Loading...
CCPC Minutes 06/01/2006 R June 1, 2006 TRANSCRIPT OF THE MEETING OF THE COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION Naples, Florida June 1, 2006 LET IT BE REMEMBERED, that the Collier County Planning Commission in and for the County of Collier, having conducted business herein, met on this date at 8:30 a.m. in REGULAR SESSION in Building "F" of the Government Complex, East Naples, Florida, with the following members present: CHAIRMAN: Mark Strain Lindy Adelstein Donna Reed Caron Tor Kolflat Paul Midney (Absent) Robert Murray Brad Schiffer Russell Tuff Robert Vigliotti ALSO PRESENT: Ray Bellows, Zoning & Land Dev. Review Joseph Schmitt, Community Dev. & Env. Services Marjorie Student-Stirling, Assistant County Attorney Don Scott, Transportation Planning Page 1 AGENDA COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION WILL MEET AT 8:30 A.M., THURSDAY, JUNE I, 2006, IN THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS MEETING ROOM, ADMINISTRATION BUILDING, COUNTY GOVERNMENT CENTER, 3301 T AMIAMI TRAIL EAST, NAPLES, FLORIDA: NOTE: INDIVIDUAL SPEAKERS WILL BE LIMITED TO 5 MINUTES ON ANY ITEM. INDIVIDUALS SELECTED TO SPEAK ON BEHALF OF AN ORGANIZATION OR GROUP ARE ENCOURAGED AND MAY BE ALLOTTED 10 MINUTES TO SPEAK ