their homes there, after they care for their own places, they're going to look to you because this is what -- this is what we do. This is what everybody does. They share in -- they share in this emergency. If you're -- if you're trapped in your home, if you're trapped in your car, you don't care what hand that is that comes along to help you. And what better than somebody that knows exactly what they're doing? I know in emergent situations not everybody at hand is capable of assisting, and you need -- you need strong bodies. If you have an evacuation of your area and your area is somewhat destroyed, the people coming back in are going to be your neighbors. Some of those will be affordable housing people. They're coming back in to take care of their property also. After they take care of theirs, they'll take care of yours. So you have to remember this, hopefully this type of disaster will never hit this community, but we don't have a guarantee, as you've seen through television and what's happened elsewhere in the United States. So don't leave yourself out -- don't segregate yourself from these people. They're there to help you. How about the morning after the hurricane or whatever we have and you want a cup of coffee? You've experienced it. What's open? Page 92 May 16, 2006 But if that person, one person, can walk down to one of your stores or somebody's store and open the door and put on the pot, that, in itself, is a help. So don't disclude them. All of -- all of Naples -- I'm fortunate enough to be in Commissioner Fiala's district, Radio Road. I live off of Radio Road. I'm all set. I have fire, police. I have my workforce all ready to go. Make sure you have yours. Thank you. MS. FILSON: The next speaker is Robert Crim. He'll be followed by Ken Drum. MR. CRIM: I guess it's afternoon finally. Gentlemen, Ms. Fiala. My name is Robert Crim. I'm here as I resident. I live in the Bayshore Club Apartments, which is basically down Bayshore Drive. This is the apartment complex which is right across from the arboretum. It is part of the coastal hazard zone, or at least I've been told that by Mr. Michael Bosi (phonetic) at the Planning and Zoning Commission. I recently had cause to speak with him on a matter. The Bayshore Club is probably one of the last generally good affordable housing, affordable rental, apartment complexes left in the county of Collier. We've had so many that have been changed over into condominiums and had people taken out. But the Bayshore Club also is the subject of a proposal being floated around right now, not officially, I understand, yet, but they also want to turn over to condominiums. They basically want to rip the whole thing out of there and set up something else on the order of somewhere between $500,000 and $900,000 apiece. Well, I didn't mention, I'm a substitute teacher here in the county of Collier. Needless to say, having an affordable place to stay is very high on my lis~ of priorities. Weare among that class of people who are not compensated fairly by what the free market would give us. If math and science teachers were out in the free market, they'd be getting paid a lot more. That's one of the reasons we have a great Page 93 May 16, 2006 difficulty in retaining them. Certainly at the regular -- just as mainline teachers, but substitute teachers in math and science -- and I'm qualified in math at the lower levels -- they're just -- they're very, very hard to find and very, very hard to retain. This proposal that has been floated around concerning this -- what they want to do involved a request to increase density. There are now 200 units in the Bayshore Club now. They want to increase them to 445, which, going up to 450-, $500,000 apiece to 900,000, you do the math. You'll see exactly what this person is asking you to give to him. I went over to the Planning and Zoning Commission to see what the rules were in terms of whether they could do that or not, and I was given this paper by Mr. Bosi who, on behalf of Caroline Valera, had been -- would -- agreed to talk to me. And I notice here that at paragraph 10 -- this is on 108, it says under -- at the bottom, A plan amendment by ordinance number 2003-7 on February 11,2003. It says here, for properties outside of the coastal high hazard area, any eligible density bonuses as provided in the density rating system or in addition to the eligible density providing herein for properties within the coastal high hazard area, CHHA, only the affordable housing density bonus, as provided by the density rating system, is allowed in to the eligible density provided herein. F or all properties, the maximum density allowed is that specified under density conditions in the density rating system. So naturally when I read in the newspaper that you might be thinking of changing the density allowances, I felt I had to come down here and bring this matter to your attention. Simply raising density allowances doesn't necessarily guarantee you affordable housing or affordable rentals. What needs to happen is you have to have some kind of coupling Page 94 May 16, 2006 that exists between the density rating and the requirement that it be for affordable housing, such as what I have just read for you here. And what I want to say is that I would oppose any proposal that would de-couple this requirement that we have affordable housing attached to the density bonus. Without it, you're going to lose what density -- what affordable housing and affordable rentals you have now, and that's just going to drive everybody out of the county. I'm not going to fight 1-75 to come and teach for $84 a day at Naples High School. I can't do that, you know. It's just not -- it's not economical for me to do that. Now-- CHAIRMAN HALAS: Are you pretty close to finished? MR. CRIM: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. MR. CRIM: So the other point I would like to bring to your attention -- there's been some discussion publicly between some of the commissioners, there's been an editorial on it today in the Naples Daily News concerning the problem with hurricane evacuation. It's true, I would agree with the editorial -- CHAIRMAN HALAS: Sir, we have a three-minute time limit. MR. CRIM: I'm -- one minute. Give me one minute. It's true that the evacuation difficulty is -- we have a lot of notice. I have no doubt about that. But I want you to remember as a matter of safety what human nature is, which is to stay with your property as long as you can. That certainly was my attitude when Hurricane Wilma came right over the top of us. And the problem, of course, is that everybody stands around and they say, oh, it's only a two, it's only a two, it's only a two, it's only a two. Uh-oh, it's Charley two and it's 45 minutes off the coast and everybody heads for the exits. In the Bayshore overlay, we have one bridge, one bridge that's capable of handling any kind of sizable amount of traffic out of that area. All those other roads back there are little tiny residential roads Page 95 May 16, 2006 that can't hold it -- handle -- CHAIRMAN HALAS: Sir, I have to -- MR. CRIM: -- heavy density. CHAIRMAN HALAS: -- cut you off at this time. MR. CRIM: Okay. CHAIRMAN HALAS: Thank you very much. MR. CRIM: I would warn you against being complacent on it. CHAIRMAN HALAS: Thank you very much. MS. FILSON: The next speaker is Ken Drum. He'll be followed by Mary Ann Durso. MR. DRUM: I'm Ken Drum. I'm speaking on behalf of the East Naples Civic Association. I'm the -- CHAIRMAN HALAS: Ken, are you registered -- are you registered as a lobbyist? MR. DRUM: I don't think I have to be. CHAIRMAN HALAS: You don't have to be? Okay. MR. DRUM: Because it's a -- I'm not paid. CHAIRMAN HALAS: All right. I just want to make sure. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: We could fix that. MR. DRUM: It's not a bad idea. I'd like to speak about two issues on this. One is the density bonus by right, and the other is the no public hearing. Basically the East Naples Civic Association is in favor of the recommendations of the Planning Commission. But on the issue of no public hearings, I would raise a question, what's wrong with the public being involved in this process? What's wrong with having a public meeting where people can attend, whether they agree with the development or not, just to voice their opinion? And I think what that does is it further removes government from the people. And I don't think Ronald Reagan, when he said less government, meant no government. So I would encourage you not to eliminate that process. Page 96 May 16, 2006 And the density by right, I was in favor of density by right. I voted for it when we had the gap committee. But after the occurrences in Tallahassee with regard to the Builders' Association and the Chamber of Commerce and so forth lobbying to erode local control, I then came against it. And I would urge you not to cede your public authority, as Mr. Anderson said, to the state, rather, continue to be able to make decisions on a case-by-case basis; otherwise, you may as well call these meetings that you have informational and get a caterer and serve coffee and Danish and have a parade of developers coming in here one after another just to run their projects by you without any kind of authority to vote anything that you would like in addition to their proj ect. So I would encourage you on those two issues, keep the public involved and keep your right to approve or disapprove any kind of density or zoning. Thank you. MS. FILSON: The next speaker is Mary Ann Durso, she will be followed by Sam Durso. MS. DURSO: My name is Mary Ann Durso. I am the Executive Director of Habitat for Humanity of Collier County. For the first time in our 28-year history, we are not giving out applications to new families because we have already selected the 135 families who will live in the houses that are being built this year and extending through half of next year. Last year we had over 1,700 applications for our homes. Since April 1 st when we closed our selection process, 81 families have come into our Naples office seeking help. It is very disheartening to offer no help to people that are working very hard to serve the people in our community and living in outrageous situations, some like Diamond Shores, which I guess, until it is closed today, was part of the count of affordable units in Collier County. N ow it is closed because of the Page 97 May 16, 2006 many code violations. F or many years we have been told, just wait. There will be 10 percent affordable housing in our rural villages. It will take care of the workforce. If you change the percentages in the villages to a straight 150 percent of those making -- of those making 150 percent of the median income and below, developers will opt to build $300,000 homes, not the homes for the people that $150,000 can afford. Then there will never be hope for the people in our community making less than 80 percent of the median income, which is $48,000 or below, the people like the 81 families that are searching for a simple, decent place to shelter their families. Who will decide then who is essential? The people Habitat turned away this month work at the Naples Community Hospital, Bentley Village, the Baptist Church, Target, Home Depot, Planned Parenthood, the Ritz, the Marriott, Costco, the Division of Children and Families. Did any of these people make 100 percent of the median income or $64,000? No. Are they essential to our community? Yes. Where will they live? MS. FILSON: The next speaker is Sam Durso. He'll be followed by J. Douglas Burke. CHAIRMAN HALAS: Yeah. I just want to say that we're going to take a break for lunch at 12:45, so that's why we're running this over, because Commissioner Coyle has another appointment, and we hope that he'll return when we go about making a vote on this particular item. So that's why we're continuing through. So Sam, would you go ahead. DR. DURSO: For the record, I'm Dr. Sam Durso. It's my honor to serve as president of Habitat for Humanity in Collier County. We've been fighting this battle for 13 years, my wife and I. Habitat's been building here for 28 years. The last five years we built 100 homes per year. We're the largest affiliate in the world. Page 98 May 16, 2006 We have enough land for 1,600 homes, and we need the government to help us. We don't need money. We need zoning. Our land, we can't get it zoned. So even though we've been smart enough to buy lots of land and raise lots of money, we have 22,000 people in our database. That means there's 22,000 people in this county who have either given us money or come out and volunteered. And there's some folks here today -- we haven't tried hard to get a lot of people here. But people in this community and the county definitely support Habitat, they definitely support the cause of affordable housing. We need to look at affordable housing as part of the infrastructure, just as we do traffic and sewer and everything else. We didn't need to make Cormac Giblin an equal to Norm Feder and the head of public utilities. We need his department to be one of the major departments we have in this county, with the same kind of rights that those other departments have. And let's come up with solutions for all affordable housing in this county. The items discussed today are all minor items. They're all very important to us, but just a small part of it. But this commission cannot do anything to make less affordable housing be built. And these -- some of these items being discussed today will make less affordable housing being built, especially the discussion on rural lands. We don't want to make it any easier for developers out there. And I agree completely, it hasn't been studied enough. Let's study it some more. Ave Maria is a model. Let's use them as the model. That's what we should have for all the rural villages. Let them do what Ave Maria did. We think that's fantastic. If you do that, yes, you'll go a long way to solving your affordable housing problem. As far as density by right, I'd love to see it. I'm not optimistic that we'll see it. I'd love to see it only because NIMBY'ism is a major problem for us, okay? We had a large piece of land that we came before you in -- last June that got turned down mostly just because of Page 99 May 16, 2006 NIMBY'ism, and that's going to happen going forward. We can't help that. But we'll keep fighting the battle. The coastal high hazard zone's another thing. There's not a lot of land left. But it would be bad to send a signal that you can't have affordable housing there. We need to build affordable housing everywhere. One last thing. You folks -- it seems like everybody wants to push us out to Immokalee. We're building lot of houses in Immokalee. Well, we have problems in Immokalee as well, and you're going to see it. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife on our next development, which is called Carcassa (phonetic), has just informed us that a panther with a collar on it was seen there in the last couple of years. Three point nine million dollars Habitat will pay to build our affordable housing there. It bothered me enough -- I then sent somebody to the meeting in Vero Beach, and they came back with a map that shows the panther habitat around Immokalee. You guys have to look at it, okay? There is no land close to Immokalee that's not at least a secondary panther habitat. Most of it's primary. It's going to cost millions of dollars for us to build in Immokalee and for anybody else to do it as well. So you can't push us out there. Let us build everywhere. We're ready to do it. You've got lots of Habitat folks here. Maybe some of them will waive; they don't have to talk. They want to -- we all want to do more. We're willing to do it. I hope to spend the rest of my life doing it. I hope in five years from now we see a different attitude with all of us, everybody here, trying to do all they can for affordable housing. That's what we want to see. Thank you. CHAIRMAN HALAS: Thank you. MS. FILSON: The next speaker is Douglas Burke. He'll be followed by Gary Kluckhohn. Page 100 May 16, 2006 MR. BURKE: Mr. Chairman and other commissioners, I will be very brief. I am on the board of directors for Habitat for Humanity, and I have been for the last five years. I find it extremely frustrating that we cannot -- we raise all the money we need, we saw fit to have the land in place. And so what I want to say today is that I think this community is so fortunate to have the leadership of Dr. Sam Durso and Mary Ann, who have already spoken to you. We appreciate very much their continued passion for this. And for Heaven's sake, help them and help us and help the community. Thank you. MS. FILSON: The next speaker is Gary Kluckhohn. The next speaker is Debbie -- and I'm not sure how to pronounce this, T-L-A-H-R, yeah. And she'll be followed by Lamia Chami. Okay. MS. TLAHR: Good afternoon. All I can say is yesterday I spent some time with the residents of Diamond Shores just to let them know that they have a little support from the community -- I'm with the social justice group from my church -- and basically met families with young children who, as we're debating this and discussing this and amending things, they have five days to be out of their homes. And as -- we did a lot of research to try to show them where they can go that's affordable, and we came up with not many solutions. What I realized in talking to many of them is that they can make it with the support of the community. They really can. They have jobs, they work hard. They want lives for their children. They want them to be safe. They wanted them to be able to play outside. These are the people, the faces of what we're talking about. And the people that came with me -- and we did this together -- really want to have a mix in our communities. We don't believe that all people of a certain income should live separate from other people. It's not good for a community, an entire community. And so we want to advocate for that. And so really the three issues that we support is the workforce Page 101 May 16, 2006 housing density bonuses by right -- and I think that we have to make this a mandatory thing or else it seems like we're way -- we're way behind here. I mean, like I said, people have to be out of their homes in four days, and there's nothing available. So we have to enforce something, it seems to me. The other is the high -- the density bonuses in the coastal high hazard areas. Again, that helps to make a mix in our communities, and people can work where they live. I think it -- I think we need to advocate for that. And then to maintain the existing targeted workforce housing set-aside throughout the comprehensive plan. I think that the danger is, if we're going to start talking about gap housing, it's a separate issue than the people we were with yesterday, and it needs to be a separate issue. Don't lump it with affordable housing or else we're just going to be creating housing for the gap, and we're going to, again, neglect this whole area. So let's support these families that, with a little support, they can make it. They want to make it. In talking to some of the teens there, wonderful young kids, they're starting to get angry. Who cares -- nobody cares about us, they're saying. You know, this is what contributes to drug problems, crime problems. You know, and if we just say, okay, live somewhere where we don't see you, we don't -- they know that. We don't want to contribute to that. We want to be a community that cares, a moral community, and I'm afraid that that chance is slipping away. Also I don't know if it is possible, but if the board could recommend that an advocate for affordable housing, the kind I'm talking about, be assigned to the Planning Commission, I think that might be a good idea. I think they do wonderful work. They know what they're doing. Page 102 May 16, 2006 But when it comes to affordable housing, maybe there's a staff from the county who knows about this issue, is creative about it, that you could appoint to be part of that Planning Commission. I don't know if that's possible. But it might help some of these things. MS. FILSON: The next speaker is Lamia Chami, and she'll be followed by Timothy Nance. MS. CHAMI: Good afternoon, Commissioners. I will not repeat what Debbie said. We are from the same group, a social justice committee. And I asked the question many times and nobody was able to answer me. People are going to be out of their house. There is few spots left in St. Matthew's House, the Shelter for Abused Women take special cases. People are going to be homeless. Who's responsible? Who can take care of them and who's responsible in this county? And Commissioner Coletta, you asked me the other day if I'm ready to have people of low income and very low income in my back yard, and today I can answer you and tell you, yes, I'm ready, because those people, if we can call them those people, are no different from me and you. People are working with us and for us. Their kids are with our kids in the same school district. So I hope that more justice will be considered in this county. Thank you. MS. FILSON: The next speaker is Timothy Nance. He'll be followed by Tom Eastman. MR. NANCE: Tim Nance. I live in the northern Belle Meade area. I'd just like to say that I think it's clear that the greatest challenge we have in our region is housing for all sorts of working professionals, families and workers of all economic levels. And I would encourage the county commissioners to keep all the housing options open to allow the staff, governmental people, the agencies that are represented here today, and private industry, to do Page 103 May 16, 2006 everything they can to address these housing needs. I think it would be tremendously inappropriate to restrict development of housing of a particular economic level in any given area. I think it's totally inappropriate. I think harsher words, maybe discriminatory and elitist is a little more accurate, to do that, and I think it would certainly send the wrong message about our county and our community, and I think it would call into question the genuine intent of the commission to solve a problem for our community. So I would certainly encourage you to avoid any regional restriction on development of housing and to keep all your options open. Thank you very much. MS. FILSON: Tom Eastman. He'll be followed by Michael Mastey. MR. EASTMAN: Good afternoon, Commissioners. I'm Tom Eastman. I'm the director of real property with the Collier County School District, and I wanted to address just one narrow issue today. It relates to the four-unit cap that you have in the coastal hazardous (sic) area, and some of our property is situated in that area. And we're looking at it potentially for teacher housing to address some of the essential service personnel housing issues in the county. I would -- I would ask that you look at the issue on a more case-by-case basis instead of a blanket cap in that area. Thanks. MS. FILSON: Michael Mastey. He'll be followed by Ellie Krier. Michael Mastey? (N 0 response.) MS. FILSON: Ellie Krier. And she'll be followed by Al Zichella. MS. KRIER: Thank you. Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman, Commissioners. I am registered, Mr. Chairman. I'm here today representing the Naples Area Board of Realtors. Members of NAB OR have been here before to stress to you our Page 104 May 16, 2006 commitment of the real estate industry to affordable housing in our community. We have identified short-term relatively small solutions that as an industry we can do immediately, including, so that you know, working with the University of Florida Extension Homebuyers program to provide them with rooms for training and providing realtors who have affordable housing products directly to their pre-qualified buyers that are in that program waiting for those products. We support Habitat for Humanity in all of their efforts, as well as with our labor and contributions. With regard to the density bonus by right, this will certainly solve your NIMBY'ism problem, although we do have concerns with the curtailment of public input; however, we do urge you to investigate the Florida Association of Realtors smart growth initiatives in affordable housing in other Florida communities, including Orlando, where architectural styles and community planning have proved to be compatible with abutting neighbors and not created this problem in the first place. If you find density bonus by right is appropriate to implement in your opinion, then we would suggest an investigation of design standards, perhaps. We also urge you and support you in comprehensive integrative and innovative solutions on all issues of affordable housing, and we appreciate the level of community discussion you've generated through your continuing workshops, and we urge more work on this -- all the solutions possible. Thank you so much. MS. FILSON: The next speaker is Al Zichella. He'll be followed by Laurel Paster. MR. ZICHELLA: For the record, Al Zichella. I am registered and am president of CBIA. I'm here today on behalf of our 1,450 member companies. And we have some serious concerns about the commission Page 105 May 16, 2006 adopting a new comprehensive public policy on affordable housing without appropriate public review process. We believe that considerable discussion will be necessary regarding long-term impacts of this policy, as well as significant philosophical considerations associated with it. We would respectfully encourage the commission to take the time necessary to fully vet the affordable housing impacts on this proposed policy. The community at large has a sincere issue -- excuse me -- interest in this issue. Please allow us to participate in the process to ensure the best long-term planning policies for Collier County. Thanks for your time. MS. FILSON: Laurel Paster. She'll be followed by Nancy Kuhn, K-U-H-N. CHAIRMAN HALAS: Sue, what will we'll do is after Laurel Paster, we'll break for lunch. That's about 12:45. MS. FILSON: Oh, okay. MS. FILSON: Mrs. Paster, you can-- MS. PASTER: Thank you. My name is Laurel Paster, and I'm representing Collier County branch of the NAACP. I reside in precinct 221 in the coastal hazard area in what was once a working-class area. Commissioners, I have been so pleased that the Florida legislature saw fit to pass the housing legislation that just -- they just completed, and I'm sure you are. You know, the thought of having some more funds around here would be -- you know, it could be appreciated. I hope we will be able to move quickly with the strategy to get some of those funds and to use them well. We certainly have good ideas here in Collier County. We have good proposals and prospects for mixed-use construction, exclusionary zoning, land trust density bonuses, deferral of impact Page 106 May 16, 2006 fees and fast-track permitting. And I was especially appreciative of what Fred Thomas said, because I grew up in Chicago on a streetcar line upstairs of stores, and I certainly think that this is a very enriching experience for people. You get to see a lot of the world in different ways than you normally would. Anyway, we in the NAACP see some impediments to affordable housing that are of special concern to us, restricting of workforce housing to roughly areas east of Airport-Pulling Road, north of U.S. 41. This would mean that the River Park area would not receive the kind of attention it needs either in terms of rehabilitation or in funding for new housing. It is certainly true that upper level income housing is encroaching on that area. I mean, that is very -- what shall we say -- valuable land in River Park, and it's becoming so along the river corridor there. So that is one of the things that we are concerned about, that if we don't keep the affordable housing in that area, then it really will be gone, and this is a population that should be considered. In East Naples the same thing is occurring, particularly where rental property is being converted to condominiums. Commissioners, I know you do not believe that someone who is less affluent is less worthy of respect and consideration. I know you don't think that way. So please think hard on the impact in terms of the total community when you consider removing all affordable housing from the coastal hazard area. Somebody said something about the -- this before. I won't go on. The second thing is, lumping all workforce housing into just one category up to 150 percent of the median income, the set-asides that were formerly approved by this commission to allow the same percentages for very low, low, and moderately low income housing, going to the 80th percentile of the median income guaranteed that a Page 107 May 16, 2006 range of workforce housing needs would be constructed. I'll be finished. With one category only, construction would most likely go to gap housing. Now, while gap housing is certainly needed badly, there's no question, it should not receive a higher percentage of the bonus package. This too has special impact for people of color who provide the bulk of services as servers, landscape gardeners, cleaners, supermarket cashiers and shelvers. We need these less formally trained workers in our county as well as the teachers, the sheriffs, the officers and hospital staff. Let us maintain the original categories plus one for gap housing and find housing as soon as possible for people in the whole spectrum of need. Thank you. CHAIRMAN HALAS: Thank you. Commissioner Coyle? COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yeah. Mr. Chair, I just need to clarify something because so many times statements are made and people pick them up as if they're fact. It's my understanding that we approved an affordable housing density bonus that, in fact, was different for the different classifications of housing. You don't get the same density bonus for gap housing as you get for very low income housing. So it is not true that we are eliminating those things. So please don't anybody get the idea that we are today planning to eliminate any of those density bonuses for affordable housing based upon various categories with different -- different density bonuses for the -- the lower income housing. So we're not doing what you said we were doing. So please don't misinterpret what we're doing here; otherwise, it's going to create a lot more confusion about what's really happening. One final remark. There is nothing in this document that Page 108 May 16, 2006 prohibits affordable housing in the coastal high hazard area. Absolutely nothing. All it deals with is density. Nobody is trying to eliminate affordable housing. And with that, we'll discuss the rest of that later. CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. Commissioner Coletta, and then we'll break for lunch. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Okay. Just one quick point. There wasn't anything the commission said as far as the elimination of affordable housing for gap. It was the Planning Commission that changed the definition, that if it was followed by this commission it would raise problems. We can't discuss it outside of this particular meeting, so I have no idea how my fellow commissioners sit on that particular item, but we'll find out shortly. CHAIRMAN HALAS: Thank you very much, ladies and gentlemen. We'll take a one-hour recess. If you could be back by 12:49 (sic). Give you a few minutes early (sic). 12:49 (sic) -- or 12:49 we'll resume. (A luncheon recess was had.) CHAIRMAN HALAS: Good afternoon, ladies and gentlemen. We're back in session from our lunch break for a continuance of -- okay. Thank you very much. MS. FILSON: Shall I call the speakers? CHAIRMAN HALAS: Huh? MS. FILSON: Shall I call the speakers? CHAIRMAN HALAS: I don't know where everybody went. We had a room full, and I think we gave them a specified time. Let's start calling the speakers and see if we can get rolling here, and if they're not here we'll put them off to the side, give them a second chance. MS. FILSON: Okay. Nancy Kuhn? (No response.) MS. FILSON: Donna Caron? Jeff Cecil? Okay. Donna Caron, Page 109 May 16, 2006 you're first, and you'll be followed by Jeff Cecil. Go ahead. MS. CARON: Thanks. For the record, my name is Donna Caron, and I'm on the Planning Commission, and I'm also a resident who lives in the coastal high hazard area. I've a couple of issues that I want to talk to the commissioners about today, and one -- the first is density by right for affordable housing. As a member of a citizen commission, I do not believe that the citizens of Collier County should ever be left out of the decision-making process. Through the public hearings, issues are raised, discussed, and worked out. It's up to you as publicly elected officials to see through any NIMBY'ism, and for us to on the Planning Commission as well, and to vote accordingly. Next I'd like to talk about limiting density in the coastal high hazard area. Coastal high hazard area, the defining term alone, should tell you why limits are necessary. But I want to be very clear. This is not a -- limiting density in the coastal high hazard area is not an affordable housing issue. It's a public health, safety, and welfare issue. We can deal with affordable housing in the coastal high hazard area with strategies such as inclusionary zoning, which is being worked on, a community land trust. And, quite frankly, I was thrilled to hear Fred Thomas talk about putting housing on top of commercial. I think that's a great idea, and I would be happy to work with any committee that worked on that as a strategy. Provisions in 9J-5 require that population concentrations be directed away from the coastal high hazard areas and the public expenditures for infrastructure are limited. It makes no sense to further pack density into the coastal high hazard area when we cannot come close to meeting the Florida Division of Emergency Management evacuation time of 12 hours or less for coastal Page 110 May 16, 2006 communItIes. Here in Collier County, we are at 18 hours or more. Based on current demand, we lack adequate shelter space. And if we can't get the people out, and our geography tells us we cannot do that, then we're responsible for safe and healthy shelter that meets or hopefully exceeds current hurricane standards. Sheltering in place is a term that you hear a lot for wind only events, and it sounds like a really reasonable strategy; however, since we are unable to predict with any kind of certainty which storm is going to bring only water or only wind, this is a very flawed strategy and not an option for those of us who live in the coastal high hazard area. We're required to get out. We have only two roads that allow for evacuation. Timed evacuations are great in theory in modeling, but that's not what actually happens in emergency situations. The risk of attempting to evacuate, becoming trapped in gridlock traffic or un -- or ha~ing to be in unhealthy shelter conditions may be a greater hazard than anything else. But those of us who live in the coastal high hazard area have no choice. We must get out. One final point and I'll be done. It's currently difficult, if not impossible, to get insurance for wind and flood if you live in the coastal high hazard area. There is not a day that goes by that I don't have one of my neighbors coming up to me to tell me that their insurance has been dropped and cancelled. There are few, if any, options for getting that insurance reinstated. And it's soon going to start to affect real estate values, quite frankly. I don't think it makes any sense to allow added density in the coastal high hazard area when people will not be able to get the insurance required in order to get a mortgage. That just doesn't seem to make any sense. And I thank you for your time. I know I'm over. MS. FILSON: The next speaker is Jeff Cecil. He'll be followed Page 111 May 16, 2006 by Brian Settle. MR. CECIL: Before I start, Brian had to leave. He's with the hospital, and he had to get back to his job. MS. FILSON: Then the next one will be Bob Krasowski. MR. CECIL: I'm Jeff Cecil, Porter, Wright, Morris, and Arthur; business owner. I am also a member of the board of Collier County Housing Development Corporation. And you've heard over and over today, you know, don't piecemeal it, let's put it all together. And I'm here to just re-emphasize that. We need every tool in the toolbox if we're going to resolve the affordable housing crisis. A hammer without nails is just something to pound with. If you don't have the nails, you can't put the wood together. You have to have every tool in the toolbox. We need tools that aren't even yet available to us. And additionally, we must learn to use the tools that we have, and the tools that are available, we need to care for them. We need to replace those that don't work, and we need to have the ability to get those new tools. The shortage of housing that's affordable to our workforce will not be remedied overnight or even over a year or two or three or four. This is a serious problem with difficult obstacles. It's a whole community, lifestyle-impacting, years-in-the-making and years-to-be undone problem. The question is, does this county really have the political will to accept the changes that are needed to solve a critical problem? Some of those changes are unpopular, some of them are uncomfortable, and yes, sometimes we might have to live next to "those" people. If I hear that one more time in the next couple of hours, I think I'm going to just shoot myself. We need great leadership from this commission, from our business community, our construction industry, and our citizens working together to overcome the inertia and commence the provision Page 112 May 16, 2006 of housing for those who make a regular living in Southwest Florida. We need density bonuses, we need density by right, we need inclusionary zoning, and we need to include that in our rural lands throughout the county. We need specific acknowledgements of that crisis and action from our leadership reflecting the desire to solve it. Our way of life here is ours to enjoy but only as long as we have the people and the properties to help us to do that. You can help ensure a brighter future by carefully considering suggestions that have been given today in acting accordingly. Thank you very much. MS. FILSON: The next speaker is Bob Krasowski. He'll be followed by Donald Spanier. MR. KRASOWSKI: Good afternoon, Commissioners. I have comments in regards to affordable housing. I've spoken to you before on this. I don't know to what extent it's represented in the plan that you have before you. But I believe it's a fact that everyone that comes to Collier County doesn't need to have a house nor do they deserve or warrant having their own house. And I think part of the affordable housing problem could be solved if the county government, the school district, the hospital, Wal-Mart, Target, these other places that were mentioned before, these employers that need employees, including the county, would get together and build a fund in relation -- in association with some of the banks here and build apartment buildings. People don't have to come here and have a house. They could come and move into an apartment. And by these groups owning those apartments, you can give very reasonable rents because you're not motivated by profit and the -- what you could charge as a maximum by the marketplace, and then also you could keep these apartments from being turned into co-ops or to condominiums, which is happening now. Page 113 May 16, 2006 A lot of the policies you have in place now are allowing for the redevelopment of neighborhoods that are working class. Affordable housing neighborhoods are being flipped over and being developed to the discouragement of people that now exist and have a stable existence in Collier County. Happening in my own neighborhood. Another aspect of affordable housing, I think it should be specified in your policy that the affordable housing and the increased density units that you could allow from certain accommodations to affordability be available only to United States citizens. It was mentioned by Cormac Giblin or Giblet here a while back that the -- that undocumented workers would be able to take -- to move into some of these houses that he was speaking of, and I think that is totally inappropriate, especially now with your leadership, your Republican party president leadership addressing a complex matrix of solutions, so-called solutions, to handle the undocumented-worker, illegal-worker issue, and I believe that this is -- this plays as an important thing to consider for everybody involved. The undocumented workers are often exploited. They work for less than they would get otherwise if they were legal. So I think that we should set up a situation in Collier County where we start investigating what's going on. If the people have ajob and provide work and -- in wherever, then we should give them some kind of bonus points to work towards their citizenship. But they should not -- because they have in the past. This has divided workers. They come in and knocked the legs out from under the working class, blue collar type workers in Collier County and in this country. And certainly the management and higher-up types of people, the business -- the upper business culture just loves that because it kills the leverage that the working people had in protecting their interests, so they just displaced them with illegal's who will be replaced if this is allowed to continue. Page 114 May 16, 2006 So don't start housing them, because I think it's -- it would be some kind of legal offense to federal programs where you're using Collier County policies or monies to provide housing for illegal workers. So thank you. MS. FILSON: The next speaker is Donald Spanier. He'll be followed by Michael Werner. MR. SPANIER: Good afternoon, Commissioners. I'm Donald Spanier, for the record. I live in Pelican Bay in District 2, and I'm quite closely affiliated within Pelican Bay with a variety of public policy issues including, believe it or not, affordable/workforce housing. We have within Pelican Bay probably close to 1,000 workers between the Ritz-Carlton, La Grande, the Club at Pelican Bay, and the Waterside Shops, who generally are unable at this point to find affordable housing. We are trying to generate some solutions within Pelican Bay, and we think we're on the track, which is the reason I come before you to urge you to not create unintended consequences with your actions this afternoon. The first item I want to address is a matter of density bonuses by right which I see in our particular situation as an impediment to the construction and occupancy of workforce housing. Let me give you an illustration from our recent experience. In Pelican Bay we have a deadlock situation about the construction of Cap d'Antibes, high-rise apartment house. Been in litigation, still in litigation. It was handled in the usual procedural way. Everybody checked out the setbacks and the rest of it, and the plans were approved. We had another situation just recently in which there was a problem between the developer of the Waterside Shops and one of the adjacent communities. There was a difference in view on issues that involved Page 115 May 16, 2006 appearance, public safety and health. The developer originally had the mindset that as of right, he had obtained all of the permissions and acquiescence's he required. So there stood these two groups with their feet firmly planted in cement unable and unwilling to look at the realities. We were able, with the instance of some of your staff and some of the commissioners, to create an arbitration type situation, whether legal or not, in which we got the parties around the table, dismissed the notion of as of right, and negotiated a settlement. I think it's the most graphic illustration we could have, how the public forum ventilating an issue can lead to realistic solutions whereas the enforcement merely of procedural rights can absolutely cripple a program. I think I'm out of time; am I not? CHAIRMAN HALAS: Yes, you are, Don. MR. SPANIER: All right. Then I won't go on to the second one. CHAIRMAN HALAS: Thank you very much. MS. FILSON: The next speaker is Michael Werner. Nancy Payton? Patsy Carbone? MS. PAYTON: I only signed up to speak about section 24. Would this be the appropriate time? CHAIRMAN HALAS: No. MS. PAYTON: Okay. Save me for section 24. MS. FILSON: Okay. Got ya. Kathy-- CHAIRMAN HALAS: Can I make a -- if there are speakers out there, if you could be more specific in regards to what you want to talk about, if there's any of the speakers that are going to sign up, so that we don't continually call people up and get into this problem. Next speaker? MS. FILSON: Patsy Carbone? Kathy Patterson? She'll be followed by Tammie Nemecek. MS. PATTERSON: Good afternoon, Commissioners. I'm Kathy Page 116 May 16, 2006 Patterson from the Collier County Housing Development Corporation. I'm asking you to make the right decision on three workforce housing topics that are being presented today and are crucial to the affordable/workforce housing in Collier County. One is workforce housing density by right. Density by right should be allowed throughout all of Collier County, not only in just portions of the county. I don't have to tell you that workforce housing is needed throughout. By voting positively to density by right for all of Collier County will take the politics out of the development process and will avoid NIMBY'ism, controversy and delays in workforce -- in the workforce housing process. This is, of course, subject to concurrency. Coastal high hazard area. By density -- by denying density in the coastal high hazard area, it eliminates a huge area of the county and places it off limits for the workforce housing, workforce affordable housing. It's my understanding that this -- the elimination of density in the coastal high hazard area is because of evacuation. The emergency management -- the emergency management director has gone on record saying that there's no sound evidence claiming that density bonuses in the coastal high hazard area could cause evacuation problems in the case of an emergency, such as in a hurricane. So once again, please allow density in all of Collier County. Workforce housing set-asides, as in the rural villages. The CCHDC is asking you to maintain the set-asides as originally stated in the GMP. If you want to address gap, then you should have a separate set-aside for the gap housing. Without density included in -- without density, including the coastal high hazard area, there will be no workforce housing, and without the workforce, we will not have the quality of life we enjoy in Southwest Florida. Page 11 7 May 16, 2006 Thank you for your time today. MS. FILSON: Tammie Nemecek. She'll be followed by Russ Weyer. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Can I just make a comment? You know, it's interesting that you say that gap should be separate, because that's what our committee had tried to do. And you sat on the committee so you know that very well. But the other committees insisted that it be united all under one bill. And I mean, that isn't what we wanted, but, you know, that's what was insisted upon. And so we went along with that. Just so it's clear, that isn't anything we ramrodded. We started out trying to have a separate category. Thank you. MS. NEMECEK: Good afternoon, Commissioners. Tammie Nemecek. I am president of the Economic Development Council of Collier County. The EDC is dedicated to a mission of high-wage job creation and retention in Collier County. Weare working to diversify the economy through efforts to help retain and expand our existing businesses, as well as recruit new industry to the community. The housing concern to our business community is at a critical level. We -- it is not new to the community. It is something that we have been working on for many years. And as Jeff Cecil noted, as long as it's taken us to get to this place, I think that we need to ensure that we're providing a comprehensive approach to make sure that we're addressing the solutions to that problem and not working to move forward in a quickly (sic) fashion so that we have unintended consequences as a result. The businesses in the community are a vital piece of our community. Eighty-eight percent of the taxes in Collier County collected come from the residential taxpayers in Collier County. The costs of services to that residential taxpayer is about $115. Page 118 May 16, 2006 F or every business that we help retain in the community, for every business that we help expand in the community, and for every business that we help to attract to our community, their dollar retrieves only 75 cents in services. Our efforts to support industry have many direct and indirect effects on our economy. Not only are the businesses in Collier County a revenue source to provide public infrastructure such as roads, schools, and other essential government services, but they provide jobs, places of employment, a means by which individuals in our community support their families, can potentially purchase homes, and give back to the very community that provides the opportunity to live here. If the businesses cannot attract and retain employees because the employees just cannot afford to live here, these businesses will leave. While the EDC's mission focuses on high-wage jobs, we have, for a long time, and we continue to lack -- and what we continue to lack in Collier County is a broad range of housing opportunities that support not only the lower income families or essential service personnel, but actually a large portion of your workforce. It is a critical issue, but what we need are comprehensive solutions. Are we sure what we are proposing in the language here today comprehensively addresses the housing issue here in Collier County? Are we sure that we are removing obstacles to build more affordable housing products at a variety of price points? Great work has been done to date by many people who care and want to make a difference. Some of the solutions may even be included in what you're proposing today, but it is comprehensive? Will it make a difference? One of the areas that I would like to specifically address, and, again, looking at this comprehensively, is the language that's included in the research and technology park portion of this EAR amendment. This language, when -- for the research and technology park Page 119 May 16, 2006 when we first introduced it back in the year 2000, we included workforce housing as a component of that. Back then there was no definition of workforce housing, but the intent of including housing within that research and technology park land use designation was that we could comprehensively provide for places for people to work and live at a variety of levels of price points. What's included in the language here today limits the types of housing that we can put within research and technology parks to the affordable/workforce housing component, which I believe is important, again. But, again, are we looking at it comprehensively to be able to address the needs of the entire workforce? Weare each here to make sure Collier County is the best community to live and to work. We can't deny that the housing issue is negatively impacting one of the most valuable resources in Collier County, our business community. Please help ensure we are providing the best opportunity for a comprehensive approach to housing programs that can be successful throughout Collier County. Thank you very much. MS. FILSON: The next speaker is Russell Weyer. He'll be followed by Patrick White. MR. WEYER: Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman, and the commissioners of Collier County. For the record, I'm Russ Weyer. I am with Fishkind & Associates. I'm a senior associate and also chairman of the Urban Land Institute, Southwest Florida district counsel. A couple of points I would like to make. First of all, from your previously speakers, I do agree with what Margaret Perry and Rich Y ovanovich had said regarding the RLSA. We do need to work together, give it a chance to work, and let's keep working that process and keep monitoring it. As far as activity centers are concerned, Wayne Arnold had Page 120 May 16, 2006 mentioned, I think we really need to make sure that we look at those lands just outside of the activity centers, and that will be very important to work on as well. Density by right can work. I think we just need to make sure that we work this process in a combination together. Fourth off, one point we really need to make sure that we don't avoid is rental apartments. In the past year, both in Lee County and in Collier County, we've lost one-third of our rental stock. That's very, very, very important. How many people have actually bought a house right out of college or right out of high school? Most of the time people have rented. We're losing that portion and that feeder market for our workforce, and that's very critical. Fifth, I think we should incentivize businesses to move east as well. Let's move -- if affordable housing is starting to move that way, let's move our businesses that way. So let's incentivize them to do that accordingly. One thing I do want to show you -- I have an example which I presented to all of you back in May -- oh, it was about a year ago now, and I've updated it to current construction costs and all those good things, and land costs, and it just proves the point about density. If we can go back, my example, again, was 20 acres, and we had a density of four units per acre. And the impact fees I've increased to $29,000. I guess it's closer to 30,000 now, but I just put in a nice round number. There's four areas I just wanted to show you to give you an idea. Remember that a developer would require roughly a 20 percent return because he has investors, too, just as if they were making an investment in the stock market or wherever else. So in order to get to that point, if you look at this proj ect the way it's set up now, it has a negative 225 percent return. Here, let's take away -- let's just take away the impact fees, for instance, and say we Page 121 May 16, 2006 defer them till the end. If you -- we're still up? Where'd we go? Can you see it now? If we take that to zero, as you can see, your return gets to a negative 79 percent, but it's still on a negative portion. So let's take the land cost, see where the land cost needs to get to. It's at $140,000 an acre now? And just to save, for time, I'm going to go down to $10,000 an acre. Now that gives you an 11 percent return. Ten thousand dollars an acre. That's unheard of. Just won't happen. So let's go to -- let's say the size of the project -- and again, we're at 20 acres now. You think size will increase that. Let's go to 100 acres. Still a negative 175 percent return. This is where it gets interesting. Let's go to a -- let's say we do a 1,000 acre community. It's a negative 160 percent return. And if you go to 2000, it gets to negative 159. So there's a point of diminished return. The final point I wanted to make in this -- and I realize I'm running out of time here, but let me go back real quick. Your density -- and it used to be it went from four to six. But now if you go to seven units an acre -- actually it's 7.2, gets it to that 20 percent return. So I just wanted you to understand, density is probably the one that's most -- has the most impact to it. It's not the only solution. It takes a combination of all of them to do that. And finally, I just -- while I'm up here, I just want to make an offer that I'd be willing to work with all of you in your districts to help with the educational process of going through this educational process, so thank you. MS. FILSON: The next speaker is Patrick White. He'll be followed by Gloria Morales. MR. WHITE: Good afternoon. Patrick White, Porter, Wright, Morris and Arthur, representing a property owner in the coastal high hazard area. Having spent a significant amount of time working on both Page 122 May 16, 2006 workforce housing and gap housing issues for the county, I think that I have a perspective that allows me to share what a lot of the points were that were made today by the previous speakers. But I only want to focus on one thing and kind of dovetail and build off what Russ was saying to you. It's a lot to absorb in the spreadsheet like that. But the bottom line comes down to, in the real world of economics, as Bob Mulhere was trying to shed some light on for us all, it comes down to density. And the question I want to talk with you about today is your policy considerations with those rules in the FLUE that talk about the coastal high hazard area being a place where you're going to enact a cap of four units per acre in various rules that have, you know, been brought forward for your consideration today. One of those, in fact, talks about affordable/workforce housing bonus. And to say that they're not linked issues, I think, may be an oversimplification. They are linked. When you create that cap in the CHHA and you do it broadly, without any regard to the actual specific properties in evaluating the circumstances applicable to those properties, you've effectively created an inclusionary zoning process, the reverse of inclusionary zoning. You have precluded your staff from being able to make -- whether it's emergency management, zoning and land development review, transportation planning. Your staff can't make any determinations. And so with the enactment of many regulations and new statutes this past session just concluded, specifically in areas of affordable housing, impact fees, the removal of eminent domain as a CRA possibility, there are a series of changed general laws that I believe, even in the midst of this EAR-based series of amendments, we ought to ask your staff and counsel to take a better, more close look at them. And so I urge you to do no harm in this round of enactments and to make as well considered a determination as you can so that you are Page 123 May 16, 2006 balancing these rules. This is a public health, safety, welfare concern, but that's what all of your rules are. They're all about health, safety, and welfare. That's where your authority to enact them is derived from. So I know you've got a tough job in front of you. You've got a lot of things that you must consider. But I think that if you legislate a cap at four units per acre, you have taken off the table almost every viable solution that this community would have. Thank you for your time. MS. FILSON: The next speaker is Gloria Morales, and then I'm going to go back and recall the three that weren't here previously. That would be Nancy Kuhn. MS. MORALES: Good afternoon, Commissioners. I'm just going to make a comment. I was not prepared to talk. CHAIRMAN HALAS: Your name, please. MS. MORALES: By listening -- can you hear me well? COMMISSIONER FIALA: Your name, please. CHAIRMAN HALAS: Your name? MS. MORALES: Gloria Morales. CHAIRMAN HALAS: Thank you. MS. MORALES: As a resident of Collier County and as a developer, I think I have the obligation to make this comment today. What I can sense here is an urge and a necessity for this community to have housing, period. And I know that you're doing your best to develop this facility and to give all the incentive to all of us. I know that the community wished to have all that done, too. But I think that it's a little red tape here and there, and I don't mean you all, I mean all of us. And if you think of what we have as affordable housing right now that -- I'm in the process right now to put a proj ect together. It's beautiful and I'm pretty sure you're going to try to do it as fast as you can. Page 124 May 16, 2006 But have you noticed that you have a guideline on prices, incentives, and everything that goes with it? Can you tell me, if you delay a year to give me that permit to build that, can I build the same affordable housing? I don't think I could. Because right now the proj ect that I have is a very minimum profit line, but I'm doing it because it will make me feel good; besides that, I like to make money like all of you. But I'm doing something very special for the county that I'll be proud of, okay? But if, let's say -- maybe I'm lucky and I get it through fast -- but I think the most -- I think that we have to be concerned about time here because I see a desperation of housing, and if you all commit to yourself and the public and you all put it together and give us a better timing on building, we can offer the community what you need and what they need. But if you keep on postponing and going around, we cannot make it. Materials go up so high every day . Workforce is getting higher because people are moving out of this county like every day. When I came to the county to kind of put an idea together, one of your employees, a very nice person, told me, Ms. Morales, if you going to build, please give me the first one. I can't afford a house in here right now. That made me feel really bad, because when we think about affordable housing, we think about, you know, that kind of workforce that cannot afford anything. We're talking about you all, and we all have to kind of help on that. And maybe by avoiding a little bit of that red tape -- you already decided, thank God it was going to be years a-coming because I'm going over and over, but it's so much to be said about that. Let's say you already know the, let's see, the incentives that you can give a builder, and everything that you can do. Why extend it so much? I know the public has to understand that once you have something set up, you already study the area and study everything Page 125 May 16, 2006 about it. Just, let's help each other, because you all can do anything, but without the developer, there's nothing that could be done. Am I right? Thank you for your time. MS. FILSON: The next speaker's Nancy Kuhn. Patsy Carbone? Michael Werner? MR. KLUCKHUHN: Gary Kluckhuhn? MS. FILSON: Oh, I probably -- come on up and speak. I may have your name in this list. Come on up, you can speak. MR. KLUCKHUHN: Hello, I'm Gary Kluckhuhn. I want to thank this board and your staff for what -- this morning sitting here listening and paying attention, I'm a student of what you're doing. I'm a developer. In 1981, 25 years ago, Collier County permitted for me on Marco Island 52 units on six-tenths of an acre of land. It was what was zoned C-3. It was allowed to go 11 stories high. I had what was known as retirement condominiums slated and permitted. It was a grand idea. My land cost per unit, you put the numbers to it, I think it would have been extraordinarily profitable. In fact, it would have been obscene profits. However, I was able to give the people all of the amenities found in a life care community in that project. The neighbor that I would have shadowed had I built it came to me many, many times crying, Mr. Kluckhuhn, don't do that. Don't build that building just because you can. And the universal and prime rate of 21 and a half percent altered my plan, and I didn't build it. I've become a little bit more familiar with the issue of elderly housing and special needs housing. And the reason I want to thank you is because I decided this morning that this is heaven. Housing everyone, a vision empowered in Naples. You've got a lot of acronyms. I'm going to throw one on the Page 126 May 16, 2006 table. I'm going to challenge Mike Davis and the legislation that was just passed for the $512 million for affordable housing. Density bonuses without control -- I want to mention -- without control of market forces will exacerbate the problem for which you have decided to allow density bonuses. It will exacerbate the problem you're trying to solve unless you use community land trusts and put the land into a status that will enable issues such as maintaining and sustaining a community's infrastructure. You signed in '03 -- and I have a copy of it right here -- a proclamation. And I know that you were committed to it, and you've done quite a bit in that direction. It was called a Communities for Lifetime proclamation. In fact, Tom, this has got your signature on it in '03. Jim Mudd, when I asked him what we were going to do about the assessment -- because what this says is you're going to assess your housing, your transportation, health maintenance, accessibility, efficient use of infrastructure, et cetera. And he said, we know what the problems are. We don't need to do a study. And you know what the problems are. I would like to thank you, because it's a private for-profit solution without any zoning variances. I understand the issues. And I'm looking forward to working with you and the staff, and I will bring back -- I've got a time line that we're going to use fgcu. usa, not Florida Gulf Coast University. It's Florida Gulf Coast USA as a domain name to launch this project. It's a product of the HALO coalition, housing the assisted living options. And I thank you for your time. CHAIRMAN HALAS: Thank you. MS. FILSON: That's your final speaker on housing, I think. CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. Is there anybody else that's going to speak in regards to housing? If not, we're going to closing the public hearing at this time. And I believe, Commissioner Henning, you've been waiting there Page 127 May 16, 2006 anxiously, and I'll start with you, sir. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, I mean, obviously it takes a supermajority to pass anything, so I mean, I threw something out there and I'd like to hear from my colleagues what they feel. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Tell us again. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, it's a density bonus by right and -- throughout all of the urban area, which would include Immokalee, the urbanized area, would be the coastal high hazard area. But on the win side -- and I think I hear from my colleague, Commissioner Coletta, that he's willing to remove the 16 units per acre within the -- certain elements of our Growth Management Plan within the coastal high hazard area. Presently they're allowed to convert commercial to residential, up to 16 units per acre. Presently if it's affordable housing, they can rezone it to 16 units per acre. The problem is, I don't see that ever happening. So if we -- if we feel that affordable housing is an important element, let's put our blinders on and trust that the affordable housing community will build it within the urbanized area where it's really needed. CHAIRMAN HALAS: What have we got scheduled already for affordable housing that's already been permitted that hasn't come on line? MR. WEEKS: I'll defer that to Cormac. CHAIRMAN HALAS: I mean, we seem to have a fair amount, but we just haven't had any action as far as getting it built. MR. GIBLIN: Good afternoon, Commissioners. My name's Cormac Giblin. I'm your housing and grants management. We keep tally of all the affordable developments that have been approved by the commission in the past. In the past five years, almost 5,000 units of affordable housing have been approved by the commission. They are all in one state or another along that development cycle timeline. Page 128 May 16, 2006 It takes time -- once the commission approves a PUD, for example, it does take time then to go through as -- the SDP process, it takes time to go through the building permit process, any environmental mitigation, Army Corps of Engineers. All of those add several years to every proj ect. Of the nearly 5,000 that have been developed in the past -- I'm sorry -- that have been approved in the past five years -- I'm speaking from memory right now. I did send Commissioner Coyle the updated list this morning -- I think it's about 1,700, maybe close to 2,000 have been built. COMMISSIONER COYLE: It was 1,039 have been built. About 537 are under construction right now. MR. GIBLIN: Correct, correct. Keep in mind that of the gross, about 5,000 approved numbers, about 2,000 of them are in the Town of Ave Maria itself, so that, in itself, is not the majority, but a big significant amount of the gross number. CHAIRMAN HALAS: Commissioner Fiala? COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes. I just wanted to know -- whoever I ask this question of, maybe you, David -- when we talk about density bonus for affordable housing, if a developer has 1,000 acres that right now is in, say, agricultural and he gets what, two units per acre or one unit for five acres or whatever, right? MR. WEEKS: (Nods head.) COMMISSIONER FIALA: Ifhe puts 10 percent affordable housing on there, does he then get eight units per acre on all thousand acres or just for the affordable housing? MR. GIBLIN: Yeah. Commissioners, I have the copy of the chart in front of us, in front of me. If he did 10 percent at -- CHAIRMAN HALAS: Could you put the chart on the overhead there? MR. GIBLIN: Sure. CHAIRMAN HALAS: I think that would probably give Page 129 May 16, 2006 everybody a better picture. MR. GIBLIN: This is our affordable housing density bonus chart. And in your example, if someone did 10 percent at, let's say, the -- the workforce housing level at 80 percent of median, they would receive a density bonus of two units per acre, so they would not get the full four or eight that is eligible. They would only get -- COMMISSIONER FIALA: Is that what we're voting on today, the density by right? Because I thought the density by right said, no matter how many units your property is entitled to, it would -- the base units would then be four, and then you would get an additional four units per acre density by right. MR. GIBLIN: It would be up to an additional four based on what you qualify for using the chart. Four would be the maximum bonus. COMMISSIONER FIALA: And that would be on the entire thousand acres? MR. GIBLIN: Yes. MR. WEEKS: Commissioner, that -- I just want to say that that's the density rating system that has always applied is, you're eligible for a maximum, through the rezoning process, eight units per acre. It's dependent upon the specific formulas of the number of bedrooms, and I think the rent you charge, et cetera, as to just how many actual number of units you qualify for. And as you'll recall, when you see rezone petitions asking for that bonus, there is a companion density bonus agreement that spells out those details. COMMISSIONER FIALA: And so then the issue that's really, really tough for a developer is having to go through the permitting stages and the public hearings on their entire thousand acres. They won't have to do that, right? MR. WEEKS: On the proposed density bonus by right, that's correct. They would not go through that process. Page 130 May 16, 2006 COMMISSIONER FIALA: So we don't really have much of a need to be here then. I see. Okay. Thank you. MR. GIBLIN: Well, Commissioners, to clarify, what it would mean is that you could get up to half of the eligible density bonus that you could get through the public hearing process as a matter of right. MR. WEEKS: As opposed to an eight-unit-per-acre bonus plus a base, which could give you as much as 12. A bonus by right is limited to a maximum offour-units-per-acre bonus density, but you could also be awarded the base density for a total of eight units per acre as opposed to, through the rezone process, of eight-units-per-acre bonus added on to that four. So we're really talking about a maximum of eight units per acre by right versus 12 units per acre through a public hearing process. And furthermore -- I mean, I don't want to -- I know you just meant that as an example. But if a project were 1,000 acres, it probably would be-- MR. SCHMITT: It would be a DRI. MR. WEEKS: -- DRI, development of regional impact. So even though there might not be a zoning requirement, there would be a public hearing process for the development order. MR. SCHMITT: And most likely they would go through a PUD type of development. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Okay. So let's use 800 acres instead. MR. SCHMITT: Probably you would be -- density by right would probably be more in the 20, 10 acres, 20-acre type of development rather than that -- a large parcel, because they would go through some type of a public hearing for a PUD for a site specific zoning. Most likely they would. CHAIRMAN HALAS: Commissioner Coyle? COMMISSIONER COYLE: Mr. Chairman, I would like to respond to Commissioner Henning's proposal, but first I'd like to take Page 131 May 16, 2006 a few minutes and sort of lay the groundwork for the logic that I think I'm going to have to use in making a decision here. It's interesting to me that the government, in an effort to carry out its responsibilities with respect to health, safety, and welfare of its citizens, particularly in the case -- an example of Diamond Shores, when we try to improve the living conditions, the unintended consequence is that the place is closed down and the people are thrown out. It suddenly becomes the government's problem and the government's fault. Our alternative, do nothing about the standard of living or the safety issues, the condition of those homes. We would be criticized for that, too. Everything we do is a tightrope walk. It just isn't possible for us to view this issue or any other issue in a vacuum. If we could do that, it would be the easiest thing in the world to solve. The solution is simple for affordable housing. We don't approve any rezones or developments unless they are for affordable housing. End of story. That's it. Then we'll see who steps up to the plate and who recognizes their civic responsibility and who starts building affordable homes. You know what will happen? Collier County will be accused of establishing a moratorium, and then our legislators will retaliate, and then they will remove more of our authority and give it to developers. I heard Tammie Nemecek discuss diversification. Only person in the entire audience all day that even recognized that the problem is that we're paying people very low salaries. And 82 percent of all of the jobs created in Collier County every single year, 82 percent of them, pay less than the median wage. Who is out there trying to get employers to pay more money to their employees so they can afford a better place to live? I don't see anybody. I see people coming to the government saying, what are you Page 132 May 16, 2006 going to do to solve this problem? The government didn't create this problem. This problem was created by a group of wealthy people who are coming south to retire who are buying up an ever-diminishing supply of desirable land. That's all it is. And you've got landowners and developers who are responding to that market demand. That's what caused it. People ask us -- I've gotten emails and telephone calls, why don't you do something about the wages? You don't want us to start controlling wages and running private businesses in Collier County. Those things just aren't appropriate. Where are the people who talk about private property rights? You understand when we build or encourage affordable housing to be built, we have to control it in some way so that the buyer cannot sell it and make a substantial capital gain just like you and I do. We discriminate against those people. You and I probably bought property sometime in our lives, that property appreciated, we sold it and we made a lot of money on it. They can't do that. We deprive them of that opportunity when we get involved in creating and managing affordable housing for people who are less fortunate. The whole issue of density in the coastal high hazard area in my mind has nothing to do with affordable housing. Nobody has said affordable housing can't be built in the coastal high hazard area. And I don't think anybody sitting at this desk feels that that's true. But let me use a specific example. Directly across the street is a fairly large shopping center. It's in the coastal high hazard area south of U.S. 41. There's another shopping center north of U.S. 41 that contains a Wal-Mart and lots of other shops. You're suggesting that we're red-lining the ones south and we're not red-lining the ones north. That makes no sense. Absolutely no sense at all. And secondly, would either of those two shopping centers be less Page 133 May 16, 2006 profitable if there were one or two stories of residential units on top? N ope. They built them as they are, and they're making money. What would have happened if there had been residential units built on top of that commercial? Collier County government created a special zoning district that did not previously exist, I think two or three years ago. We provided incentives to use the mixed-use zoning district and create housing mixed with commercial. We've been trying for at least two years to get somebody to do this. I don't know of one. CHAIRMAN HALAS: We have one. COMMISSIONER COYLE: We might have one, okay. Then we might have one. The other question is, job growth patterns. We're talking about building where people work. I think if you'll look at where people are now working, you'll find that there hasn't been a lot of job growth along the coastal corridor. There's been more job growth toward the central part of the county. So what are we -- what are we trying to do? We're trying to put people in housing where maybe that's not where they're really going to work in the future? We need to look not at past patterns, but at future patterns, and it has been our -- our continuing effort to move business further east to serve the people who live there, and we're particularly challenged in the Golden Gate Estates area. You heard us talk about watershed development plans earlier today, watershed management plans. It's very critical to our water supply and the quality of our bays and estuaries. Where are the people who are concerned about that? Whether it's private property rights, watershed management plans, transportation concurrency, emergency preparedness and evacuation, stormwater. Everybody's concerned about -- we have lots of communities that flood when we have a large rainstorm. All of these things are affected by density, and that's the issue we're talking about in the coastal high Page 134 May 16, 2006 hazard area, density. Now, you can't tell me that this shopping center just south of 41 across the street from this building could not be more profitable and make money if they had built residences above that shopping center. And they can do it with the densities that we are allowing in the coastal high hazard area. There is no reason that can't be done. You just have to find someone who will do it. The government cannot do it. But we have created the incentives to get that accomplished. So, now, to get me to the point, I want you to understand that we're not taking these things lightly. This is a very, very complex issue that affects many, many things throughout the county. People have gotten up at that podium and they have said, you are losing responsibility for managing growth in Collier County. They're absolutely right. Not only has the legislature stripped us of the opportunity to guarantee transportation concurrency, but they're working on other measures. We can't afford to turn over to other people rights that we should properly exercise ourselves. And if we do that, then pretty soon you're not going to need us. You can just talk with your legislators in Tallahassee and see if they'll respond to your concerns about inadequate roads and too much density and polluted water and stormwater and economic diversification, because we're slowly being bypassed. So to turn this density issue over to developers by right is, in my estimation, a bad idea; however, let me suggest something. We can review our entire Future Land Use Element of our Growth Development Plan and maybe in a public hearing getting testimony from people, working with landowners, we can decide what lands in that future land use map can, perhaps should be, used specifically for affordable housing, and we grant the right to do it on that piece of property, on those pieces of property. Page 135 May 16, 2006 We might select many pieces of property throughout Collier County wherever we can find it. That way you get the public hearing, you get the density by right, and it's already gone through a review by the county commission as far as the zoning is concerned. There are ways to solve that problem, but I would suspect that most of those will be unpalatable to a lot of people. But I am not inclined to get stampeded into a solution that is going to have consequences that we can't predict right now. So I would not like to see the density by right. I would like to see a faster permitting process for people who want to build affordable housing. I would like to make sure we get the roads built that will satisfy the transportation concurrency issues so that they can -- these affordable housing developments can be built. So that's a long-winded answer, but basically that's where I am with this. CHAIRMAN HALAS: Commissioner Coletta? COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I agree with you, it is a complex issue. And I agree with you that county government has a limited responsibility, and I also agree with you that I don't think we should put a burden on our taxpayers to build this housing. Where I do have some disagreements with you is that I think the responsibility of this commission is to make the rules user friendly for those people out there that are willing to build the housing. It might take them five years to get it built, but this is day one of the beginning of five years for whoever comes forward. And it takes a while. It's just not going to happen over night. I'm not excited, although I'm always open for new opportunities with restudying the problem, going back out, trying to identify areas. We've done this numerous times before, and then we'd be back into the hearing process, and three years from now we'd come up with another new idea. Now, I really don't think that we're going to have this thing, density by right, pass here today. I know it's going to be a Page 136 May 16, 2006 disappointment to some, and to some other people it's going to be a relief. I think that it's a reasonable approach to a problem that's been ongoing for some time. And I don't know if we really want to belabor it much longer. At some point in time we've got to be able to make a decision and move on to the next issue we're going to be dealing with. CHAIRMAN HALAS: Commissioner Fiala? COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes, excuse me. I've mentioned before, I'd like to mention again -- and boy, do I agree with Tammie Nemecek, that what I called it was an Affordable Housing/W orkforce Housing Master Plan. I asked at one of our open commissions, I said, what do we need and how much do we need? You know, and I've spoken with Shannon Chesser, and she's working with CBIA and the chamber. And I said, how about you guys coming up -- you have a study committee there amongst you all-- and you tell us how much affordable housing we need, you know. Ifwe're going to build 1,000 units, do we need 500 of them affordable? And if we need 500 affordable, do we need them in the 10 percent for the extremely low and 20 percent for the very low, and 20 percent for low, and 10 percent for median and 20 percent for moderate? You know, I don't know what the figures are, you know, but just so that we know what we're doing. I think once you have -- once you know what your needs really are, actually are, then you know what to shoot for, you know to who aim for, you have a path to get there, and you're not just scattershotting saying, we need affordable housing but we don't know what. We all know we need it. We all know we need some rental, especially with all the -- I look at Fred Thomas, because I just totally agree with everything he said, and I'm willing to start it right here, and -- but we need rental because of all the rental units closing, you know, and becoming condos. Page 137 May 16, 2006 But how much else do we need? I don't think anybody in this room really knows. We all know we need it, we just don't know what categories we need it in. And I hope that the chamber and CBIA will take on the challenge to put it together for me. I felt they would be a perfect organization. But if not, maybe EDC would like to do that, or, you know, maybe our own county people would like to do that. But I thought it would be great to see some outside organizations definitely dealing in the building and the workforce. Let's face it, all of these that I've just mentioned, chamber, EDC, and CBIA, they all have the workforce that are going to be living in that housing, and who better to know than them? That's my comment. CHAIRMAN HALAS: Yeah. I believe that we're going to be addressing some other avenues in regards to affordable housing. And Joe, maybe you can elaborate on that. I believe we're looking at linkage fees and we're also looking at inclusionary housing to address this issue with -- of affordable housing. My biggest concern is density by right, I feel that the citizens have a right to step up to the plate and have a say in how their community's going to look. And I don't believe that we should take that away from the citizens here. MR. GIBLIN: Commissioner, again, Cormac Giblin, your housing and grants manager. I believe you are referencing -- this is the direction you gave staff at last May's affordable -- workforce housing workshop, and this is direction -- and was approved or directed unanimously from all the commission at that workshop that -- these were our marching orders, to prepare responses on each one of those items. And then in December you held a gap housing workshop. Again, those same five or six items came up, and again, we received -- I believe again it was unanimous direction from the board to move Page 138 May 16, 2006 forward on all five of these issues. And we are -- as you can see, we've accomplished some of them so far. Today we've got one of them that we've been discussing at length, and there are one or two to come that we are in the process of. CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. And that's inclusionary housing? MR. GIBLIN: Inclusionary zoning is going to be in this LDC cycle. CHAIRMAN HALAS: And we're also -- MR. GIBLIN: And linkage fees are out at outside counsel review right now. CHAIRMAN HALAS: The other issue -- I don't really think that we have any control over whether a developer decides to have his condos either be condos or rental units. That's something that we have no control over, and I don't believe that government should get involved in that aspect of private enterprise. Commissioner Coletta, I believe, was next. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I think Commissioner Henning was before me. CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. Commissioner Henning? COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, I appreciate the majority answering the question. But again, you know, the density by right, as I stated, has to meet our concurrency, so I don't understand comment about pollution and overcrowded roads. But be it what it is, you know, I think this process is a give and take. And I hate to say this, but I'm going to support Commissioner Coletta and block the density reduction in the coastal high hazard area and in the areas around activity centers. So we're at where we're at. CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. COMMISSIONER HENNING: And I guess we have some opportunities later on about inclusion or zoning and linkage fees. So I'm ready to move on. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I'm next on the agenda here. Page 139 May 16, 2006 Excuse me. I'm trying to see where I am as far as the limiting to the 16 units throughout the urban area, and I'm not too sure how I came to that particular conclusion. But if we -- we're dealing with one issue at a time. Why don't we get this done and then we'll move on to the next one, if we could. And I don't know, do we want to take a nod of the heads? I'm for the density by right. Obviously there's at least two commissioners here who aren't, so it's going no place. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Let's move on. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yeah. Let's move on. Do we have to have some sort of formal nod or voice vote or -- CHAIRMAN HALAS: Commissioner Coletta -- or Coyle? COMMISSIONER COYLE: Well, I'd like to go ahead and get that issue resolved. I mean, go ahead, and why don't you answer Commissioner Coletta's question. MR. WEEKS: Mr. Chairman, if we could, we'd appreciate it, as we address each of these issues and you discuss and deliberate them, if you would take a formal vote, some type of -- so that we are clear on the record as to whether or not you're voting to transmit or not. It takes three votes to transmit. When we get to the adoption stage, it will take four. But three today. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Then I'll make a motion that we transmit the density by right issue as -- approve staffs recommendations. COMMISSIONER HENNING: And I'll second it. CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. We have a motion on the floor to transmit the density by right, and the motion was made by Commissioner Coletta and seconded by Commissioner Henning. Is there any further discussion? (N 0 response.) CHAIRMAN HALAS: Hearing none, I'll call the question. All those in favor, signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye. Page 140 May 16, 2006 COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye. CHAIRMAN HALAS: Those opposed, by like sign. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye. CHAIRMAN HALAS: Aye. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye. MR. WEEKS: Failed 2-3. CHAIRMAN HALAS: Yep. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Now, do you need votes for the first two that have already checked? We've already made decisions on those. You don't need -- CHAIRMAN HALAS: Take that off. MR. WEEKS: Yes, sir. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay. MR. WEEKS: Mr. Chairman, I'm sorry to interrupt you. We don't necessarily need the formal vote as in a motion, but if you would, perhaps, ask for a consensus, raising of hands, just some way so that we're very clear on the record as to how many votes there are. If you choose to take motions, that's fine, but it doesn't necessarily have to be that formal. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Well, there were three in opposition to that last motion. You know who those are, don't you? MR. WEEKS: Yeah. MR. SCHMITT: What David needs to do -- and we need to walk you into the plan because you're dealing with -- some of these issues are intermixed throughout the Future Land Use Element, and what we're getting from you are just a consensus, because we're going to have to go back and take some of these density by right languages out of the plan before we transmit. So that -- you're voting on a policy, but it's kind of intertwined in some of the elements within this -- within the FLUE. CHAIRMAN HALAS: We basically voted on density by right. MR. SCHMITT: You did, and we got your direction. Page 141 May 16, 2006 COMMISSIONER COYLE: That's right. So your task is just go through it and take it out. MR. SCHMITT: That's correct. David will go through it, and we'll take it out. Where we referenced affordable housing and density by right, we will remove that before it's transmitted. Just so you understand what we're doing. CHAIRMAN HALAS: Commissioner Fiala? COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes. I just wanted to say, I think the strongest feeling about that -- I don't know what you can do to change it -- was that there was no public input at all. And I heard Commissioner Halas say that, and I know we've all been strong proponents of having public input, so I just wanted to go on record as saying, you know, maybe there's some other way to deal with it. I don't know what it is. MR. SCHMITT: We would continue as status quo. Basically the rezoning would come before you on an individual basis through the rezoning process and through the density bonus program that you already approved in the LDC. So I want to make sure you're not changing that. The LDC, the chart that Cormac put up, is in place. CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Okay. MR. SCHMITT: What we're dealing with here are the compo plan amendments. I think the other issue, David, just for clarification, is where do you want to go with the coastal high hazards because we'll have areas we have to remove there as well, or we move forward with that. MR. WEEKS: Mr. Chairman, if I may. CHAIRMAN HALAS: Well, Commissioner Coyle's next. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Oh, forgive me. I didn't mean to cut in front. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Well, I've got some other issues to cover, but if you want to go to the coastal high hazard area, then I Page 142 May 16, 2006 make a motion that we approve the staffs recommendation concerning the coastal high hazard area density issue. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Second. CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. Any further discussion? COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yes. CHAIRMAN HALAS: Commissioner Coyle -- or Coletta. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Well, first I want to go back to the last one when I pushed the button down, and I appreciate the fact that we're moving this item forward. We could be here all night if we didn't. As far as public input go, I felt comfortable with it in the fact that we had the Land Development Code, we had numerous meetings we were going to have to go on to that to be able to get to the point of dealing with the actual situation, how we deal with the density by right. It's no longer an issue, but I just wanted to bring it up so that somebody didn't think that I was being insensitive to the needs of the public. Okay. So at this point in time the recommendations that we're going to vote on has to deal with recognizing that the coastal high hazard area would be four units per acre regardless it if was affordable or not; is that correct? CHAIRMAN HALAS: Yep. And you can put affordable housing in there. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yes. As long as it doesn't exceed four per acre. CHAIRMAN HALAS: That's correct. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: And of course, we've had already numerous demonstrations that affordable housing and density are one and the same. You can't separate them. If you don't allow for density, then effectively you don't allow for affordable housing. Now, it might not be a direct contact, and I'm sure that our hearts Page 143 May 16, 2006 are all pure up here, but still, the end result is, there won't be affordable housing. CHAIRMAN HALAS: Well, there's three units, and then if you add affordable housing, I believe that gives you the additional one unit to make it for four. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: And of course that won't work. We all know that. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Well, it's working now. CHAIRMAN HALAS: Commissioner Coyle? COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yeah. The important point to remember is that we're trying to encourage mixed-use development. There is no reason that somebody cannot build a profitable mixed-use development with that density. I mean, you can demonstrate that just about anywhere. And so I -- the problem is, nobody is doing it. And maybe if this is the only way they can get it done, then that's the way we'll do it. But nevertheless, we've got the motion on the floor. CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Just a brief question. CHAIRMAN HALAS: Sure. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Now, it takes three to transmit it, but it would take four to pass it; is that correct? MR. WEEKS: That is correct. Four at adoption, that's correct. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Okay. Well, if we don't have support for a four vote, you know, why keep this particular thing rolling forward? Whatever. CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. We have a motion on the floor by Commissioner Coyle and a second by Commissioner Fiala in regards to retaining, as staff has recommended, and I believe that's four units per acre in the coastal high hazard area. Any further discussion? COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes. I'll just add one little thing, Page 144 May 16, 2006 and that is, it's working right now for us on Bayshore. We're building, as we speak, the Botanical Place. It's doing really, really well, and it's a mixed use, just as we've been talking about, and a fine mixed use, because you have -- well, mixed, you know, between affordable and moderate and then high, and it's all in one thing. And I think it's a great thing for the people who are going to live there. I mean, I know if I were on the low, low income level, I would feel pretty good about living in such a great place. And following right at its heels is coming Cirrus Pointe, which is the same thing, a lot more units, but still, same thing. And that's another good thing, and that's already approved under the rules we have in place. So I just wanted to say that it doesn't eliminate all of that stuff. COMMISSIONER HENNING: You're eliminating it. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: You're eliminating it and the future ones can't come. It's more than four-- COMMISSIONER FIALA: It's four units per acre, right? COMMISSIONER COLETTA: No. No way, Donna. MR. GIBLIN: Commissioners, the developments on Bayshore Road currently underway, Botanical Place and Cirrus Pointe both went through the affordable housing density bonus program and are both being built at 11 units to the acre, not the cap of four. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Can't be done any other way. COMMISSIONER FIALA: I see. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: So effectively, if you don't allow it, then it's dead, it's over. We have no more affordable housing, nicht. CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. COMMISSIONER COYLE: That's not true. CHAIRMAN HALAS: Any other discussion? COMMISSIONER COYLE: No, I'm -- no. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Did I say the right word? I'm trying German. Page 145 May 16, 2006 CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. I'll call the question. All those in favor, signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye. CHAIRMAN HALAS: Aye. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye. CHAIRMAN HALAS: Those opposed, by like sign. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye. CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. What'd we get, three? COMMISSIONER COYLE: I don't know. How did Commissioner Fiala vote? COMMISSIONER FIALA: Oh, yeah. I was there, with you guys. CHAIRMAN HALAS: All right, 3-2. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, we still have some other things, Mr. Chairman. CHAIRMAN HALAS: Yes. MR. WEEKS: Mr. Chairman, if you don't mind, may I make a suggestion of just keeping the items? CHAIRMAN HALAS: Yes. MR. WEEKS: You've covered one major issue, that was the density bonus by right. And under the density rating system changes, you just voted regarding capping the density of four units per acre in the coastal high hazard area. CHAIRMAN HALAS: Yes. MR. WEEKS: I'm assuming also that included the one-unit-per-acre reduction? Maybe, perhaps, we should take that separately. The next change would be eliminating the traffic congestion area density reduction of one unit per acre and replacing that with a one-unit-per-acre reduction in the coastal high hazard area. CHAIRMAN HALAS: And I think it was -- if you have Page 146 May 16, 2006 affordable housing, that's added as one unit of density. MR. WEEKS: The way to get back to the four units per acre would be either through the affordable housing bonus or conversion of commercial zoning. CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. MR. WEEKS: But in no instances -- by 3-2 you've just approved the cap at four, so that's the two ways to get back to the four. COMMISSIONER FIALA: But we're not talking about -- I mean, it sounds like there's lots and lots of acreage. We're really not talking about -- you know, when you think of the City of Naples, for instance, there isn't even a piece of land that you could build on. And you're talking about North Naples, and there isn't a piece. And even in East Naples there's much of it that's already gone. It's not like it sounds from the people's comments, like this is all the land we have left to build affordable housing on. We're only talking about a few parcels of land out here. We've got a whole county with 2,025 square miles in it and a lot of land that's never been touched yet. It's not like it all depends on this one particular area to either make or break the affordable housing Issue. CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. Commissioner Henning, I believe, was first up. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, let's continue on with the motions, because Commissioner Coletta and I are going to block you, and let's -- we've got a lot of other elements to work on. CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. Commissioner Coletta was next. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Commissioner Henning's right. I'm not going to counter everything my fellow commissioners say. COMMISSIONER HENNING: No. It doesn't make sense. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: It's not going to get us anywhere. CHAIRMAN HALAS: Commissioner Coyle? Page 147 May 16, 2006 COMMISSIONER COYLE: I just wanted to clarify, once again, why are we wanting to reward the conversion from commercial to residential with such a high density bonus? Now, I'm not talking about affordable housing. If someone wanted to convert from a zoning of commercial to affordable housing, I would be most happy to see them have nice, attractive density bonuses. But why would we do that for market rate housing? MR. WEEKS: The origin, Commissioner, goes back to the original 1989 plan adoption. And at that time it was recognized by that commission that we had commercial property that was not consistent with our newly adopted concept for commercial. The intent was to have most of the new commercial developed in our mixed-use activity centers, which as you know, we've been very successful at. But at the same time, we wanted to provide an incentive to a property owner to rezone their property if it was not consistent with those locational criteria. That is, if it was strip commercial, isolated commercial, we also had a hammer approach. We went through a zoning reevaluation program where we down-zoned properties. The end result was a little over 200 acres of commercial. So we had both a carrot and a stick approach. The stick wasn't very successful, and frankly the carrot has not been either. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Well, if we really want to encourage affordable housing, why wouldn't we remove the incentive for someone to convert commercial to market rate housing but give them a nice incentive to convert commercial to affordable housing? MR. WEEKS: That's certainly within your purview. COMMISSIONER COYLE: I mean, it looks to me like it's an incentive to build more affordable housing. Doesn't it seem that way to you? MR. WEEKS: As you stated it, yes, sir. CHAIRMAN HALAS: The other thing I'm concerned about is, just what you brought up, is the fact that commercial is -- could be Page 148 May 16, 2006 waterfront property that's a working waterfront and where we end up downzoning and then giving a bonus because of this fact. Now, if you want to do it, if you want to take away a working waterfront and say, okay, we're going to provide affordable housing, I have to go along with what Commissioner Coyle is saying. I think that's where you give the benefit, not to upscale homes. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yeah. We would still have the right to approve the rezone. CHAIRMAN HALAS: Yep. COMMISSIONER COYLE: So we could control where and what it was -- by taking a look at compatibility and a number of other things. But it just seems to me -- we have to recognize one thing. Commercial development does not add traffic to our roads. Commercial development attracts existing traffic to the commercial development, but it doesn't create more residents. It's new homes that create more residents, and more residents generate more traffic. So if we're -- if we're granting people with commercial property a substantial incentive to convert to residential we're just encouraging them to build more and more market rate homes that create more and more traffic that create more and more problems for our roads. Why don't we instead give that density bonus exclusively to affordable housing? You know, that seems to me like it would help solve the problem. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Sixteen units per acre? MR. WEEKS: Correct. The conversion of commercial zoning outside the coastal high hazard area is eligible for the full 16 units per acre. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Sounds good, sounds good. COMMISSIONER HENNING: I guess we ought to just go out COMMISSIONER COYLE: The public hearing is closed? Page 149 May 16, 2006 CHAIRMAN HALAS: Commissioner Henning? COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, I got to correct that because a lot of the commercial is in -- within the coastal urban area of Collier County and it creates a lot of traffic in the morning of workers going there. So if the amendment is to allow it within the urban area, the conversion, including the coastal high hazard area, I think that you might have hit a bullet, hit the target. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Well, I'm not going to sit here and bargain on things just to get you where you want to go. But, you know, I -- I have an idea which will help affordable housing. If you don't want to help affordable housing, you just vote no against it. It's that simple. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, that's not true. I think we've been here all along. And I'm not going to get adversarial between my members up here. It just doesn't make sense. So, you know, again, if you're talking about those conversions within the urban area, including coastal high hazard area, I'm all in favor of it. CHAIRMAN HALAS: Commissioner Coletta? COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yeah, just -- I want us to give some serious thought before we send staff off another wild goose chase in yonder and come back with a recommendation six months later that we all sit around and say, what a terrible idea that was. Whoever told you to look at that? Maybe it's a good idea. You know, right out of the box I'm not going to endorse anything now. At some future workshop if you want to bring it up -- I mean, I'm here for as long as this takes. But you know, I don't think we're going to come up with a solution here to be able to replace what we just took down and what we're probably going to still take down for the rest of the day. But more workshops? All for them. CHAIRMAN HALAS: Any other discussion? Page 150 May 16, 2006 (No response.) CHAIRMAN HALAS: Do I hear a motion? COMMISSIONER COYLE: Well, with -- specifically with respect to the proposal that the conversion factor remain, I really do not like that conversion factor, whatever it's used for. I don't think it's a good strategy for doing what we want to do. So what are our alternatives? MR. WEEKS: Commissioners, the conversion of commercial zoning presently is not an identified change in these amendments. You do have certainly the authority to make that a part of them. You certainly could make the motion, and if you so choose, approve that. Most particularly if you link it to affordable housing, then there's a way for us collectively as a county to link that to the EAR, because the EAR broadly identified need for affordable housing. So I don't think that -- from the standpoint of the Department of Community Affairs objecting to this change, that was not identified in the EAR. I do not believe that would be an issue. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay. I make a motion that we -- we permit the density bonus for commercial conversions to be applicable only for affordable housing. COMMISSIONER FIALA: I'll second the motion. CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. I have a motion on the floor by Commissioner Coyle and a second by Commissioner Fiala. Commissioner Henning has a question. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, I believe our Land Development Code says that we must get the input of the Planning Commission -- the growth management plan amendments, so it sounds like we need to do this for another day, my opinion. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I agree. CHAIRMAN HALAS: Commissioner Coletta? COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I'm in agreement with Commissioner Henning. Page 151 May 16, 2006 CHAIRMAN HALAS: I think we need some guidance from staff here. What about the county attorney? Do you want to chime in here? MR. COHEN: You want me to kind of chime into this, Margie, and correct me if I'm wrong. The Planning Commission has an obligation to provide you with a document that includes all the recommendations with respect to the EAR. You as a collective body can take those recommendations or you can deviate as you so choose, and I believe that's -- MS. STUDENT -STIRLING: I would agree with that. I think, yes, the Planning Commission's authority is to be responsible for the program and make recommendations to the board. They've done that. We're in the EAR amendment process to transmit to DCA. And you have some authority to -- or make changes to those recommendations as you see fit, too. CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. So we don't have to take this back then, we just -- MR. COHEN: And I think to clarify it even further, that the Planning Commission is going to see this at the adoption of public hearing as well as, as you said, they are going to get a second bite of the apple. CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. MR. WEEKS: Finally, Mr. Chairman, the conversion of commercial zoning presently allows for the full 16 units per acres. Your affordable housing density bonus is only up to eight units per acre. So for point of -- and which, going back to the table Cormac showed earlier, and the Land Development Code also is geared toward the eight-unit-per-acre bonus. So I would ask for clarification, would you in that motion be saying that conversion of commercial, number one, is only applicable to affordable housing and, secondly, the cap would be at 12 units per acre, to fit in with our density bonus provision? Page 152 May 16, 2006 COMMISSIONER COYLE: I'll modify my motion to reflect the 12 units per acre. CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. Does your second modify that? COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes. CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. Commissioner Coletta? COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yeah, quick question. Would you read back to me exactly what staff recommendations were on this in the beginning? MR. SCHMITT: It's page 26 of your document, it's on the top. It's conversion of commercial zoning bonus. That's the one we're referring to, because I think we've lost you -- it's actually page 26. That's the paragraph on the top of that page. Paragraph A is what we're looking at right now. MR. WEEKS: The current language that is proposed by staff and the Planning Commission simply provides the clarification that within the coastal high hazard area you cannot exceed four units per acre. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: But this would be able to be used in the high -- coastal high hazard area, right? MR. WEEKS: I do not believe that was the motion maker's intent. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: So I mean, in other words, we're still going to include the coastal high hazard area; is that correct? COMMISSIONER COYLE: We're not going to exclude them. We're going to have a different density maximum for the coastal high hazard area. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Which is four? COMMISSIONER COYLE: Which is four. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I can't support it if it doesn't include the coastal high hazard area. CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. Commissioner Fiala was next, I believe. COMMISSIONER FIALA: You know, years ago when we were Page 153 May 16, 2006 talking about this 16 units per acre in an activity center, I remember saying then -- of course it was a long time ago -- but I remember saying then, well, why don't we have a lot of affordable housing right there so that people can just walk to shopping and so forth? It would certainly cause less of an impact on our road system. Oh, you guys remember that? And so I think this is going where I wanted to go a long time ago. CHAIRMAN HALAS: Commissioner Henning? COMMISSIONER HENNING: I'm ready to vote. CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. Commissioner Coletta? COMMISSIONER COLETTA: One last comment, and I'll be very brief. If it's not going to include the coastal high hazard area, I can't understand the reason why, since we already agree that there's a very, very small amount of land that would ever be conducive for this. But be that as it may, I just had to get that in. CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. Any further discussion? (N 0 response.) CHAIRMAN HALAS: If not, I'll call the question. I believe the motion was made by Commissioner Coyle and seconded by Commissioner Fiala. All those in favor, signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye. CHAIRMAN HALAS: Aye. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye. CHAIRMAN HALAS: Those opposed, by like sign. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye. CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay, 3-2. MR. WEEKS: Commissioner, I believe next would be the density reduction, to eliminate the traffic congestion area density reduction and replace it with a coastal high hazard area density reduction of one unit per acre. Page 154 May 16, 2006 COMMISSIONER COLETTA: What page? MR. WEEKS: Page 28. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: What'd he say? CHAIRMAN HALAS: Page 28. MR. WEEKS: That's item 3 A, coastal high hazard area reduction. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: And -- I'm sorry. CHAIRMAN HALAS: No. That's okay. Go ahead. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: The intent of this particular motion is to be able to allow for evacuation time of hurricanes? A reduction? MR. WEEKS: That was the general rationale, yes, sir. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Can I ask Mr. Summers, ifhe's still here? Dan Summers? No? Anyone from emergency management here at this time? (No response.) CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. Don Scott, transportation. You're trying to hide behind somebody. I see you. Are you familiar with what we're talking about right now? MR. SCOTT: Yes. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Do you see a problem of any sort evacuating during the hurricane season? This particular area, if this measure was passed, is this going to make a tremendous difference, or is it going to be marginal? MR. SCOTT: I don't believe it will be a tremendous difference. Obviously, we have -- you know, to date we haven't had too big of a problem during hurricane evacuation time based on the fact that a lot of people leave early. I know Dan Summers is doing a specific study about hurricane evacuation, but we've always followed our PC standards of, you know, time frame of how far ahead of time. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Mr. Mudd, could you see if you could get Mr. Summers up here, or is that what you're trying to do Page 155 May 16, 2006 right now? I want to deal with facts rather than fiction. I submit to you that this question's been asked numerous times, and we always get back the same answer, that there is very little to no difference as far as the hurricane evacuation goes. And when we get right down to it -- and I hate -- I mean, I know my fellow commissioners hate the word, but it's still red-lining when we get down to it. And is it necessary -- if you don't mind, I'll bring Dan Summers up. If you do mind -- CHAIRMAN HALAS: Yeah. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Why don't we just stipulate the fact that we've heard Dan Summers make that statement? COMMISSIONER COLETTA: That's fine. COMMISSIONER COYLE: I've heard it. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: You heard it. COMMISSIONER COYLE: I've heard it. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: And you heard transportation make it too? If you stipulate that, I won't -- I won't put him in the embarrassing position of -- COMMISSIONER COYLE: And then I'll go ahead and tell you that it is impossible for anybody to make that statement without knowing how much density is going to be built in the future and in what location it's going to be built. Because one thing is certain, there are six north/south roads and six east/west roads west of 951, and there will never be any more. End of story. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: No, it's not. COMMISSIONER COYLE: There's never going to be any more through roads in that area. So to try to say that a density bonus, let's say, going from four to 12 or 16 in the coastal high hazard area will not in the future create a problem with congestion on our roads in the event of an emergency is simply a statement which cannot be guaranteed. Furthermore, that is merely one element of the entire process of Page 156 May 16, 2006 taking a look at stormwater, we're taking a look at the watershed management areas, we're taking a look at all those things. And density affects them all, as it does with transportation concurrency. We have U. S. 41 right here already designated as a transportation concurrency exception area, right, Don? MR. SCOTT: Yes. COMMISSIONER COYLE: What that means is, we recognize it's going to be overloaded and there's absolutely nothing we're ever going to do about it. You know, that's what it means. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I'm the one that invited you gentlemen up, and I excuse you because I can see it's going to serve no purpose, and I don't want to cause you any grief. CHAIRMAN HALAS: Commissioner Henning? COMMISSIONER HENNING: What was the purpose of -- or who was pushing for this change, what was? MR. WEEKS: Commissioners, collectively that was this body during the adoption of the EAR itself. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. MR. WEEKS: The -- staff did initiate the change as far as eliminating the traffic congestion area reduction. Transportation staff advised us that they saw no need for that reduction. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Yeah. Well, I see that there's a push just to build high-end houses in the coastal areas. And, you know, I know these people don't stay in the hurricane season, so it's not an issue. I think it's more of an issue with traffic congestion. So I'm not going to support this amendment. CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. Any -- if there's no further questions, I'm going to call the vote, and then we'll take a break. Go ahead, Commissioner Fiala. COMMISSIONER FIALA: I was just going to say one thing. I have friends that live on Marco Island -- just a personal thing -- and they were told to evacuate during the hurricane, and so they packed up Page 157 May 16, 2006 their little things, and they started to get out, except that they were so tied up in traffic on 951 they couldn't get out and had to turn back and go back to Marco and stay there -- and they're on the 10th floor of this big building -- through the hurricane because they had no way to get out, they didn't have hurricane shutters. It was quite a scary thing for them. But I'll just throw that on the table. CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. Any other further discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN HALAS: Was there a motion? I don't think there's a motion made yet. COMMISSIONER COYLE: I'll make a motion we accept the staffs recommendations. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Second. CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. There was a motion by Commissioner Coyle, seconded by Commissioner Fiala in regards to accepting staffs recommendations on this item. And no further discussion, I'll call the question. All those in favor, signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye. CHAIRMAN HALAS: Aye. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye. CHAIRMAN HALAS: Opposed, like sign? COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye. CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. Motion carries. We'll take a 10-minute break. In fact, I'll make it an II-minute break. We'll be back at 3: 3 8. Thank you very much. (A brief recess was had.) MR. COHEN: Mr. Chairman, you've got a live mike. CHAIRMAN HALAS: Ladies and gentlemen, I think we've got a live mike here. We're back in session again, and we're going to continue on with the CCME. And if you'll give us direction here. Page 158 May 16, 2006 MR. WEEKS: Sure. Actually, the FLUE, Commissioners. COMMISSIONER COYLE: The FLUE I mean, excuse me. MR. WEEKS: And next up is -- COMMISSIONER COYLE: Wait a minute, I'm sorry. We haven't left that one, have we? CHAIRMAN HALAS: No, we're still on the FLUE. It's getting to be a long day. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay. Before we leave that, I've got an item I want to take up too, okay? CHAIRMAN HALAS: The FLUE? COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yeah. CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yeah. MR. WEEKS: We still have a few to go, Commissioners, all related to density in one way or another. Next up will be on page 26 in the Future Land Use Element. This is elimination of the residential density band, also known as proximity to mixed-use activity center. This was identified in the EAR to be eliminated. It's proposed to be eliminated here, and Planning Commission endorsed that. CHAIRMAN HALAS: Commissioner Henning? COMMISSIONER HENNING: That's as long as it's not in the coastal high hazard area, right? MR. WEEKS: This density bonus presently does not exist within the coastal high hazard area. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Motion for denial. COMMISSIONER HENNING: I'll second it. CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. MS. FILSON: I think -- did you want to speak on this one, Rich? Activity centers. MR. YOV ANOVICH: I had already -- I guess I should come up to the mike. Page 159 May 16, 2006 MS. FILSON: I think Mr. Yovanovich and Wayne Arnold are registered to speak on this issue. MR. YOV ANOVICH: No, I did in the laundry list of items I mentioned. This is one that I suggested you keep in as a potential bonus because you could use that for various projects that may come before you that may not want to fall within the density bonus matrix. You may have -- it gives you some flexibility for planning purposes, and I thought it would be an item you'd want to keep in your toolbox. CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. MS. FILSON: Wayne Arnold, did you want to speak on this? MR. ARNOLD: No. MS. FILSON: Okay. CHAIRMAN HALAS: Before we take a vote, does anybody know where Commissioner Fiala is? MS. FILSON: She's out in the hallway being interviewed. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yeah, we really need her. CHAIRMAN HALAS: Is there any discussion by my fellow commissioners while we're waiting for Commissioner Fiala? (N 0 response.) CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. We're discussing -- I'll let Mr. -- I'll let Commissioner Henning explain what his motion is for you. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: No, it was by me. CHAIRMAN HALAS: Oh, it was your motion? I thought it was __ okay. Excuse me. It was Commissioner Coletta's motion and it was seconded by Commissioner Henning. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yeah. Basically what it is is the conversion of commercial zoning bonus. Since it does not include the coastal high hazard area, I'm asking for denial. MR. WEEKS: Excuse me. COMMISSIONER COYLE: That's not the right one. MR. WEEKS: We're on number two, Commissioner. This is the proximity to activity centers, the density bands that's proposed to be Page 160 May 16, 2006 deleted. CHAIRMAN HALAS: Page 26. MR. WEEKS: Page 26. In the EAR this board adopted-- recommended the elimination of this density bonus, and you see it before you today, and the Planning Commission also endorsed the deletion of it. CHAIRMAN HALAS: This is in the activity center? MR. WEEKS: This is the density bands around the activity centers. CHAIRMAN HALAS: Right. MR. WEEKS: They extend one mile. COMMISSIONER FIALA: And the Planning Commission endorsed that? MR. WEEKS: That's correct. CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. So there's a motion on the floor by Commissioner Coletta, seconded by Commissioner -- COMMISSIONER COYLE: You want to withdraw that motion? CHAIRMAN HALAS: -- Henning for denial. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Not unless it also would pick up the coastal high hazard area. COMMISSIONER COYLE: It doesn't make distinction between them. It's countywide, right? MR. WEEKS: Commissioners, again, the density bands do not exist presently within the coastal high hazard area. All of them, without exception, are outside of the coastal high hazard area. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: And this is to increase the density? MR. WEEKS: This is to delete the bonus so, in fact, it would result in less density -- COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Net loss to the -- CHAIRMAN HALAS: Lowering the density. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yeah. I'm still going for denial. Page 161 May 16, 2006 MR. WEEKS: Which is not to make the change, leave the bonus In. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Leave the bonus in. CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. Commissioner Henning? COMMISSIONER HENNING: No, I'm ready to vote. CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. Any further discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN HALAS: If not, I'll call the question. All those in favor of the motion that's on the floor, signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye. CHAIRMAN HALAS: Those opposed to the motion, signify by saying like sign of aye. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye. CHAIRMAN HALAS: Aye. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye. COMMISSIONER COYLE: I make a motion that we accept the change as recommended by the Planning Commission and by staff. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Second that motion. CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. We have a motion on the floor by Commissioner Coyle, seconded by Commissioner Fiala. Any further discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN HALAS: Seeing none, I'll call the question. All those in favor, signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye. CHAIRMAN HALAS: Aye. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye. CHAIRMAN HALAS: Opposed, by like sign? COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye. CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. Page 162 May 16, 2006 MR. WEEKS: Commissioners, next is on page 27. At the top, number four, this is the residential infill density bonus, another bonus recommended in the EAR to be eliminated. It's drafted to be eliminated, and this was endorsed by Planning Commission as well. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Motion to approve. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Second. CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. Motion is on the floor by Commissioner Coyle for approval and seconded by Commissioner Fiala. Is there any further discussion on this? (No response.) CHAIRMAN HALAS: Seeing none, those in favor, signify by saYIng aye. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye. CHAIRMAN HALAS: Aye. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye. CHAIRMAN HALAS: Those opposed, by like sign. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye. CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. MR. WEEKS: Final density bonus issues. Further down on 27, number five, it should be roadway access. Again, recommended in the EAR to be deleted. Planning Commission also endorsed deletion of this bonus. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Motion to approve. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Second. CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. We have a motion on the floor by Commissioner Coyle, seconded by Commissioner Fiala. Are -- there any further discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN HALAS: Seeing none, those in favor, signify by saYIng aye. Page 163 May 16, 2006 COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye. CHAIRMAN HALAS: Aye. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye. CHAIRMAN HALAS: Those opposed, by like sign? COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye. CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay, 3-2. MR. WEEKS: Commissioners, next is the guesthouse rental. That does not appear in your binder because it was not endorsed by Planning Commission. To see that language you have to go to an exhibit behind your executive summary. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Motion to disapprove. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Second. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Second. CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. We have a motion on the floor by Commissioner Coyle and a second by Commissioner Henning. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Can I make comment? CHAIRMAN HALAS: Yes, make a comment. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Thank you. I'm going to -- I'm going to vote with everyone on this particular one because it's a bad idea for affordable housing, but there's no way to guarantee that the housing would be affordable. The fact that the density wouldn't be allowed is not a good idea, and the fact that we have a crisis out in the middle part of the Estates as far as moving traffic is not something that would work. And I'm sure the rest of the county has similar situations. CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. Any further discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN HALAS: Hearing none, I'll call the question. All those in favor, signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye. CHAIRMAN HALAS: Aye. Page 164 May 16, 2006 COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye. CHAIRMAN HALAS: Those opposed, by like sign. (N 0 response.) CHAIRMAN HALAS: Motion carries unanimously. MR. WEEKS: Commissioners, the next change is to the rural village within the rural fringe mixed-use district, page 44. Commissioners, I had shown this earlier during my initial presentation where there was language to be eliminated to make this consistent with the Land Development Code. I believe there was general consensus, but we did not take a formal action on it. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: What is exactly the changes again for -- just for expedience, please? COMMISSIONER HENNING: The rural fringe. MR. WEEKS: The language in brackets shown on the visualizer, this would both require the provision of affordable and workforce housing, just as the Land Development Code does, but it would also provide that you still get a bonus for doing so, again, consistent with the Land Development Code. And that was the intent of this amendment was to make it consistent with the Land Development Code. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: And this is the item that we had some people that wanted to speak on, or they already have? COMMISSIONER COYLE: I think they already did. MR. WEEKS: I think they were in support of it. The RLSA was an area of disagreement. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay. CHAIRMAN HALAS: Commissioner Coyle? COMMISSIONER COYLE: I'm sorry. I was going to speak on the RLSA issue. We'll get to that next, I guess, right? MR. WEEKS: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN HALAS: Do we have any public speakers on this? Page 165 May 16, 2006 MS. FILSON: As far as I can tell, the public speakers we have left want to speak on section 24. CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. Then I'll close the public hearing. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Motion to approve. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Second. CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. We have a motion on the floor for approval by Commissioner Henning, and a second by Commissioner Fiala. Any further discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN HALAS: Hearing none, I'll call the question. All those in favor, signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye. CHAIRMAN HALAS: Aye. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye. CHAIRMAN HALAS: Opposed, by like sign? (No response.) CHAIRMAN HALAS: Motion carries unanimously. MR. WEEKS: Commissioners, next is page -- should be about the next page over. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Forty-six, isn't it? COMMISSIONER COYLE: I think when they get to this next one, I'd like to -- MR. WEEKS: Thank you, page 46, policies 4.7 and 4.7.1. Commissioners, I think the threshold question -- staff does want to revise the language that we're proposing, but I think the threshold question is whether or not you even want to require affordable/workforce housing to be provided in the RLSA. You've heard several speakers object to that requirement. Staff is recommending it. The Planning Commission also is recommending it. CHAIRMAN HALAS: Commissioner Henning? Page 166 May 16, 2006 COMMISSIONER HENNING: Why don't we recommend the same thing we did in the coastal high hazard area? COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yeah. What's sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Which is what the Planning Commission recommended, right? COMMISSIONER COYLE: No. MR. WEEKS: No, they're apples and oranges, Commissioner. COMMISSIONER COYLE: I'm not sure I understand the purpose of the recommendation. It is to do what? MR. WEEKS: The recommendation-- COMMISSIONER COYLE: No. I'm asking the commissioners. Some of the commissioners made comments about what we should do with this one, and I'm not sure I understand. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Oh, what -- on my comment? COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yeah. COMMISSIONER HENNING: We'll do the same thing we did in the coastal high hazard to address the affordable housing issues. COMMISSIONER COYLE: That's a very, very, very, very liberal concept that I probably would support. I'm not sure that the people out there want to support it, but that would be a lot more affordable housing in the rural villages than they had previously planned on by four or five times, maybe eight times. So I don't know how you -- you guys -- CHAIRMAN HALAS: I don't believe that's what Commissioner Henning was saying. I think he was saying since there's no affordable housing that's been provided in the coastal high hazard area, that we're not going to provide any affordable housing out in that area. COMMISSIONER COYLE: I hope that's not what he means. Actually there is affordable housing in the coastal high hazard area, and we've allowed densities to try to accommodate that. But my concern is that we spent -- we spent a lot of time with a Page 167 May 16, 2006 lot of stakeholders reaching agreement on how we do things in the rural land stewardship area. I am concerned that we do have, we must have, affordable housing of all categories in the rural villages whether it's in the rural lands or rural land stewardship area of the urban fringe. And -- but I'm also concerned that we change it without involving all of the stakeholders. We made a deal, we reached agreement, and then for us to unilaterally change it, I think, is a breach of faith. I think we at least should sit down and talk with the people to make sure we clearly understand what the impact is. CHAIRMAN HALAS: Commissioner Coletta? COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yes. Commissioner Coyle, I agree with you. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Gosh, make a note of that, will you. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Don't worry. It will go away. COMMISSIONER COYLE: You'll get over it soon. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: That's correct. I'll come to my senses. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yeah, all right. CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. Is there any further discussion? COMMISSIONER COYLE: I think the question is, what are we going to do about this? The staff is recommending a certain course of action. We're suggesting that we're -- at least I'm suggesting that I'm uneasy about making that decision without consulting with other stakeholders, and I think we've got at least two or more members of that stakeholder group here, represented here. We probably cannot do that here, so what do we do? CHAIRMAN HALAS: Commissioner Henning? COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, if I can make a suggestion. When we adopted the RLS in 2003, we said that we're Page 168 May 16, 2006 going to take a look at it in five years, so that means 2008. Why don't we give that direction to take a look at the needs and see how the program's working, make recommendations to the Planning Commission, EAC, and the Board of Commissioners? COMMISSIONER COYLE: The only question I have about that, will it then be too late -- COMMISSIONER COLETTA: That's the question. COMMISSIONER COYLE: -- to make any changes that would be meaningful from the standpoint of affordable housing? CHAIRMAN HALAS: Commissioner Henning? COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, I believe rural villages is not by right. You still need to come for your zoning; is that correct? MR. WEEKS: Stewardship receiving areas, the towns, villages, they do require board approval, yes, sir. CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. COMMISSIONER COYLE: But they do have a requirement for affordable housing. MR. WEEKS: No, sir. No requirement in the rural land stewardship areas to provide affordable/workforce housing. It's merely a case-by-case review. There's a bonus provision. We're providing you can get a bonus, but there's no mandate to do it, which means that it's left to a case-by-case, project-by-project review, an evaluation. COMMISSIONER COYLE: But Ave Maria is, in fact, providing 2,100 affordable housing units? MR. WEEKS: That project is, yes, sir. It's a DR!. And I don't doubt that you're going to see other projects of a similar magnitude, that is that they're going to be a DR!, but there's some very large proj ects being proposed. On the other hand, it is certainly possible to build a smaller town or to build a village which is at the sub-DR! level which would, therefore, not have that greater scrutiny by outside reVIewers. Page 169 May 16, 2006 COMMISSIONER COYLE: Well, it would have scrutiny by us though. MR. WEEKS: Absolutely. COMMISSIONER COYLE: And we would be the ones who would be demanding affordable housing? MR. WEEKS: That's correct. COMMISSIONER COYLE: I would presume. MR. WEEKS: Well, that would be your purview to do so. COMMISSIONER COYLE: So we -- without this change -- let's suppose this change were not made. We would still have control over this to make sure that an appropriate level of affordable housing was necessary -- or was provided in any of those rural villages; is that a fair statement? MR. WEEKS: That is correct, sir. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Then I would recommend we just scrap the language then if we've got control, what do you think? CHAIRMAN HALAS: Still got control, yes. As long as we have control when it comes up before us. MR. WEEKS: You certainly do. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay. MR. WEEKS: Again, to explain why staff was recommending it, we were looking to see a regulatory requirement that the affordable/workforce housing be provided. Because it's required in the rural fringe, we thought it appropriate to require it here at some level, and we tried to match that level. Absolutely you will have the review of those projects and you will have that opportunity. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Here's my take on that. We've got control of it. We can watch it for the next two years. Ave Maria, which is the first one to come up anyway, is going to provide 2,100 affordable housing units, so we know that one is pretty much solved. Another one is not likely to come up within the two years and start putting tubes coming out of the ground. We'll have a chance to Page 170 May 16, 2006 take a look at it if it is, so why don't we do as Commissioner Henning has suggested and just postpone any review of this for two more years, and in the meantime, we still have control over them through the approval process? If I turned that into a motion, would that be acceptable, Board? COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I'll second it. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay. CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. Commissioner Coletta? COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I also want to mention that I love it when it comes to us with a Development of Regional Impact Study, but first it has to touch the Southwest Regional Planning Council. I can assure you that they have a very strong stance on affordable housing. And they'll be coming forward with all sorts of good recommendations for this commission that you can build on, not that I wanted to scare the developers any. CHAIRMAN HALAS: Commissioner Fiala? COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes. Just two questions. I sometimes get these two rural lands and RLSA confused. How many acres are in the RLSA? MR. WEEKS: Approximately 195,000. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Okay. Is the Bonita Bay one that they're just proposing in that one? MR. WEEKS: That's in the rural fringe. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Oh. MR. WEEKS: The Immokalee Road south. COMMISSIONER FIALA: They've got a wonderful component of affordable housing in theirs that they're proposing. They were just in my office. I was wondering if that was part of this. Okay, thank you. CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. Any further discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN HALAS: Is there any speakers on this? Page 171 May 16, 2006 MS. FILSON: I don't believe so. CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. So we have a motion on the floor by Commissioner Coyle, and I believe it was seconded by Commissioner Coletta. Any further discussion? (N 0 response.) CHAIRMAN HALAS: Hearing none, I'll call the question. All those in favor, signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye. CHAIRMAN HALAS: Aye. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye. CHAIRMAN HALAS: Those opposed, by like sign. (No response.) COMMISSIONER COYLE: That was unanimous. CHAIRMAN HALAS: Yep. MR. WEEKS: Commissioners, the last density-related item is on pages 45 and 46. That's not right. Well, it's on 46. The other page number's not correct. This is the issue of the fairly recently adopted Land Development Code amendment that changed the definition of affordable/workforce housing to include gap housing. And, then two -- well, excuse me -- now one specific area. The rural villages within the rural fringe mixed-use district, there is the requirement that affordable/workforce housing be provided. When that language was originally drafted and adopted, it had a different meaning. Again, this is where the affordable had the -- affordable housing had the 80 percent or less of median income, and the workforce housing referred to the 100 percent or less of median household income. As the Planning Commission has recommended this, the single Page 1 72 May 16, 2006 term affordable/workforce housing would be used, which, the bottom line here is, that it would be possible to do purely gap housing without any affordable housing component. Staff believes it's appropriate to maintain those original income levels. Planning Commission did not agree with us, so their recommendation is, simply use the new term which does allow for the gap housing. Cormac, I believe, has an exhibit he can put on the visualizer to help make staffs point. And page 44 is where we're at, Commissioners. MR. GIBLIN: Commissioners, on the visualizer you can see what the differences mean in actual income limits and in-house prices. Right now in a fringe village, there is a requirement that some housing be at the affordable level, which at the time it was adopted, meant up to 80 percent of median income, and some of the housing be set aside for what was called at the time workforce housing, which was at 100 percent of median income. By following the Planning Commission's recommendations of pretty much lumping everything together under one definition of affordable/workforce housing with no qualifying percentage following that, you, in a sense, wind up with a regulation that would allow someone to just build everything at 149.999 percent of median Income. And your Affordable Housing Commission looked at this issue last -- at their last meeting and made a motion to recommend that you maintain the original targeted set-asides within -- basically throughout the comprehensive plan of whatever is originally intended to be -- whatever level of housing was originally intended to be set aside for, you maintain those levels. And if the board -- and if the board also desired to address higher- income housing or gap housing in those areas, that that be added as an additional -- you know, as an additional layer, but not -- Page 1 73 May 16, 2006 not as a means to, in a sense, delete the existing provisions that are already in the plan. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Cormac, could you just slide that slide over so we can see the scale on the left side? There you go. That's good, thank you. CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. Commissioner Henning? COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, how about if we state a minimum of.2 acres -- units per acre shall be affordable and workforce housing? Does that hit the target? MR. GIBLIN: No. What it -- to maintain the original targets, you would say that .2 acres -- .2 units per acre be affordable/workforce housing at 100 percent of median of which at .1 acres be affordable/workforce housing at 80 percent of median. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. Well, I'm okay with that. MS. FILSON: Mr. Chairman, real quick, I think I have two speakers on this issue. CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. MR. MULHERE: If I could, the language -- CHAIRMAN HALAS: Can I ask -- there's a couple of -- the commissioners have a couple of questions. MR. MULHERE: I'm sorry. CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. Then -- okay. Commissioner Fiala? COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yeah. I'll just make a comment. That's exactly what I was fearful of when we first proposed the gap housing, because I don't think -- you know, that's not healthy. It's not healthy to build anyone kind of housing. It's good to have an entire mIX. And so I wanted to keep them separate, and I figured the affordable/workforce housing would always be built by the Affordable Housing Commission, and then the other one would address even more affordable, except it would also add some gap to it. And, of Page 174 May 16, 2006 course, that -- for some reason that was all shot down. But this is what I was fearful of is exactly what's -- what could happen here in your example, and I just wanted to throw that on the record. CHAIRMAN HALAS: Commissioner Coletta? COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yeah. I'm sorry, Cormac, I've got to ask the question and it begs to be answered. Whatever brought the Planning Commission to this particular direction? Why did they think this was a good idea? I'm really at a loss. Didn't they understand what the implications of this was? MR. GIBLIN: Commissioner, it was a lengthy discussion. I had, you know, several back-and-forths with each -- most of the members. What was behind their reasoning, I can't speak to. I know I spoke with Mrs. Caron earlier today, and this was -- if I can, I don't think this was her intention as part of the -- COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I wouldn't embarrass her by calling her up, but I mean, when you look at something like this -- COMMISSIONER FIALA: She'll come up. CHAIRMAN HALAS: She'll come up, sure. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: But when you hear something like this and realize what the implications are, it just scares the daylights out of you. You realize that by one -- and Commissioner Fiala's right to be concerned. I mean, thank you very much for being concerned. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yeah. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: By one strong movement, everything that we've been building on all this time could be destroyed. MS. CARON: Hi, Donna Caron again, for the record. As I mentioned to Cormac when I had my discussion with him, it was not my intent to have this happen. I agree with Commissioner Fiala that we wanted to have a percentage for everything. How this got by the whole commission, I'm at a mystery, because that has never been Page 175 May 16, 2006 anybody's intent, at least as far as I recall, so -- COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Okay. My faith is restored in the Planning Commission. Thank you very much. I'll sleep better tonight. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Okay. So saying that, can we then require percentages? I mean -- and to be fair, one-third, one-third, one- third -- MR. GIBLIN: Commissioner-- COMMISSIONER FIALA: -- or, you know, something so that we have an -- a good mix. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Based on science. MR. GIBLIN: Commissioner, the existing language does require percentages. The problem is that those definitions really don't exist in our Land Development Code anymore. So to make them mesh with the current definitions, we need to do as -- like I said a second ago, affordable/workforce housing at 100 percent, of which .1 unit per acre is affordable/workforce housing at 80 percent. That will maintain the established targeting that already exists in the plan. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Will you then give it anything above 100 percent? MR. GIBLIN: That would be up to the board. COMMISSIONER FIALA: So in other words, right now we have like a two-tier level, right? And what we're trying to do is add a third tier, but we want to make sure that the third tier doesn't overshadow the first two tiers, right? MR. GIBLIN: Again-- COMMISSIONER FIALA: Is that what you're saying? MR. GIBLIN: -- that is -- if the board desires to do that. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Well, I think that that's what the Planning Commission desired, right? MS. CARON: I can't speak for all of them. I can only speak for me. Page 176 May 16, 2006 MR. MULHERE: I maybe could shed a little bit of light on this because I actually -- CHAIRMAN HALAS: Let's hear our speakers. MS. FILSON: Yeah. MR. MULHERE: My name is Bob -- MS. FILSON: The first speaker is Bob Mulhere. He'll be followed by Bruce Anderson. MR. MULHERE: I'm just -- I'm dancing here to get up and chat about this a little bit since I wrote that language when I was with the county, and the language that was in the rural fringe villages, rural fringe mixed-use villages, for affordable housing reads exactly like Cormac said, .2 units per acre shall be affordable, of which of the .2, fully one-half may be, at the time the term was workforce. At the time, your definition of workforce was between 81 and 100 percent. Then we went through an awful lot, about a year and a half or two years worth of dialogue based on rising costs, based on upward lack of affordability, and we created a term that you adopted called gap housing, which now goes from 81 percent up to 150 percent because that gap also needs some incentive and some assistance. So what I would recommend is that you would leave the requirement for affordable intact -- remember, that's basically going to be .1 unit per acre has to be affordable -- and that you allow the range in terms of what was then called workforce -- which is now called gap -- you allow the range from 81 to 150 percent, that you don't limit that other 100 percent. Now, having said that, I'd have to talk to my clients, but I'm certain that if you were concerned that everything was at the 150 percent range, we could certainly resolve that. We still have to come before you for zoning. We would not come before you and say we're going to build everything at the 150 percent range knowing that you want a spectrum of housing costs. CHAIRMAN HALAS: Commissioner Coletta? Page 1 77 May 16, 2006 COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yeah. I've got to be honest with you, I'm not at all comfortable with what you just said. The minute we go 81 to 150 and it's left up to the developers, they're going to be coming in here wanting to build towards the 150. I think the whole object is to try to come up, like Commissioner Fiala said, with something that goes through the spectrum and meets the needs. And I'd rather not leave it to the 11th hour when the developer comes forward to try to negotiate this as to what it's going to be. If it says it can be up to 150, they're going to build 150. MR. MULHERE: Well, then I would suggest then -- first of all, we're not -- we're not talking about the affordable because we're not changing that language. That language -- the requirement for affordable is going to stay exactly like what it is. Where there's a question is what previously was between 80 and 100, by your change in definition to gap is now between 81 and 150. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: And I submit to you, what we ought to do is come up with a new formula that picks up maybe from 80 to 120 and then include an additional amount for upper gap that would cover up to 150 so that there's -- the developer has got to develop them for them, and we still cover the 80 to 120. MR. MULHERE: So-- COMMISSIONER COLETTA: That's what I -- I would suggest. MR. MULHERE: So maybe just a phrase that says, and the workforce housing component, the gap housing component shall be equally distributed along the range? Something along those lines? COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Well, I'd like to kind of boost it up. When you get down towards the 150 mark, you're getting towards the profitability angle of the whole thing, so why not just take it down to 120, then include X number of units have to be between 120 and 150, over and above everything, because that's where they make their money. Page 178 May 16, 2006 COMMISSIONER FIALA: Like, for instance, if it was five units, two would have to be below 80, two would have to be 80 to 120, and then only one would be 120 to 150? Is that kind of what you're saying? I mean, not in those figures, but I mean, how it's divided up? COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Well, then, even then, but maybe use the other hand where you got -- you know, what we've got now is we've got -- how many -- let me have a little help with this, Cormac. Right now it's set up for how many below 80? Two? MR. GIBLIN: If you were to develop a rural village at the base density of two units per acre, you would be required to do 5 percent of all the units at 100 percent of median and 5 percent at 80 percent of median. MR. COHEN: And I think a good example, Commissioner Fiala, with the plan that you probably just saw with respect to the rural fringe that Bonita Bay brought before you, if it was in this particular district, it would have had -- it would have met the existing criteria of the -- of. 1 being, you know, 80 percent affordable, and the other one -- the other .1, you know, being between 81 and 100 percent. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: But what about the 140, 150? MR. COHEN: Under the existing language, it wouldn't be consistent with that. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: But can we require something over and above what we've already got in the 140, maybe, range? MR. GIBLIN: Commissioner, you may be able to work with that -- your existing 10 percent -- COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Well, I don't want to dilute that any more than it already is. I wouldn't mind adding to it as like a bonus to the builder whereby over and above -- because they're obviously going to be able to make money on those kind of units. If I -- at least I believe they are. Maybe I'm wrong. I mean, it's kind of a given. If we're going to provide gap up to Page 179 May 16, 2006 150, I'd like to see it, but I really think we need to cover the other end of it. CHAIRMAN HALAS: Lower end. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yeah, the lower end first. MR. GIBLIN: If I understand you, then you're recommending keeping the 10 percent at the half and half, as was previously set aside COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yes. MR. GIBLIN: -- and then trying to explore something above that for gap? COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yeah, for, you know, that high end of the gap. MR. MULHERE: Could I suggest, if we knew that at the time that we wrote the fringe language, if we knew we were going to go up to 150, I'm sure we would have included some requirement for that. At the time we were really talking about 100 down to 80 and then 80 and below. Moderate and low income. Those were the two terms. Again, I'm a little uncomfortable without my clients being here, obviously, to speak to this issue -- COMMISSIONER COYLE: They don't mind. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: They don't care. MR. MULHERE: No, but I mean, I think you're agreeing that we have good numbers for the 100, the 80 and the 80 and below. You're just suggesting that it would be appropriate if there was something above that. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yeah, above that, in addition to what we already got. In other words, not cut from that percentage. I'll tell you what, this is -- if we move this forward, it's going to be transmitted to the Department of Community Affairs. It's going to be coming back. And if your client has a problem, we could deal with it then. MR. MULHERE: Well, I understand what you're saying but Page 180 May 16, 2006 you're -- there is an incentive built into the plan presently to provide that affordable housing. You get a half a unit of market rate for each affordable and workforce housing unit that you provide. And my suggestion would be, maybe you could extend that benefit to them to go higher than that as well. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yeah. MR. MULHERE: I mean, it seems only fair. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Any ideas on that, Cormac? MR. GIBLIN: Yeah, that sounds great. MR. MULHERE: Five percent? MR. GIBLIN: Meaning for -- a bonus -- our entire Land Development Code is filled with incentives to try to encourage the development of affordable, workforce, and gap housing, so yep. MR. MULHERE: I mean, you're getting 5 percent low, 5 percent moderate. I can't bring myself to stand here and give you a -- COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Five percent, five percent. COMMISSIONER COYLE: What's wrong with 30 percent gap? MR. MULHERE: It's going to be across -- they're going to have housing -- the idea for these villages and the way they're defined is to have housing across the spectrum of affordability, and this will, this will. You're talking about an exception -- we all know the project we're talking about. You're talking about an exceptionally well-respected developer who will do the right thing here if you give them a chance. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: But I think this kind of a guidance doesn't hurt to go along with it. MR. GIBLIN: Commissioners, just one more point of clarification. The example I used when I said 10 percent of which 50 -- 5 percent would be one, and 5 percent would be the other, those percentages only hold true if you develop at the minimum density of two units per acre. These developments have the opportunity to go to three units to Page 181 May 16, 2006 the acre, and in those cases, it would be less than 10 percent at -- in previous discussions, I think the board has expressed an interest in maintaining that 10 percent no matter if it's at two units to the acres or at three units to the acre. And that may be something that needs to be discussed as well. CHAIRMAN HALAS: Commissioner Coyle? COMMISSIONER COYLE: What I would really like to see is retain the 5 percent for the 80 percent median income and below, 5 percent for the 100 median income, and 5 percent up to the 150 percent median income, for a total of 15 percent. And then if they go higher than that, in the total density, we'll probably wind up 12 or 13 percent of the total density being affordable housing in one category or another. Why would that -- now remember, you're talking about building homes and selling them for $330,000 out there. There shouldn't be a loss on those. You guys can make a profit on a $330,000 home. If you can't, you ought to be in a different business. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: They give more of a blend to the neighborhood. MR. ANDERSON: I'm not a developer. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay. MR. ANDERSON: Just a poor lawyer. CHAIRMAN HALAS: Yeah, you're poor all right. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yeah. Your profit margin is a lot higher than his is. MS. FILSON: Our next speaker is a poor lawyer, Bruce Anderson. MR. ANDERSON: Well, I want to make sure I understand what you did before I -- see, I tried to follow the Ping-Pong back and forth. What are you doing now with this language about we're not -- a density bonus will be available for any affordable housing that you provide, and you're requiring 15 percent, and they'll get a density Page 182 May 16, 2006 bonus for that 15? COMMISSIONER COLETTA: They're required to go with the increments on up. They can't just pick the top end. MR. ANDERSON: Right. CHAIRMAN HALAS: They want to weight the lower end more. MR. ANDERSON: But for that first 5 percent they get a matching -- buy one, get a half of one free? COMMISSIONER COYLE: What is the density bonus? I mean, we probably ought to have more density bonuses for the lower end of the scale than you have for the upper end of the scale. MR. ANDERSON: Well, right now I'm concerned about us drafting the legislation on the fly. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Well, they do it in Tallahassee every day. MR. ANDERSON: Oh, I know you're a fan of that. Well, no. I don't want us to do something that we haven't thought carefully through. And my point to you was going to be that these rural villages have to come to you anyway for PUD approval. And just like you did on the prior item you discussed, you have the control because it has to come to you, or as our president would say, you're the deciders. And I'm not sure it ought to be put in the compo plan, that's all, because once it's in there, you can't tinker with it without getting the blessing from the state. That's all. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: May I ask a question of Cormac? CHAIRMAN HALAS: Sure. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Cormac, let's try this now. If we use the scale we presently have, you put the 5 percent on for the upper reaches of the affordable -- or excuse me, the gap housing, is this something that you can see will work, or do you see some sort of problem with this whole thing? I know we've taken a long time to get to this point. Page 183 May 16, 2006 But like Commissioner Fiala, I'm concerned of the full range of housing, not just one end of the market. MR. GIBLIN: I see this as a natural progression. When these rules were first written, there was no such thing as gap housing, and now we have a county mandate to address housing at that income level. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Then help me with this motion. I'm going to make a motion that we approve what you have and add to that an additional 5 percent of the upper reaches of gap, which would be -- where do we leave off now? We leave off at 120, is it? MR. GIBLIN: Hundred and fifty. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I'm sorry. Did we leave off at 100? MR. GIBLIN: The existing provision is 5 percent at 80 percent, 5 percent at 100 percent. I believe your new provision would be an additional 5 percent up to 150 percent. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: That's correct. COMMISSIONER FIALA: I'll second the motion. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Question? CHAIRMAN HALAS: Yeah. I've got a question. Are we putting ourselves in a box here if we put this in the FLUE? MR. GIBLIN: Most of this is already in the FLUE. The only additions would be the gap level. CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay, okay. Good. I'm just a little concerned. I just hope that we're going in the right direction here. Commissioner -- MR. GIBLIN: Commissioners, this is inclusionary zoning already in the our Land Development Code -- CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. MR. GIBLIN: -- and Growth Management Plan. CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. That clarifies. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yeah. I guess that makes it easier Page 184 May 16, 2006 to understand, but we've had this debate in previous years. And to hear Mr. Anderson bring it up here at least three times, along with my growing suspicion and lack of trust of DCA, are we really putting ourselves in a bad position by including so many specific items in our Growth Management Plan if it's not necessary to be included in the Growth Management Plan? CHAIRMAN HALAS: That's the question I have. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: You're not limited by this. MR. GIBLIN: Yeah. These would be minimum thresholds. You, certainly, as the decision makers have this opportunity on every PUD rezone that may come before you. But these would be established as some minimum thresholds. COMMISSIONER COYLE: So we could go above these, but we couldn't go below them? MR. GIBLIN: Yes, sir. COMMISSIONER COYLE: And it serves a purpose of letting any developer know what the minimum expectations are of affordable housing for these rural villages? MR. GIBLIN: And it -- now that the discussion has come full circle, it does dovetail very nicely with the draft inclusionary zoning policy that we're working on in the LDC, which does contain a 5 percent, 5 percent, 5 percent tier at these same income levels. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Now, the density bonuses for which the developer will be eligible under this scheme are spelled out in the table of density bonuses, or is this different? They're not. MR. GIBLIN: No. COMMISSIONER COYLE: There's a different set of density bonuses here? Okay. And how will those density bonuses be applied for the additional 5 percent we just added? MR. WEEKS: Commissioner, I'm not sure. MR. GIBLIN: They would be applied in the same way they are Page 185 May 16, 2006 now. It's -- what is it, a half unit for every affordable unit? MR. MULHERE: The bonuses in the plan today is a half a unit for every affordable and workforce housing unit that you provide. The idea being, you're going to provide the minimum, hopefully you'll provide more. And now you're looking for housing across the spectrum, that's the way you'd do it, you'd do it with an incentive. MR. WEEKS: Commissioners, that 5 -- that .5 unit that Bob just mentioned, that's on pages -- both 43 and 44. It spells out the .5 unit bonus for each unit that's provided for these different income levels. CHAIRMAN HALAS: Do my fellow commissioners feel comfortable with where we're going with this so that we don't get ourselves -- COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I wouldn't have made a motion if I wasn't. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yeah. I think I'm comfortable with it. What I'm not sure I'm comfortable with is giving the same density bonus to each one of these categories, because the loss is not the same on each one of these categories. MR. MULHERE: If it's okay, if I could just make one observation. That might be right if you were requiring maybe more of one than another. But if we're going to go across the board, 5 percent, 5 percent, 5 percent -- so if you gave one unit for affordable and a quarter of a unit for the higher end, in the end it's the same number of bonus units. And going half across the board really doesn't change anything. it's still the same number. If you made one lower and one higher, it's still -- I think it's still the same across the board. COMMISSIONER COYLE: As long as you're required to meet the minimum? MR. MULHERE: Yes. CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. All right. Okay. I'll close the public hearing. Page 186 May 16, 2006 There's no more public speakers on this, is there? MS. FILSON: No, sir. CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. We'll close the public hearing. And -- yes. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Just one more question. Bruce's thoughts there, you know, we've been having some problems. Ifwe do put this in the Growth Management Plan and some things come down from Tallahassee, will that in any way hurt this position or this plan or not? CHAIRMAN HALAS: We'll find out when it goes to DCA. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Can I tell you? Anything that comes from Tallahassee will hurt this plan. COMMISSIONER FIALA: I had a funny feeling you had a tainted position there. MR. COHEN: Well, Commissioner -- Commissioner, we're going to transmit the language up to Tallahassee. Obviously DCA will provide us with its ORC, its objections, recommendations, and comments. In addition to that, people that are obviously affected, they have the opportunity to comment as well and provide, you know, input into the process with DCA prior to that, and we'll see what comes up, and we'll deal with it at the time of adoption, MR. WEEKS: Further, Commissioners, it doesn't matter whether we do or do not put certain language in our Growth Management Plan. If the state adopts regulations that mandate a certain action or prohibit, we must follow the law. CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. I'm going to -- I don't think we've got any more further discussion on this. I'm going to call the question. The motion was made by Commissioner Coletta and seconded by Commissioner Fiala. All those in favor, signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye. Page 187 May 16, 2006 COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye. CHAIRMAN HALAS: Aye. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye. COMMISSIONER HENNING: (Absent.) CHAIRMAN HALAS: Those opposed, by like sign. (No response.) CHAIRMAN HALAS: And Commissioner Henning is missing from the dais at this point. MR. WEEKS: Thank you, Commissioners. That completes our discussion on density in the Future Land Use Element. The final major issue in the Future Land Use Element is one we touched on with the CCME and that's section 24 in the North Belle Meade overlay where it is presently designated neutral. When the rural fringe amendments were adopted in 2002, there was a requirement that an -- a Red-Cockaded Woodpecker study be conducted in the North Belle Meade area in general as well as specifically to this section 24, and then based upon the results of that study, we would either leave the designation alone or change it. And as Mr. Lorenz can explain -- COMMISSIONER COYLE: Page number? MR. WEEKS: Sir? COMMISSIONER COYLE: Page number where you are. MR. LORENZ: Page 45 in the FLUE. MR. WEEKS: In the Future Land Use Element, page 45. It's also mentioned later on -- COMMISSIONER COYLE: Fifty-four. MR. WEEKS: -- where we refer to a map change. But 45 is good enough. CHAIRMAN HALAS: Yeah, the bottom of 45. MR. WEEKS: And Commissioners, you've also received, since our last meeting on April 18th, both the complete Red-Cockaded Woodpecker study, as well as the summary. Page 188 May 16, 2006 MR. LORENZ: For the record, Bill Lorenz, environmental services director. Just a very quick presentation. As David noted, the FLUE required the county to provide some additional data for RCW nesting and foraging habitat over and above what we used to adopt the original Growth Management Plan in June 2002. We contracted with a biological consultant who was pretty familiar with the area, and he created a data set for us based upon interpretation of aerial photographs and selective on the ground ground-truthing where he would look at a photograph, go to the point on the ground to ensure what he was looking at on the photographs actually existed on the ground. That gave him a calibrated set of maps. From those sets of maps, two -- he identified two types of habitats that for -- are important for RCW s, both foraging habitat or cavity or nesting tree habitat. Those -- those areas were then put into the county's GIS database and evaluated by staff to look at how section 24 compared with the other sending lands within the North Belle Meade overlay, and that was the extent of the analysis to bring back to you to address the particular policy where it indicated that, in the last sentence on page 46, that is within section 24, the neutral designation may be adjusted based upon the findings of the updated RCW nesting and foraging habitat study. Now, just let me -- let me point out that -- what the effects of this would be. If you were to designate all of section 24 as sending lands __ currently they're annuity lands. So if they become designated as sending, there would be certain land uses that would not be allowed to occur on those lands, and those are outlined in the future land use element. Secondly, the CCME allowed for this -- these lands to be designated as neutral, but they had a vegetation retention requirement Page 189 May 16, 2006 of 70 percent. If they were to progress to sending lands, sending lands has an 80 percent vegetation retention requirement. So not only would there be changes in land use, but there would be also an increase in the vegetation retention requirement. Of course, going from neutral to sending, the sending lands now would be available to have TDRs to be -- to be taken off or to be generated from the properties within section 24. And just -- here is just away from -- the crosshatch that you see there is the habitat RCW within section 24. And just as I noted that that -- the GIS analysis that we did, as you can see that -- as an RCW as a percentage of the total area, for section 24 is 65 percent, or nearly two-thirds of that whole section was mapped with this updated information as RCW habitat. If you look at the mapping percentages for other sending areas within -- that are non- NRP A sending areas within the North Belle Meade overlay, it's 62 percent. So this is simply the updating of the -- of the habitat -- RCW habitat mapping that was required. Provide this information for the Board of County Commissioners, certainly from a standpoint of looking simply at the percentages of the RCW habitat in section 24, comparing it to the other sending areas, it raises to the equal levels in terms of justification for being -- for being sending for RCW considerations. This was the information that was presented to the Planning Commission, and Planning Commission also recommended that it go to sending. CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. Commissioner Henning? COMMISSIONER HENNING: How many birds did they find in section 24? MR. LORENZ: Well, in the consultant's mapping, when he was actually mapping out there -- in section 24 -- there has been documented activities of actual birds within section 24. Page 190 1_ lIII "-~......., May 16, 2006 When the consultant did his work in 2003, he did not see any birds. Just recently our staff, when they were out on a field visit to the Conservation Collier land, there was observation of one bird and they heard several others. COMMISSIONER HENNING: How many -- how big is this section? How many acres is that? MR. LORENZ: Well, the typical section is 640 acres. COMMISSIONER HENNING: So we spotted a bird? What kind of habitat were you -- was he looking for? MR. LORENZ: It's RC -- the RCW habitat is typically broken up into nesting habitat and foraging habitat. The nesting habitat typically would have a certain pine -- large pine trees of a diameter sufficient for putting a cavity in for their nesting. That's about -- that's about the extent of my knowledge. I'd have to have my staff come up to talk about anything more. COMMISSIONER HENNING: This big (indicating)? MR. LORENZ: Just a second. Mac, you may want to help me with the specifics here. But there was -- would be cavity habitat and also nesting habitat -- I mean foraging habitat. COMMISSIONER FIALA: I know that they have wings, and that's about all I know. COMMISSIONER HENNING: They're pretty. MR. HATCHER: Mac Hatcher, for the record, from environmental services. About eight inches in diameter. COMMISSIONER HENNING: How long you been working for the county, Mac? MR. HATCHER: Twenty some odd years. COMMISSIONER HENNING: That's great. Good to here it. Okay, thanks. CHAIRMAN HALAS: Any other questions? COMMISSIONER COLETTA: We have some speakers on this subj ect? Page 191 May 16, 2006 CHAIRMAN HALAS: Yes. Commissioner Fiala, then we'll get the speakers. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes. If we've only spotted one bird and possibly it's in one little corner, why couldn't we just, you know, like preserve that one little corner? MR. LORENZ: Well, I think -- I'm not sure exactly how many -- we know that there is a cluster of birds on -- is it the Cardel -- on the hideout mitigation land, which is the golf course. And they utilize -- and they utilize certain acreage of habitat. So every cluster requires a certain amount of habitat. There are several clusters within North Belle Meade. And, of course, one of the things that we're looking for is to try to protect the habitat for the birds. And when you start trying to look at just the fact that we've just observed one bird in terms of observation -- we know that there are several clusters in the area. CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. Call up our public speakers. MS. FILSON: Okay. I think some of them left. I thought it was Bruce and Bob Mulhere. Wayne Arnold, did you want to speaker? MR. ARNOLD: Not on this issue. MS. FILSON: Okay. Brad Cornell. He'll be followed by Andy Woodruff. MR. CORNELL: Good afternoon, Commissioners. Brad Cornell on behalf of the Collier County Audubon Society and Audubon of Florida. And I'm standing here to speak about section 24 going to sending and support this very strongly. We've seen the data, we've looked at the reports, and Conservation Collier, in fact, has confirmed that this is an important area, so much so that we've bought -- the county has bought over 60 acres of Red-Cockaded Woodpecker habitat in section 24. This is important for a variety of reasons. It's part of a larger effort countywide to not only protect the birds that now exist, but also Page 192 May 16, 2006 to expand and recover the birds and habitat that exist in Collier County . So the fact that there may be one, three, six, 10, whatever number of birds there are in section 24 now, the intent and the desire is to actually recover this population, expand it, get more birds, and protect the habitat and restore habitat in that area and in North Belle Meade, and, in fact, also in North Golden Gate Estates surrounding that area where there are also birds. So this is an important part of a larger effort that the county is wisely examining and a part of and hopefully a very positive part of. I also want to support not carving up section 24 into little pieces and saying this is habitat, this is not. The existing uses that are there will continue, and there should be incentives for management and restoration for those landowners that are outside of the Conservation Collier parcel. I believe the entire section should be going to sending, and this is supported very strongly by the data and analysis. Thanks very much. MS. FILSON: Andy Woodruff. He'll be followed by Rich Y ovanovich. MR. WOODRUFF: For the record, Andy Woodruff with Passarella & Associates. We've been asked to take a look at the study that was presented by staff for section 24, and I've done that, and I've got some items that I'd like to address with regards to that study that was to be presented. The Future Land Use Element recommended that a site specific study for section 24 be conducted for nesting and foraging habitat. The study that was done was for the entire North Belle Meade overlay area, 16,000 acres. It was not a site-specific nesting and foraging study for section 24. The study was conducted using aerial interpretation, like Bill referred to. The aerial -- the aerials that they used for interpretation Page 193 May 16, 2006 were at a scale that the entire section of land that they would have looked at for section 24 would have been on a piece of paper about 13 inches square, and they were making inferences about habitat quality for Red-Cockaded Woodpeckers based on an aerial of that resolution. I've been doing mapping since 1992 in south Florida, and if you can map that level of detail on a resolution of aerial and tell me about Red-Cockaded Woodpecker habitat, you're hired. I'm telling you, it just can't be done at that type of scale without getting on the ground and doing some site-specific studies. The bottom line on the study was basically that they looked at areas that had pine. If it had pine habitat, then they included it as either a cavity habitat or a foraging habitat. So if it had pine trees, if they could interpret pine trees as being on the property and they could envision that those pines had the potential, not that they currently supported anything, but that they had the potential to support either nesting or foraging habitat, then they included them as part of their overlay for Red-Cockaded Woodpeckers. So it didn't identify what was currently being provided as either cavity or nesting habitat on section 24. There are accepted survey methodologies. We use them all the time, accepted by U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and Florida Fish, and those typically involve doing 14-day nesting surveys on the ground and 14-day non-nesting surveys on the ground. In addition, -you also need to provide a cavity tree survey. Any piece of land -- if we're in the consultation area for Red-Cockaded Woodpeckers and we're going through the development process, those are the type of studies that we have to provide the agencies when we present the proj ect to them. They certainly would not accept me looking at a piece of aerial image and telling them that we did or did not have red-cockaded habitat or cavity habitat. CHAIRMAN HALAS: Thank you very much. Page 194 May 16, 2006 MS. FILSON: Next speaker is Rich Yovanovich. He'll be followed by Nancy Payton. MR. YOV ANOVICH: Good afternoon. For the record, Rich Y ovanovich. I represent several property owners out in section 24. And just following up on what Andy said, I feel fairly certainly if I were to bring in a development project in that area and submitted that type of study, it would have been rejected out of hand by your environmental staff as not being conclusive as to anything. What we're asking and I believe what your comprehensive plan said is they were supposed to do a study specific to section 24, which means they would get on the ground in section 24 and do the same type and level of study we would have to do if we wanted to develop the property. There was no effort to contact my clients. There still has been no effort to contact my clients to get on site. It was not until I started raising concerns regarding the study that anyone actually went on site. And my understanding, from what Mac said at the Planning Commission, is he went on 65 acres for part of one day and determined that all 640 acres should be redesignated from neutral lands to sending lands. I don't think that's a sufficient study or ground-truthing of a section of land. What we're requesting is that we'll leave the designation like it is, at neutral, with the 70 percent reserve requirement, which is higher than the typical neutral preserve requirement, and that the county do the same study we would be required to do, do the 14-day nesting season and the 14-day non-nesting season on the full 640 acres. We'll provide them access to our property, they can come out, they can do their study. And then let's see what the results are. If the results indicate it ought to go to sending, great. If not, it shouldn't go to sending. And I would submit to you that when we're talking about incentives for preserving and managing our lands, most of the people Page 195 May 16, 2006 that own land out there right now are farmers. So they're going to come in and they're going to clear the land. If they have another alternative, which could mean development where they can cluster the development, which you can do under neutral and preserve 70 percent of the land, you may actually get better preservation of the land because we'd be required to put that 70 percent into a conservation area. We'd be required to manage that 70 percent of the section in that. So you may actually find out that under these -- this alternative that actually leaving it as neutral and allowing it -- allowing potential for cluster development, that you may have a better intensive for addressing a red-cockaded issue, if there is, in fact, a red-cockaded issue out there in the first place, which we don't believe that the staff has followed the compo plan or done a study that would justify a change at this time. If you have any questions of me or Andy, we'd be happy to answer them. CHAIRMAN HALAS: Commission Coletta? MS. FILSON: The next -- whoops, I'm sorry. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: You've got another speaker? MS. FILSON: Yeah. Nancy Payton. CHAIRMAN HALAS: Do you want to wait until the speaker -- COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yes. CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay, fine. Thank you very much. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: If I may. Then I'll be ready to go. Thank you. CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. MS. PAYTON: Good afternoon. Nancy Payton representing the Florida Wildlife Federation. I'd like to give a little history about how we came to be here today. Back in June of 2002, we were dealing with the adoption of the final order amendments that section 24 had been transmitted to the Page 196 May 16, 2006 DCA as sending lands because the county's planning effort, it rose, and as you saw from Bill's slide, it rose to be sending land. It passed the test to be sending land. But there were challenges from some of Mr. Y ovanovich's clients who weren't his clients then, that it was not, indeed, sending land, and they questioned the process and such, and there was an agreement. I stood, not at this podium. There was a smaller one at that time, and Hideout's representative, Don Pickworth sat over there -- or stood at the podium over there, and behind him hovered American Farm's attorney, and Commissioner Coyle, you negotiated an agreement that it would go neutral with 70 percent until the study was done, and the study would drive whether it should remain neutral or whether it should remain sending. And we all agreed to that. A deal was a deal. The scope of the project came back. You approved hiring Gaeza Waga Desega (phonetic). There an was opportunity for those who were interested in this study to provide that input at that time rather than wait to this minute and shoot it down, kind of setting it up to fail. It was a crowded room that night when this was decided. It was nothing new or different. We knew where we were going. Gaeza's study -- excuse me -- and built upon the science and the procedures that were done for the rural fringe. And Gaeza has also been on the ground. He was the school board's consultant, so he had done ground surveys there. He had done it for other landowners in section 24, so he had been on the ground. He knew it was RCW habitat. The rural fringe process data and analysis were challenged, but they were not successfully challenged, and this is the basis that section 24's reconfirmation of sending was done. Mr. Y ovanovich represented one of the landowners that supported that data and analysis. It wasn't a section 24 one. It was another landowner, but he was there on the county's side, on DCA's side, and our side, supporting that the data and analysis done for the Page 197 May 16, 2006 rural fringe was valid. And, of course, as you know, we did prevail. Staff recently documented, as you heard, that there are RCWs on section 24. Oh, I have to go quickly, please. Historically there have been RCW s there. The school board sold you those acres because they were having tremendous permitting hurdles for federal permitting because of the RCW s. The rural fringe's mission is to protect habitat, RCW habitat. We know it's RCW habitat. It's further been confirmed that there are birds there that require certain distance, Commissioner Fiala, to forage, and also to expand their habitat. So they need as much land as possible because most of it has been turned into developments. The data and analysis clearly supports that it should be sending. It's a no-win situation that Mr. Y ovanovich is setting up by saying that we have to do a study or the county has to do a study that goes on every parcel, because you know you're not going to be able to get on every parcel, and then they'll come back and say it's not valid. CHAIRMAN HALAS: Are you about -- MS. PAYTON: Yes. I just have a few more comments. Mr. Woodruff has done RCW surveys in section 24, section 25. He knows it's habitat, otherwise, he wouldn't have been required to do an RCW survey. So I think that further confirms that it should be sending. Thank you very much in allowing me extra time. CHAIRMAN HALAS: Thank you, Nancy. MS. PAYTON: It's near and dear. I've been working on this for four years. CHAIRMAN HALAS: Is that our -- was that our last speaker? MS. FILSON: I think that's the last speaker. I still have four speakers, but they aren't clear in what they want to speak on. CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. I'll close the public hearing at this time. And Commissioner Coletta, I believe you're first up to bat here. Page 198 May 16, 2006 COMMISSIONER COLETTA: First question right out of the box, and this has been a concern when we talked about Collier Conservation land, and I'm going to bring it up again now that we're talking about putting this into the sending here. Sometime in the future a commission, not this one, is going to make a decision to possibly extend 16th all the way down to Green Boulevard. I think we have a responsibility to know that that corridor is going to be protected and that we'll be able to use it, and if we do this, what's that going to do with this being sending lands? Will a road be able to still go through there? COMMISSIONER FIALA: Could you put the map on there, please? MR. LORENZ: My understanding -- and I'm kind of looking over for David Weeks to confirm, is that, yes, a road would be able to go through the sending lands. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Okay. Then the other question I've got is, there's a lot of to-do about the study and what study has been done and what the agreement was beforehand, and I'm very, very interested, of course, in making sure that we provide conservation lands whenever possible, but I'm also concerned about property rights and due process. Not calling Mr. Yovanovich back and not calling back Mrs. Payton, what is your spin on this? How do you see this coming down as far as the study that took place and how we got to where we are today? MR. LORENZ: For purposes of Growth Management Plan requirements for the data and analysis, this is -- this is -- perfectly conforms with the kinds of analysis that you do at the landscape scale, even at full section scale. What we tried to do was we tried to take the section 24 lands and compare them to the other sending lands to see if they're comparable. And so we need to be able to do -- we need to be consistent in our Page 199 May 16, 2006 analysis with section 24 and the other lands. Now, the recommendation, for instance, what you heard was to do a typical RCW study on all the properties. That's the type of analysis that you would do. We're through getting down to actual permitting requirement. That's in a lot greater detail that, certainly from staff, when we as staff brainstorm what the scope of the study was, we certainly didn't envision that. So I'm comfortable with the degree of the study. If the board on the other hand wants to go further and get more details then, of course, we certainly can do that. But from a -- from my -- my recommendation is, I'm comfortable that we made the apples-to-apples comparison to the sending lands. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Maybe you did, but let's go one step further. There was the statement made that if this was a developer, they'd be required to do a much more in-depth study; however, now since we're the county doing it, we don't need to do that. MR. LORENZ: Yes. Because the developer would actually be impacting those lands. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Oh, I see. MR. LORENZ: They would be -- they would be coming in to do the study for -- to get an actual permit from the agencies to ensure that they would not be taking RCWs. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: You know, what about the statement that was made that the property owners were not contacted? MR. LORENZ: Well, that's true. When we as -- and I want to clarify one thing, is that the study did not -- the contract did not come to the board. This was in the purchasing policy under the threshold that come to the board. Staff sat down, we looked at the consultant. We had assessed the scope together with the consultant to determine that this was the appropriate analysis. Again, as -- the consultant here is -- has had Page 200 May 16, 2006 work in section 24, work in the other -- the other sending lands. We have -- we have -- staff has a high degree of confidence with the consultant. We did do the report about a year and a half or two years ago. We published the report. We were working at that point with a North Belle Meade planning stakeholders group that we published the study, put it on the web. It has also been used for the past two or three years for the RC -- if you recall when we were working with the listed species stakeholders group when we were doing the RCW work, this was the study used for -- COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Oh, so they were involved at that point? MR. LORENZ: -- base study. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: They were involved in the study group? MR. LORENZ: Well, they -- what I'm saying is, is that the study was available through those processes, those particular meetings and those groups as they were reviewing some of the work products for those committees. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: And I really think that we'll probably end up with this being sending lands. I'm just -- I'm very concerned about the process and where we began, where we ended, and whether we touched all the bases that we should have. The other question I've got is our transfer of development rights program that we've got. And this would have transfer of development rights with it? MR. LORENZ: Right. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Now, we're into the program, we're moving along pretty good. I mean, we've had this thing set up how many years now, three years, give or take? MR. LORENZ: Roughly. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: And I understand that the TDRs Page 201 May 16, 2006 are selling. They're starting to change hands and everything. What kind of assurance do I have that this particular, adding this whole section, is not going to dilute the TDR programs where all of a sudden the market will crash? MR. WEEKS: Well, Commissioner, based on a total acreage of 640, based upon both the base credit of one unit per five acres, in addition to the early entry bonus if it comes in during that allotted time period, that could yield a maximum of 256 TDR credits; however, a small portion of that land is owned by Collier County, Conservation Collier, so it's not eligible for generating TDR credits. There's a golf course there that presumably is not going to change from that to some other type of use, so presumably would not generate any TDR credits, and there's some additional lands that have been developed. You see some white areas within that section 24, they do not have a crosshatched pattern, that represents the areas that don't have the habitat on them. That includes the golf course and some -- I think some residential along Della Drive, also some agricultural uses in particular up at the northeast corner of that section. Unless those properties go through the restoration and maintenance bonus program, I don't think we could reasonable expect to see TDR credits from those properties as well. So I started with a maximum of 256 TDR credits. I can't give you specific number, but it's a lot less than that. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Okay. Say it's 100, is the final result. The people -- the idea behind the TDR program was to make people whole somewhere along the line. And Dr. Nicholas isn't here today to be able to say there's not going to be any appreciable amount of difference. Can anybody tell me that, that adding 100 more TDR credits out there is not going to cause the program to collapse? MR. WEEKS: Not as a factual matter. We can just tell you that's a very small percent to be adding. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Can you tell me what's out there Page 202 May 16, 2006 now? What is it, is it 1,500 or something? MR. WEEKS: Somewhere between -- I'm thinking between 4- and 5,000 TDR credits, potential. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Is there some way that if we do go along with this -- and I do have reservations on it -- that we might be able to extend the early bonus program for those people in this area? Is there some way that could be done? I mean, here they are, they're coming into this late, not of their own free will. MR. WEEKS: That's a policy decision for the board. In the past you've told us you did not want to modify the TDR program any more as far as bonuses go. This is a change -- COMMISSIONER COLETTA: We also never thought we'd have more TDRs coming available, too. And now we have another situation, and the reason for that was to try to prompt the market to start moving forward, and we've done that, and it's going along just fine. And I -- if we do do this -- and I still have reservations. You haven't made me feel that comfortable with the process itself as far as the studies that took place and especially the public participation. I'm really at a loss at that, that that hasn't taken place. I'm sure the end results, we're probably going to accept it all, but I'm just wondering, from A to Z, if we're really catching every letter as we go forward. I don't want any part of our population to be left behind on this. I mean, we're asking them to give up something for the betterment of everyone in Collier County. And if we're going to ask them to do that, we should have -- make sure that our due process is in place. That's my own personal opinion. Thank you. MR. WEEKS: Commissioner, I -- I'm sorry. I would just reiterate what Bill has said earlier. When we established the rural fringe mixed-use district in 2002, we viewed all of the properties within that area at the landscaped scale. Page 203 May 16, 2006 And I think what Bill has told you is that the approach for this section was the same. We've been consistent in our review of the data and our evaluation that has been done. And, furthermore, the consultant does have experience in this area, as Bill has said, from past clients in Collier County. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: No doubt about all that. And if you were here before me and you went through a public process, I would be the one making for -- the motion for approval. But I'm still worried that the public process hasn't taken place and that we've got people out there that are going to feel disenfranchised. CHAIRMAN HALAS: Commissioner Henning? COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, if I knew that that's how the study was conducted when we adopted the fringe amendments, I think I'd be very reluctant to approve that whole amendment. I'm a little reluctant to make it into sending lands for one bird, 660 (sic) acres, knowing that there are farmlands out there. I'm more inclined to go into receiving area, but I can compromise. I can go with the neutral area being a 70 percent canopy retention; is that right? MR. LORENZ: Vegetation retention. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Vegetation retention. What concerns me though is the comment from the Audubon Society about looking into northern Golden Gate Estates when we were told by Florida Fish and Wildlife that wasn't the intent to look at Golden Gate Estates on the listed species studies. And why I'm concerned is, when is enough? And I read just the other day that now they're looking at scrub jay habitat in Immokalee. And I'm really concerned, is there anything, knowing that there's 80 percent of lands in Collier County set aside for wildlife in preserves and for perpetuity, is there enough land here in Collier County for people, taxpayers who paid the taxes to preserve the 80 percent, to purchase and keep them in perpetuity? When's enough? Page 204 May 16, 2006 CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. Commissioner Coletta? COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Commissioner Fiala was first. COMMISSIONER FIALA: No, that's all right. I think he was first. Okay, fine. I was surprised to hear this had already been approved as sending and then somehow it changed into neutral. Is that really how it was in the first place? And it was changed to neutral, and now what we're trying to do is change it back to what it was originally designated as, right? MR. LORENZ: I believe it was transmitted as sending with the original amendments, and then between -- between the transmittal and the adoption -- at the adoption hearing it was adopted as neutral with the additional preservation requirements and the study to be done. CHAIRMAN HALAS: Commissioner Coletta? COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Let me -- let me ask you this. I don't know if this is possible, Bill, but if we transmit this on to Department of Community Affairs, between then and when it comes back to us, how long of a time span is there? MR. LORENZ: I'll kind of let David or Randy answer that. MR. WEEKS: I think it's between two and three months. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Okay. What I'm going to propose to you is maybe we could do that, transmit it up with the idea that in the three months interim before it comes back we have a public process that takes place. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Transfer up as it's written, you mean? COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I'm sorry? COMMISSIONER FIALA: Transmit it as staff -- COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Well, transmit it as written with the understanding that before it -- when it comes back we can reject it. It's going to take four votes to move it forward. And then we can have a public process with -- and I don't know how we're going to fit it in in Page 205 May 16, 2006 that three months, but somehow maybe during a commission meeting __ well, my God, they're all full. I know I'm asking the impossible, and probably Jim Mudd's back there going to be crying in a minute. But if we could possibly fit this in where the public could come before us and we could address their concerns in front of this body, like representatives, and then when it comes back to us, we can make a decision. Is that a suggestion, a doable suggestion? MR. LORENZ: Certainly is. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Is that a motion? MR. LORENZ: The question I'd have for the board is, is there any other additional information that you may want to have as part of that process? I'm not sure that I can commit to the types of studies that the other public speakers had mentioned. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Well, that will be an argument they'll bring up during the process. You know, the study that's been done -- I have no doubts that there might be birds living on the site. I'm sure there are. And I'm sure that there's a lot of suitable habitat. But meanwhile, my concern is the people that actually own the land and how they feel about this whole process and how it's going forward. And I would like to have -- let them have their day before this body, if we could. And I don't -- I don't think it would be an all-day affair, you know. I would assume we probably could do this business in 45 minutes or less. No, seriously. I mean, this -- we're not fighting to establish a whole rural fringe or, you know, a whole new designation. We already know how it's put together. It's just one section in there we're dealing with and the people that's there to get them here in front of us. CHAIRMAN HALAS: How many owners do we have; do you know offhand? COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Mr. Yovanovich might be able to answer that. Page 206 May 16, 2006 MR. YOV ANOVICH: I can't tell you all of the owners, and I certainly don't represent all of the owners. I represent probably a couple of 100 acres of the 640. Commissioner Coletta, I mean, I'm not trying to discourage you from another public hearing process. I mean, essentially all they did is they did the same landscaping level analysis they did originally . You certainly couldn't have said to do a site-specific study and mean just come back and do the same thing you already did. So they're just rehashing the data they had before that we objected to. And we're not backing down on our agreement with Nancy. We said, bring a full-blown study back and we'll live with the results. We had no input into the type of study that was done. Bill just told you that. So we didn't know what the type of study was. Gaeza hasn't been on that site in years. Things change. Let's do a modern study. We don't think it's been done. We're raising our arguments now. I don't know that we're going to raise any new arguments if you do have another hearing. We just don't think it's a sufficient study to take that drastic a step to take that many rights away from people who own acreage. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I hear you. So you don't think that the public process is something that needs to be drawn out any longer than it has. MR. YOV ANOVICH: No. I think the study is a flawed study, and we're asking you to do a valid study, and we're going to continue to ask you to do that. If somebody tells you not to go on their property, they have no right to obj ect. We're telling you, come onto our property, look at our property, and whatever the results are, are the results. If someone says, hey, I'm not going to let you on my property, then say, you didn't play along, you know. Leave them -- make them sending. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Let me ask a question, if I may. Suppose we -- could we possibly put this on hold till the study was Page 207 May 16, 2006 done, or do we have to start over from scratch, the whole business going forward as far as the cycle and start over in a new cycle? MR. WEEKS: Commissioners, if you so choose, you can not adopt this map change and send us back, so to speak, to the drawing board to do a study, and then we could come back during a regular amendment cycle. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: How long would this take to be able to pull this all together? MR. YOV ANOVICH: You're in a cycle right now. MR. LORENZ: Well, in terms of -- in terms of this study, if we're talking simply about going out on private property, let's say -- I'm looking at Rich. Let's say his clients allow us to get on that private property and to evaluate the quality of the habitat, then we can -- we can do that within -- in a period of a couple of months. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Well, is there any possibility-- MR. LORENZ: The one -- of course the -- recognize that if we were -- if we were to do that and we were only able to get on 10 percent of all of the property in section 24, then we've got -- we've got 10 percent of really good data and the rest of the data is at the level that we currently have now, which again, I will say, it's not the same as the original final order study. It's a lot better data than we used to adopt these amendments. But if it's not at the level that the board has a comfortable level with, then we can -- we can gather additional data for you. My -- I'm kind of looking at David a little bit here. It might be somewhat -- it might be somewhat dangerous to transmit with this information and then go up to DCA and then provide -- and then at that particular point if you've got some additional data, then we have to -- then when we adopt, that additional data could make us adopt at a different -- a different level. But at that point we don't -- we do not have DCA's input as to whether or not they would approve that adoption. Maybe, David, you might be able to help explain that a Page 208 May 16, 2006 little bit more. MR. WEEKS: I think what you're saying is that there's a benefit of being able to transmit an amendment up to DCA, because we then get the benefit of their review in that ORC report, objections, recommendations, and comments. And if we transmit one thing and then adopt something different, we have not had the benefit of DCA's review of the additional information. They would only be receiving that additional information at the time of adoption. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: So the only thing would be, is if we just took this all and put it aside, we might lose three, four months on the whole thing? MR. WEEKS: No, sir. I think what we're talking about now is pushing this back to a regular amendment cycle. The next transmittal hearings will occur roughly -- the early part of '07, next transmittal. So that would give staff roughly seven months. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Is there any danger that we might lose something that's there while this process is going forward? I mean, can they misuse the land in some way or convert it to a use that would make it totally unacceptable? MR. LORENZ: You wouldn't be -- you would not be having any large projects. I'm not aware of any large projects coming in. MR. YOV ANOVICH: Seventy percent. MR. LORENZ: There's the 70 percent preserve vegetation retention requirement on there, which is -- which is fairly hefty. So I don't think that we would be at risk at that point in terms of seven months and gather the data. And if you're comfortable with the additional information, then we'll present that to the board and we can move forward at this point. MR. COHEN: Commissioners, and just as an added point. The other option is you can transmit, you know, with the data and analysis that's in the existing report. And when the ground-truthing goes out, Page 209 May 16, 2006 one of two things is going to happen. They either support what's going on up, or it's not going to support. If we do get a report back from DCA that, in essence, states that the data and analysis is sufficient and then, you know, we find out subsequent to that that we have additional data and analysis that is contrary on that, we can provide that to DCA, and DCA would buy off on that. Either way, I think with the data and analysis that would support or negate what's in the study that went on up, I think we would have grounds, one way or the other, if we decided to change our mind in terms of at the adoption time to go forward one way or the other. As long as we had the sufficient data with the ground-truthing, and that's common practice. CHAIRMAN HALAS: Commissioner Fiala? You're done? COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yes. CHAIRMAN HALAS: Commissioner Fiala? COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes. I'd like to make a motion to submit for approval as staff and Planning Commission's recommendation but with the understanding that Commissioner Coletta's still going to go out and seek public input on this. And ifhe gets input and the studies show differently, that we can modify or -- or vote against it entirely when it comes back. Would that work? Would that work? COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I think so. You know, who knows what's going to happen when this thing comes back? I mean, I'll be honest with you, if my comfort level was strong one way or the other, I wouldn't have any problem making the motion. But I'm not hearing an overwhelming public grievance out there where they're having a problem. They're just questioning the study. They think that -- it sounds like the public process has been satisfied at one time, if not for the total. Page 210 May 16, 2006 So I think you're probably -- that motion's just as good as any that I've heard or I could make myself. CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. Do I hear a second? COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I guess I'm supposed to make the second. COMMISSIONER FIALA: You don't have to. CHAIRMAN HALAS: Commissioner Henning, and then -- <;:OMMISSIONER HENNING: Well-- so you're saying it's up to Commissioner Coletta to go out there and seek public input of what to do for one bird in 660 acres? COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I'd like to nominate Commissioner Henning for that. COMMISSIONER FIALA: No. I believe -- no, I didn't say that at all. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. COMMISSIONER FIALA: But I think that we should seek public input. And I don't know how we would do that, whether it would be through Rich's clients or whether it would be through our staff, whether we would go out and you do some extra analysis on it to -- more of an in-depth study. MR. LORENZ: I would take the discussion that the board has had and that direction to work with Rich and his clients to get out on the field, with our staff evaluating on the ground, and then also, as you suggested, we could -- we could request permission to get on the other properties as well. And if we get permission, we have permission. If we don't, we could report that to you. COMMISSIONER FIALA: And maybe include Nancy Payton too, because she was a part of this in the beginning. MR. LORENZ: Yes. COMMISSIONER HENNING: I like that direction better, get on the ground, our staff go on the ground with the cooperation of the landowners and evaluate the -- how many birds are out there. I think Page 211 May 16, 2006 that should be the direction to the commissioners instead of having Commissioner Coletta go out there. COMMISSIONER FIALA: I'm sorry. COMMISSIONER HENNING: He might get lost. COMMISSIONER FIALA: I didn't think I was assigning -- COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I wouldn't know an RCW ifit bit me. And I'd be the wrong person. Once again, I nominate you. You're a lot younger and probably can run a lot faster. CHAIRMAN HALAS: Commissioner Coyle? COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yeah. I'm not sure where we are. We're talking -- we're talking about transmitting this as sending lands, and then based upon a survey that we do in the interim, we might reverse it? COMMISSIONER FIALA: Uh-huh. COMMISSIONER COYLE: And if we reversed it after DCA has told us it was approved, don't we have to send it back to DCA for approval? MR. COHEN: Commissioner, we have to send it back regardless at the time of adoption one way or another. There's a lot of items that we're transmitting on -- for example, on 3-2 vote, and those 3-2 votes are going to go on up to DCA with a certain understanding, probably from their perspective that Collier County's going to be moving forward with those particular items. At the time of transmittal, which requires a 4-1 majority vote, we're going to be coming back with an opposite recommendation, and we're going to have to explain to DCA why that action was taken. So it's not going to be the only one. MR. LORENZ: And in this particular situation, we would have the additional data and analysis to present. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yeah. But by that time Commissioner Henning and Commissioner Fiala -- or Commissioner Coletta will have come to their senses and they're support these other Page 212 May 16, 2006 things, so we won't -- maybe we won't have so many differences at that point. But, okay. Well, I'll tell you, I am concerned about this ongoing disagreement about whether or not anybody has really done an adequate study on the ground to tell us what is there, and I think we all expected at the very beginning that there would be -- that this decision would be based on some reputable study with appropriate information. And quite frankly, I'm not -- I'm sure that you already have done that, okay. It's just that nothing's been presented to us to give us a strong cozy feeling one way or the other. But, you know, if there is such data that you think is overwhelming and compelling -- I've read the study that you sent to us, and I -- I am just concerned that there are allegations that the person who conducted the study really didn't ground-truth this thing as well as it should have been done. And if we can do that and do it in a reasonable time frame, I'd just like to do that. But nevertheless, I think there probably are enough votes here to send it up the way it is right now. CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. Any further discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN HALAS: We have a motion on the floor by Commissioner Fiala, and I believe we have a second by Commissioner Coletta. Any further discussion? (N 0 response.) CHAIRMAN HALAS: Ifnot, I'm going to call the question. All those in favor, signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye. CHAIRMAN HALAS: Aye. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye. CHAIRMAN HALAS: Those opposed? COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye. Page 213 May 16, 2006 CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay, 4-1. MR. WEEKS: Commissioner -- well, I guess we first need to find out if we have additional public speakers. CHAIRMAN HALAS: We'll take a break. MR. WEEKS: Okay. CHAIRMAN HALAS: And we'll be back at 5:31. I hope I can get everybody back by 5:31, please. (A brief recess was had.) CHAIRMAN HALAS: Ladies and gentlemen, please take your seats. We'll get started here. We've got some speakers here in regards to the -- well, we're -- where we at here on this -- COMMISSIONER FIALA: How many subjects left? MR. COHEN: We have -- we're still on the Future Land Use Element. We have some speakers with regard to some items also. And if the Board of County Commissioners has any specific concerns with any of the provisions, you should raise those as well in addition to those issues raised by the speakers. CHAIRMAN HALAS: Well, what I was going to suggest, once we get past this -- the FLUE, I think we pretty much have addressed that, that we go into the Immokalee overlay. MR. COHEN: We have the Golden Gate, Immokalee, Marco Island economic developments still to go. CHAIRMAN HALAS: We have some speakers here from Immokalee. MR. COHEN: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN HALAS: And I'd like to maybe address that so they can get on the road. COMMISSIONER COYLE: We're through with FLUE, right? MS. FILSON: No. I have three speakers for that. CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. MS. FILSON: Do you want me to call those, Mr. Chairman? CHAIRMAN HALAS: Yes. Page 214 May 16, 2006 COMMISSIONER COYLE: Disapprove. MS. FILSON: Wayne Arnold, followed by Bob Mulhere. MR. ARNOLD: Thank you. Wayne Arnold, for the record. I'll make my comments brief. I did want to say that I supported the other changes that were made to the Future Land Use Element by the Planning Commission. I do have one item that I'd like to bring up that isn't something that was contemplated necessarily by staff in this round of amendments, but it affects the office and infill commercial subdistrict, which is one of your categories by which you can qualify for commercial, what you have adjacent to you. Right now that provision allows you to have up to 12 acres of commercial. It talks about the balance of that property being in the form of conservation land or open space, et cetera. But it also limits the depth of commercial to what lies adj acent to you, which typically is commercial like you find on U.S. 41 east and north where you have a couple hundred feet in depth of commercial. What that provision doesn't allow you to do is to actually plan a mixed-use project where you can integrate commercial and residential together. In anything other than a linear fashion, you -- under that provision, you're required to put the commercial right on 41. Any residential component would have to be behind it. But it doesn't give you the flexibility to reposition commercial on the site. I handed some language to David Weeks earlier today, and I have a copy of it we can put on the visual if we want to get into that level of detail. At this point I would hope that -- we've talked a lot about the mixed-use concept today and smart growth principles and allowing people to do a variety of mixed-use projects, and I think this just furthers the motion that that's something that we want to have happen. I put in language here that basically says it's at the discretion of the board based on compatibility if you go that direction. Page 215 May 16, 2006 I also think it's one of those we've talked about DCA and transmittal versus adoption. Typically these kind of issues that don't have environmental or very large-scale impacts don't get much attention by DCA anyway. But I would hope that we could entertain the notion of this and move something along or at least give us the opportunity to work with staff between now and adoption to come back with some language that might be acceptable to them as well to promote this mixed-use idea. CHAIRMAN HALAS: Great. MR. ARNOLD: And I have the language. If you want to put it up on the screen and look at it, we certainly can, if you think that's appropriate. CHAIRMAN HALAS: Also come up maybe with mixed-use where you've got residential above. MR. ARNOLD: Correct, you could. And like I said, the limitation here is really the depth of commercial. COMMISSIONER HENNING: We need the county manager. CHAIRMAN HALAS: There we go. You can see the language. It really affects two paragraphs. You have several provisions under office and infill. You already have limitations on density in the coastal high hazard that you've talked about today that's already codified in this provision in the compo plan. But it's really, again, going to the notion that you can have mixed use and that you can have the depth of commercial, not necessarily just relegated to that along your major road corridor, but that you could actually come forward with a mixed-use project under a planned unit development zoning and demonstrated to you that we can be compatible and make this relationship work. MS. FILSON: Your final speaker is Bob Mulhere. MR. MULHERE: I just have a very brief comment. I think Bruce Anderson spoke with David Weeks about this. It's really just some clarification. Page 216 May 16, 2006 On page 34, paragraph 2, about midway down there's a sentence that reads, with respect to the plus or minus 19 acres in the northeast quadrant of activity center number 7, said acreage lying adjacent to the east of the Hammock Park Commerce Center, and we've added the word, commercial development, and then we've added, exclusive of one-quarter mile support medical uses shall be limited, and then the sentence carries on. The phrase, exclusive of the one-quarter mile support medical uses is intended to allow those medical uses because they're allowed within a certain distance to a hospital. And we're afraid a little bit that that could be misconstrued possibly down the road by somebody other than David. And the suggestion is to change that to say, exclusive of the allowed one-quarter mile support medical uses, and I think that would clarify that. MR. WEEKS: Bruce didn't tell me, but no, I have no objection. MR. MULHERE: Okay. He didn't tell you? MR. WEEKS: No. That adds some clarity. MR. MULHERE: Okay. Thank you. MR. WEEKS: Mr. Chairman, regarding Mr. Arnold's suggestion, staff does not support the change. I understand the rationale and wanting to promote mixed-use development, and that's something that this board and staff has been supportive of ever since we -- particularly ever since we adopted the community character plan a few years ago. My short response is, it simply doesn't belong in this provision. This subdistrict, as is clearly stated in the intent, is to apply to relatively small properties along major roadways that are abutting commercial zoning, that are not suitable for residential development. It's an infill type of a provision to allow those properties that are not suitable for residential development to be eligible for commercial zonIng. Page 217 May 16, 2006 What this does is allow a property of any size -- it's no longer limited to 12 acres. It could be of any size so that front portion that's abutting commercial to be developed as commercial would qualify for commercial zoning, and then the back portion would qualify for residential. It completely defeats the intent of that subdistrict. If the commission wants to go down this -- in this direction, I would respectfully ask that you direct us to look into creating a new subdistrict then. It's simply not appropriate in this subdistrict. CHAIRMAN HALAS: Thank you. Commissioner Henning? COMMISSIONER HENNING: I respect Mr. Weeks' opinion. He's been at it for a long time, and so I'm reluctant to make any changes. CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. Move on then. MR. WEEKS: Mr. Chairman, at this point we've talked about some very specific issues and you've voted on those. Now we need you to take a vote on the balance of the Future Land Use Element. There's various organizational and format changes, housecleaning matters, et cetera, which I don't think we need to spend time discussing. But if you look in your book, you see a lot of underlined and strike-through that we've not talked about. We just need an overall vote on the balance of the Future Land Use Element to support the changes. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Motion to approve. CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. I'll second that. Any further discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN HALAS: Hearing none, I'll call the question. All those in favor, signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye. Page 218 May 16, 2006 CHAIRMAN HALAS: Aye. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye. CHAIRMAN HALAS: Those opposed, by like sign. (N 0 response.) CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay, David. MR. WEEKS: Okay. Mr. Chairman, I believe you directed that we go to the Immokalee Master Plan next. CHAIRMAN HALAS: Yes. MR. WEEKS: Similar to the Future Land Use Element, the major issues pertain to density changes. There's the changes to the -- well, it's not called a density rating system, but it's a -- special provisions, I think, for density is how it's phrased. But this is the similar provisions to allow proximity to commercial to achieve a density bonus for a residential infill density bonus and the roadway access density bonus. All three of these are proposed to be eliminated just as has occurred in the FLUE and as also is recommended in the Golden Gate Master Plan. These were identified to be eliminated in the EAR. So these are the same type changes, those three, as were proposed in the Future Land Use Element which you have supported. Looking for the page numbers now, Commissioner. Those begin on page 16, that's the elimination of the proximity to commercial, and then page 1 7 contains the residential infill and roadway access bonuses. Again, all three proposed for deletion. CHAIRMAN HALAS: Any questions from our commissioners? COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yes. On page 16, the affordable/workforce housing bonus by right, is this the same as we discussed a little while ago with the -- MR. WEEKS: Yes, sir. Mr. Chairman, I was assuming that you wanted to go through the same process of voting on portions. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Oh, I'm sorry. I'm getting ahead Page 219 May 16, 2006 of you. We can deal with each item. CHAIRMAN HALAS: Do you have anything else to bring forward before I open this up for public -- MR. WEEKS: Well, in that case, I'll go ahead and mention the other two. CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. MR. WEEKS: The other change similar to the Future Land Use Element, and again Golden Gate when we get there, is the ability to rent guesthouses. In the Future Land Use Element you've rejected that provision, as did the Planning Commission. And the last issue, as Mr. Coletta just referred to on page 16, is the affordable housing density bonus by right. And this is -- again, is the same provision that was proposed in the Future Land Use Element and the Golden Gate Master Plan. The Immokalee Area Master Plan/Visioning Committee first reviewed this density by right provision and voted in favor of it. They wanted it to occur. Subsequently, a joint meeting between the Immokalee Area Master Plan/Visioning Committee and the CRA advisory board voted on this again, and at that time their vote was, yes, include it, but only if it's done countywide. Don't just approve this density by right for Immokalee. And I know Mr. Thomas wants to speak on this matter. CHAIRMAN HALAS: Anything else? If not, we'll-- MR. WEEKS: That's all from staff, sir. CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. Call the public speakers. MR. GRAMATGES: I have one public speaker, Mr. Chairman, and -- Fred Thomas. MR. THOMAS: Good afternoon -- good evening, Commissioners. Good evening, Commissioners. I am wearing the hats as chairman of the Immokalee Master Plan and Visioning Committee, and chairman of the master -- Immokalee CRA. When the issue first came up, it was brought to our attention at Page 220 May 16, 2006 the Master Plan and Visioning Committee by our Immokalee representative to the Planning Commission, because the Planning Commission recommended density by right no place else but in Immokalee, okay? We spoke to you all at the public hearing that you had on affordable housing and said, you know, we voted in favor of it, because at the time that you all had the meeting, we had not had the meeting with the CRA, another meeting, and our attitude was, yes, this is something that we want. But if we have -- if we could hold back and get it for everybody, then fine. But since you all don't want it for anybody else -- we want it, you understand? Especially if you take any other densities from us that I didn't realize you were taking because they didn't bring it to the Immokalee Master Plan and Visioning Committee, those other three that he just mentioned. Okay? So we do need density -- density bonuses by right in Immokalee so we can, you know, develop. In order for us to become the industrial hub of Collier County, which can be very helpful to the whole county -- based on some information you got from Tammie Nemecek -- that we can begin to be a credit tax collector for you all, you understand, we need to have the ability to develop and provide for the workforce and to support that development in the community. So that's why we, at the second meeting, thinking about it, maybe we could help get it spurred for the whole county. Didn't work. We still want it for Immokalee. And we hate the fact that you're going to take anything else from us that would allow us to have more density and grow and prosper and do things quickly. Thank you. CHAIRMAN HALAS: Thank you. MS. FILSON: That's your final speaker, Mr. Chairman. CHAIRMAN HALAS: I'll close the public hearing. And Commissioner Coletta? Page 221 May 16, 2006 COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I'm still troubled by this, but I have no problem forwarding this on to Department of Community Affairs. I just think it's grossly unfair that Immokalee has to carry the burden, and they'll have to carry it forever, the affordable housing Issue. Now, with that said, I'm not going to fight as far as not allowing it and trying to vote against it. But I am going to be meeting with people in Immokalee between now and the final approval to actually get their reading on it. Because I was at the meeting when they dealt with the issue, and I didn't quite get the same spin on it that Mr. Thomas did, but then again, too, he's in much better touch with the community than I am. But I will be sitting in meetings and I will make this a subject of the discussion. And when it does come back to us for final approval, I may be dealing with it differently. CHAIRMAN HALAS: Commissioner Henning? COMMISSIONER HENNING: Mr. Thomas, I have a question for you, please. You being a former Planning Commission member -- MR. THOMAS: Yes. COMMISSIONER HENNING: -- this language was in there, 16 units -- up to 16 units per acre for infill. How about if we just keep the old language, just like we did with the rest of the urban area? MR. THOMAS: And give up the density by right? COMMISSIONER HENNING: And give up the density by right. MR. THOMAS: Okay. The problem with that, the only problem with that, and why we like the density by right better is, in coastal Collier County you have to invest in planners and architects, what have you, and then three years later maybe get your building permit. And you can still get a return on your dollar waiting that long for development. In Immokalee you can't wait that long to get that kind of Page 222 May 16, 2006 development. We're competing with communities in Hendry County, Glades County, where they can go in, apply for a permit, and in 90 days -- not 90 days, nine months, have a permit. So industry and whatnot will go to those places to develop and commute to Immokalee, get the labor from Immokalee, then to develop in Immokalee. Density by right kills all that time unless it's going to move ahead and get things done. COMMISSIONER HENNING: See -- another question, did you want it on unplatted lands in the Immokalee urban area? MR. THOMAS: Yeah. Right now, we're in the process of doing the master plan. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Right. MR. THOMAS: We almost would like to suspend anything you do in Immokalee till we finish the master plan. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Right. MR. THOMAS: Then we'll mark off those areas where we feel comfortable with this kind of development, that kind of development, and the other kind of development. But when we end up with that, you know that anything that's zoned residential has density by right. Understand? COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. Anything presently zoned residential, you want it -- MR. THOMAS: Density by right. COMMISSIONER HENNING: -- density by right. So if -- I mean, I'm assuming if you have a city lot of half an acre -- MR. THOMAS: Let me give you an example so you know exactly where I'm coming from. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. MR. THOMAS: I live behind the Baptist church. I recommended to the Planning Commission that where they had commercial going from Immokalee -- I mean, State Road 29, 15th Street, that goes up the middle of town -- I live -- my property backs Page 223 May 16, 2006 up to the property lines that face on 15th Street or 29. They had commercial zoning on the master plan for 200 feet, but those properties went back 300 feet. That doesn't make sense. We need to take it back to the property line. That will put it right on my line, which means that they could put a hotel right next door to me. And what's wrong with that? And I've got a very nice piece of land. You've been to my place. Understand? But if we're going to accommodate and become the kind of community that can grow and prosper, bring enough taxes in so we can do all the things we want to do, we've got to have opportunities to grow and grow quickly. You know, you've got packing houses not being built, you've got a lot of things not being done because you've got to compete with -- we're not competing with Hilton Head, Palm Beach. We're competing with Wauchula, Clewiston, and we need to be able to do things quickly, inexpensively without a non-value add. You all asked me when I was the director of the Housing Authority, please help us solve -- not you -- the governor said, please help us solve the problem of these poor farm workers living in trailers. I said, okay. Give me enough money where I have no debt service, only ask me one question, are they farm workers? If you don't ask me any other questions, I can help you. Because in my present -- the other program I was running, I had to make sure they were permanent residents. So he said okay. He gave me enough money to do 304 units. Only could put 192 units in. Why? Because I made the stupid mistake of making that under the new hurricane standards and putting a paved road around the back where nobody can see, where we're going to bring emergency vehicles in, and Collier County code made me put underground utilities and landscaping where nobody could see it. I had to put a cupola on the top of the building -- because we had too much linear feet -- where nobody could see. It's a pretty building, Page 224 May 16, 2006 but it only serves 192 people where it could have served 304. And these are the kind of things we've got to get level, because we're not competing with coastal. We're competing with central Florida, and central Florida has a whole different code, whole different set of standards. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well-- MR. THOMAS: And still end up with quaint little communities like Sebring and Avon Park, and Lakeland that are quite nice little communities. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Right. Well, this language is not going to get you where you want to get, and let me tell you why, is, it's a density of eight units. Four you've got to ask the county commission for, four you get it. MR. THOMAS: No, no. We automatically -- you get automatically four. And if you do workforce housing, you get -- the lower level of the workforce housing, you get another four, correct? Automatically. Right? MR. WEEKS: As a matter of right you would get up to-- depending on you qualifying for the type of housing you do, gap, affordable, et cetera, up to eight units per acre by right. That would be your maXImum. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. So this is -- MR. THOMAS: We can do -- and we can do commercial-- residential over commercial real nice like that. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Right. And you're able to do it in the Land Development Code right now. MR. THOMAS: But we have to come and go through the process, ask for permission at two levels. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, I'm a little concerned about, like Commissioner Coletta said, shoving everything in Immokalee and nothing in the urban area. MR. THOMAS: And I live in Immokalee, you understand? But Page 225 May 16, 2006 -- and I know people are concerned of it becoming the dumping ground. If you all do not want a community where you have your schoolteachers living amongst you and your firemen and policemen living amongst you, that's your business. We like that kind of community. We feel comfortable with that community. We get a better level of services in that kind of community. Thank you. CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. Commissioner Fiala? COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yeah, I just wanted to suggest, as you're putting together your master plan -- MR. THOMAS: Yes, ma'am, I'm sorry. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Oh, no, no, that's all right, that's all right. You can sit down. It doesn't make a difference. As you're putting together your master plan, I'm a strong believer in build it, they will come. You know, you're hoping to draw a lot of better-wage people through your initiatives through the airport, and I would suggest to you to start building for them because then you'll bring in that element as well. And then finally, just like the problems that we have right now because we've been so overloaded with affordable housing, we didn't get any commercial in there. So when we have to go to a Target or a Home Depot or whatever -- well, we finally got a Home Depot. But for any of these stores, we have to travel to the other end of town. We don't have any restaurants or anything. And that's the same with you. And I would suggest that maybe if you get -- you know, if you have more of a tiered, balanced effort there, you might be able to draw in some of that and not have to wait as long, you know. MR. THOMAS: Okay. I agree with you 100 percent, 100 percent. Right now we are not in a static state. We're in a very dynamic state. A lot of things happening around us. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Oh, yes. MR. THOMAS: A lot of things happening around us. We've got Page 226 May 16, 2006 Ave Maria. We finally convinced them to give a main corridor out toward Immokalee. We've got Sonoma (phonetic) going through the process right now and another 6,000 rooftops right across north of Ave Maria, close to Immokalee. COMMISSIONER FIALA: What is it called? MR. THOMAS: Sonoma, okay? It's another major development that you all will be hearing about shortly, okay? We've got a potential for all kinds of things to happen around us. What we are afraid of and why we're trying to get things to happen so that Immokalee becomes the hub is, people going up and bringing the automobile manufacturing plant to Hendry County just east of Immokalee, access it off of 833, and we're in the back door of it. It just doesn't make sense. So we want that connectivity. And I agree with you, we want that connectivity. We're concerned with the new big boxes that are going to come up -- with 10,000 roofs in Ave Maria, 6,000 roofs in Saranoma, there's going to be some big boxes coming out there, because you put some movie theaters, Targets, a Sweet Bay and a couple of the big box stores like that, we'll be able to pull people from Wilson Boulevard who would rather come that way than to go the other way. They'll come down from LaBelle that way. We'll be a major point where people are going to hub from. We know that's going to hurt our downtown, but our downtown we want to switch to tourism anyway, anchored by the casino on one end and by the Robert's Ranch on the other end. So that becomes like a walking view of the Caribbean. We're working on this. We're trying to -- we've been trying to do this as fast as we can with all of the hurdles that have been put in our place, but we're working, trying to get to that point. But when we get finished, we need to be in the position where we can encourage the developer to come, knowing what kind of return he's going to get to a dollar in central Florida, not have to go through the hoops of coastal Page 227 May 16, 2006 Florida. Thank you. CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. Thank you, Fred. Commissioner Coyle? COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yeah. It's -- you know, if you look back to see how we got into so much trouble in other places, starting on the coast as Naples began to grow to a much bigger community, weren't there more roads east and west, why didn't we create a road grid, why didn't we provide for more affordable housing? And then we moved to Golden Gate Estates. Why didn't we -- why didn't somebody provide for commercial places for these people to work and shop? It's real easy and it's tempting to say, well, you know, Immokalee's way out there. You know, just -- you know, let them do whatever they want to do. That's not our responsibility. I mean, you know, Immokalee is going to become a very large dynamic community. It is going to be the southern anchor for the Heartland Highway that goes all the way up through the center of the state to Orlando. It's going to be part of a huge development that will generate billions of dollars over probably the next 10 to 20 years. And I think we would all be foolish just to say, well, you know, Immokalee's a small unincorporated town. Just -- you know, it's not much of our business. Let them do what they want to do. I think that's the wrong approach. I think Fred Thomas has the right idea. Why would we want to make these changes before they get their master plan put together? It could be that some of the changes that we could make here could be revised to support their master plan. But the last thing I'd like -- like to have happen is somebody look back 10 -- you know, 10 years from now, they look back and say, well, why didn't that commission use their heads and do things a little bit differently and a little better for Immokalee rather than just letting it go whatever way it wants to go? Page 228 May 16, 2006 So I would like to get this thing into what I think is the proper sequence. Let them finish the master plan. Get the master plan, review that, and then develop our Growth Management Plan and Land Development Code in a way that's supportive of the best of what the master plan presents. I am particularly impressed with the very thorough job that the Planning Commission has done with this EAR, and I am reluctant just to toss it out and say, no, let's completely disregard that and just throw the doors open. I -- but at the same time I'm reluctant to approve something that hasn't taken into consideration the Immokalee Master Plan. And if Mr. Thomas feels that the master plan is going to be available and completed and presented for review sometime soon, then I would be happy to wait for these things to happen and then develop something that's supportive of the master plan. MR. THOMAS: All the recommendations that the -- that -- the recommendation that the Planning Commission made was to take out those others but put in density by right. That's the understanding I had. And if that goes through like that, that's fine with us, you understand? We can work around that for what we're trying to do. But we agree with you, we know the Heartland's coming through. We're trying to get 82 widened around. And thanks to Commissioner Halas, some other things are going to be happening out at the airport and 29's going to get widened. We're going to get some of the things together in spite of coastal Collier County, I hate to say. But we're going to be working hard to do those kind of things. And we would have had the master plan finished by now, but we went through a whole bunch of other changes that we had to go through, and we ignored dealing with ERA (sic) because we said, we don't want to concentrate on that. We want to work on getting some Page 229 May 16, 2006 lines on the map. And this was making sure we had consensus in our community. And I believe we have consensus in our community. At the last meeting -- and I'm sorry Michelle is not here, Ms. Mosca's not here, but at the last workshop that we had, the consultant broke us up into nine different groups, assets, liabilities, et cetera. You were there, Commissioner Coletta? COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I was very impressed. MR. THOMAS: And four different groups came up with the same things for Immokalee, the same things I just said to you all, easy access, easy connectivity, a big box located in a particular location, development out at the airport, tourism destinations from the casino around to Immokalee Drive. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Well, I don't want to belabor this too much. But, you know, please remember that as our community has grown, we have become aware of a lot of decisions that were not properly made, particularly things like access roads where high traffic volumes are generated, multiple entries to a big box like K-Mart or something -- a W al- Mart or something like that. There are things in this document as it's presented today that will tend to discourage those kinds of improvements, and I am not sure that that's the right thing to do. MR. THOMAS: I have not read the full document, so I can't speak to it. COMMISSIONER COYLE: It's just -- you know, I'm still horrified that Naples Boulevard didn't turn out to be what it was supposed to be. It was supposed to be the access road to a lot of businesses that are now accessing directly onto Airport Road and Pine Ridge Road. You know, we've made a lot of mistakes back in those days, and we're removing some incentives to do that in the Immokalee area here. Now, I'm not going to -- I'm not going to try to impose my will on what the people of Immokalee want. So if that's what you want, Page 230 May 16, 2006 that's okay with me. I'm not going to fight it, but I just want to bring it to your attention that there's some potential problems here that could come back to haunt us in five to 10 years. CHAIRMAN HALAS: Fred, I've got a question for you. You said that there's going to be an assembly plant placed out there in, what is it, Hendry County? MR. THOMAS: Say again. CHAIRMAN HALAS: Did you say there was going to be-- MR. THOMAS: I said, if they want to put an automobile assembly plant in Hendry County, they would get it close to Immokalee, but it would backdoor Immokalee. CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. Do they have a railhead there? MR. THOMAS: Yeah, the railhead comes down from north. In fact, part of the railhead is going to be used for the Heartland Express that he's talking about right now. CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. MR. THOMAS: We've got the potential out in Immokalee to do a lot of great things if we can just get the development services to a point where it benefits a developer to invest in that. And the process is -- I've lived in a number of communities, and I served on your Planning Commission for 11 years. It's unheard of to approach a community with an idea to invest money to do something, like the Sky Truck, for example, to have to wait 36 months before you can get a building permit. Usually it's 18 months to two years in most communities that you can go breeze through, and somebody's saying, what can we do to help you, do you need some CRA help? Do you need this kind of help and that kind of help? We don't get that same response here. That's why -- hopefully we don't lose Sky Truck, but that's one of the things, the delay, the time delays and all that, that's going to cause us a problem with Sky Truck probably. CHAIRMAN HALAS: I'm interested in the railhead, because when I approached the EDC about it a couple of years ago, they went Page 231 May 16, 2006 out and looked, and they said that all of that land was to be given back to the property owners, that that right-of-way wasn't there available anymore. MR. THOMAS: As I understand, the right-of-way's still there. In fact, on one of the railheads coming from Gopher Ridge Road, they're thinking about bringing an access road from the bypass, and the Heartland's coming down the railroad right-of-way. CHAIRMAN HALAS: Thank you very much. Commissioner Fiala? COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yeah. Is there a way -- boy, that-- and that's sad to hear that they've taken so long with the Sky Truck. And is there a way that you can ever tie the one into the other and -- you know, because you're offering affordable housing for the people to live right there, somehow you could get -- you know, I realize it's already supposed to be fast tracked, but it hasn't been too fast tracked. Is there -- if there is a way to like move it up, get it by right or something, because they provide affordable housing or something? COMMISSIONER COYLE: Well, these are problems with federal and state permitting. It's not local permitting problems. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Oh, it isn't? Oh, okay. CHAIRMAN HALAS: Federal. MR. THOMAS: Excuse me. They should have started the PUD -- the airport should have started the PUD process at the same time it was going through the state process. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Oh, okay. How many-- MR. THOMAS: They combine both of those together. MR. SCHMITT: Let me clarify though. But the PUD was up to the Airport Authority to submit, which they've yet to submit to date. So there's federal permitting, and they still have not come in with an application for the PUD. We started this four years ago. You would have to ask the Airport Authority. I can't work with something I don't have. And, of Page 232 May 16, 2006 course, they're out there held up with panther mitigation issues. As Commissioner Coyle stated, these are not local issues they're dealing with. They're dealing with panther mitigation, scrub jay mitigation, all the other issues out there, through the federal permitting process. And Fred's right, they have not even -- they have not even packaged the PUD yet and submitted it for review. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I'd like very much to be able to have the Airport Authority come before us and explain why it's taking so long, because there's absolutely no reason for this. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Is that a motion? COMMISSIONER COLETTA: That's a motion. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Second. CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. Motion on the floor. And I've got a motion and a second. All those in favor in regards to having the airport commission come before us to figure out why they haven't come up with a PUD. Any further discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN HALAS: If not, I'll call the question. All those in favor, signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye. CHAIRMAN HALAS: Aye. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye. CHAIRMAN HALAS: Opposed, by like sign? COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye. MR. THOMAS: May I impose on you just two more minutes? CHAIRMAN HALAS: Well, we -- okay. MR. THOMAS: Two, just two. In the early '90s we changed the environment around Immokalee. We changed the environment because of the freezes on the ridge, and the urbanization, sprawling Page 233 May 16, 2006 urbanization of Orlando, Ocala, citrus came to our area. I mean, many, many -- I mean, seven square miles in one plant, five square miles in another plant. When you put all that citrus in, the pigs went to the citrus fields to get free food, the young deer went to the citrus field to get free food. You know what else went to the fields? COMMISSIONER COYLE: Panthers. MR. THOMAS: The panthers followed the pigs and the deer. So they're not running across the airport anymore because they've got all that food. They don't have to scrub through the palmetto. They've got all that food out there in the orange groves. They go around, mostly around the east edge of town. CHAIRMAN HALAS: Fred, don't -- you don't have to convince me. You've got to convince the U.S. Fish and Wildlife. MR. THOMAS: I've talked to -- when they came to the last Lake Trafford meeting, I tried to tell them they need to update their maps and whatnot to let people know where things actually are happening. CHAIRMAN HALAS: Thank you, sir. Okay. Do I have a motion on this? COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yeah. CHAIRMAN HALAS: The public hearing is closed. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I'll make a motion to move it forward for the Department of Community Affairs. CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. And do I hear a second? COMMISSIONER FIALA: Second. CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. Motion's on the floor to move this forward and -- as approved by Planning Commission, right? Okay. And the motion was-- COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I'm sorry? CHAIRMAN HALAS: Oh, motion was made by Commissioner Coletta and seconded by Commissioner Fiala. All those in favor, signify by saying aye. Page 234 May 16, 2006 COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye. CHAIRMAN HALAS: Aye. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye. CHAIRMAN HALAS: Opposed, by like sign? (N 0 response.) MR. THOMAS: Thank you very much, gentlemen. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Good night. CHAIRMAN HALAS: Now we can go back to Golden Gate. MR. WEEKS: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. MR. WEEKS: The Golden Gate Master -- oh, excuse me. Yeah, the Golden Gate Master Plan, the issues are the same ones, starting with page 6. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I'm sorry, what page? MR. WEEKS: Page 6 of the Golden Gate Master Plan. Those same density rating system changes to eliminate the density band bonus. It's referred -- it's called proximity to activity center in the middle of page 6. Then over on page 7, the first two items at the top of the page, the residential infill bonus to be deleted and also the roadway access bonus to be deleted. And based upon what you did with the Future Land Use Element back on page 6, you may wish to change the conversion of commercial zoning to limit its applicability to affordable housing at the maximum of 12 units per acre. Also, not within your Golden Gate Master Plan, because it was not recommended by the Planning Commission, is the same density bonus by right provision and also the ability for guesthouses to be rented out. CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. Page 235 May 16, 2006 MR. WEEKS: The Planning Commission endorsed eliminating the three density bonuses, they did not endorse the density by right, and they did not endorse the rental of guesthouses, and, of course, they did not address at all the issue of the conversion of commercial zonIng. CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. Commissioner Henning? Commissioner Henning? COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. CHAIRMAN HALAS: Thank you. COMMISSIONER HENNING: The -- sorry. I'm just falling asleep, this is going so slow. The recommendation is to have a conversion, and the Planning Commission voted not to have that conversion? MR. WEEKS: There was no proposed change to the conversion of commercial as far as the affordable housing goes. That was simply not something identified in the EAR. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. MR. WEEKS: What I'm saying -- so they did not address that issue at all. That's just come up today by this commission. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. Well, I think that we need commercial-in that area. Actually we need it even further out east. But what about the affordable housing next to activity centers? Because that would -- anyways, any density bonuses -- let me just cut to the chase of it. Any density bonuses, would that -- would that be in the Estates activity centers? MR. MUDD: No, sir. The Estates area is completely different. It is not subj ect to any density bonuses. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. Well, I say just leave it as is, as it was. COMMISSIONER COYLE: I'll second it. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: That includes the guesthouses, right? Page 236 May 16, 2006 COMMISSIONER FIALA: You mean not approving them, leaving it as it is? COMMISSIONER HENNING: Yeah, leaving the guesthouse as not rentals. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yeah. COMMISSIONER HENNING: And that's leaving the plan as it was previous to any amendments. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I'll second it. COMMISSIONER COYLE: That's leaving it -- COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Status quo. COMMISSIONER COYLE: -- leaving it in accordance with the Planning Commission's recommendations, right? David? That's -- I think that's what Commissioner Henning is saying? MR. WEEKS: If that's his motion, then that would mean not to approve density by right -- COMMISSIONER COYLE: Right. MR. WEEKS: -- not to approve guesthouse rental, but approve the deletion of the density band bonus, residential infill bonus, and roadway access bonus, just as you've done with the Immokalee Master Plan and the FLUE. That would be the Planning Commission's recommendation. What you've not addressed, your choice, of course, is whether or not you want to make that same conversion of commercial zoning change as you did to the Future Land Use Element. COMMISSIONER COYLE: I think Commissioner Henning's observation that we need commercial out there is very appropriate. COMMISSIONER HENNING: The density band around the activity centers, that's -- that's a right now, correct? MR. WEEKS: Correct. COMMISSIONER HENNING: I'd just as soon leave it like it is. You still have to come before the Board of Commissioners, and it's not -- Page 237 May 16,2006 COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I agree, Commissioner Henning. COMMISSIONER HENNING: And it's not an entitlement. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: If that's part of your motion, that's part of my second. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Right. You got it. MR. WEEKS: For clarification, how about the other two density bonuses, residential infill and road access? Is the motion to delete those or to leave those intact as well? COMMISSIONER HENNING: I don't understand the road access one. I'm sorry. MR. WEEKS: That's where a project has access to two or more collector or arterial roadways, they're eligible for a bonus of one unit per acre. It's promoting the ability to disperse traffic. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Right. MR. WEEKS: That's one-unit-per-acre bonus. COMMISSIONER HENNING: And you could remove that because there's no scenarios out there that you can do that. There's no two collectors or collector arterial road that you can -- oh, wait a minute. On the corners there is. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Right, exactly. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, no, let's leave it in. I'm sorry . COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Same with my second. MR. WEEKS: And residential infill bonus, leave that? COMMISSIONER HENNING: (Nods head.) COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Because we can always negotiate that at the time of PUD. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Or zoning change. CHAIRMAN HALAS: Commissioner Coletta? COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I just -- we just covered it. CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. So we've got a motion on the floor. Do you want to read back that motion so we make sure that Page 238 May 16, 2006 we've got everything put in there that Commissioner Henning is interested in? MR. WEEKS: If I may, Commissioner, I'll go ahead and -- well, no. Exactly the motion. COMMISSIONER HENNING: You can speak for me. MR. WEEKS: That the density by right bonus provision not be approved, that the guesthouse rental not be approved, that the density band residential infill and road access density bonuses be retained, that is, not be deleted. That was the motion. CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. Does that cover everything, Commissioner Henning? COMMISSIONER HENNING: (Nods head.) CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. Any further discussion on this? (No response.) CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. Motion was made by Commissioner Henning and seconded by Commissioner Coletta. All those in favor, signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye. CHAIRMAN HALAS: Aye. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye. CHAIRMAN HALAS: Opposed, by like sign? (N 0 response.) CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. Motion carries. MR. WEEKS: Mr. Chairman, if we could get a vote on the balance of the Golden Gate Master Plan for formatting changes, et cetera. CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. Do I have a motion-- COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Motion made. CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. We have a motion and a second. All those in favor, signify by saying aye. Page 239 May 16, 2006 COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye. CHAIRMAN HALAS: Aye. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye. CHAIRMAN HALAS: Those opposed, by like sign. (No response.) THE COURT REPORTER: Who was the second on that motion? CHAIRMAN HALAS: Coletta seconded, I believe. And the motion -- COMMISSIONER COLETTA: No, I made the motion. CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay, then it was Henning, I believe, that seconded. Okay. MR. WEEKS: Mr. Chairman, that takes us to the Marco Island Master Plan, and this is simply a recommendation that it be deleted in its entirety. All properties that are within the master plan area have now been incorporated into the City of Marco Island subject to their own comprehensive plan and land development regulations. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Motion to approve. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Second. CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. We have a motion on the floor by Commissioner Coyle and seconded by Commissioner Fiala. Any further discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN HALAS: Hearing none, those in favor, signify by saYIng aye. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye. CHAIRMAN HALAS: Aye. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye. Page 240 May 16, 2006 CHAIRMAN HALAS: And opposed, by like sign? (No response.) CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. It passed. MR. WEEKS: Finally, the economic element, there are no significant changes made here. There's one point noted in the executive summary that a -- I think it was a public speaker, had suggested that the impact fees for affordable/workforce housing near the hospital, the new hospital over off of Collier Boulevard, be relaxed, that impact fees not be charged for affordable housing projects in that area. And staffs response is, we believe that we have an existing impact fee deferral program that adequately addresses that particular Issue. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Motion to approve. COMMISSIONER FIALA: That's for that new Sierra Meadows that they're building right now, that affordable housing complex? MR. WEEKS: It was a general comment, so any affordable housing in that area. Planning Commission did not endorse that suggestion. CHAIRMAN HALAS: I have a motion on the floor. Do I have a second? COMMISSIONER FIALA: Second. CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. A motion by Commissioner Coyle and second by Commissioner Fiala. Any further discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN HALAS: Hearing none, I'll call the question. Those in favor, signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye. CHAIRMAN HALAS: Aye. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye. Page 241 May 16, 2006 COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye. CHAIRMAN HALAS: Those opposed, by like sign. (No response.) CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. Motion carries, unanimously. MR. WEEKS: Mr. Chairman -- go ahead. MS. STUDENT -STIRLING: I just have a minor point. At the hearing that started on the 18th, of which this is a continuance, the commission, rather than taking more formal motions as they did today, took sort of a straw vote by nods. So to just kind of wrap that up, would you just make a motion to transmit those other amendments per your-- COMMISSIONER COLETTA: So moved. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Second. MS. STUDENT-STIRLING: Thank you -- straw votes at the prior hearing. CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. To clear up any of the paperwork from the prior hearing, we have a motion on the floor by Commissioner Coletta and a second by Commissioner Fiala. Any other discussion on this matter? (No response.) CHAIRMAN HALAS: Hearing none, I'll call the question. Those in favor, signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye. CHAIRMAN HALAS: Aye. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye. CHAIRMAN HALAS: Opposed, by like sign? (No response.) CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. Anything else we've got to cover? MR. WEEKS: Thank you, Commissioners. If you do not wish Page 242 May 16, 2006 to retain your binders, we will be glad to reuse those. If you'll just leave them there at the dais. CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. I think we're covered -- all the business is covered. We're adjourned. ******* There being no further business for the good of the County, the meeting was adjourned by order of the Chair at 6:19 p.m. BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS/EX OFFICIO GOVERNING BOARD(S) OF SPECIAL DISTRICTS UNDER ITS CONTROL ~~~---- FRANK HALAS, Chairman ATTEST: DWIGHT E. BROCK, CLERK B~lH~CM~ k Atttst at to Ch11n1a1 , '1'jl1lt"" Qift 1- These minutes approv~ by the Board on ~ 1c!20/01o , as presented ~ or as corrected TRANSCRIPT PREPARED ON BEHALF OF GREGORY COURT REPORTING SERVICES, INC., BY TERRI LEWIS. Page 243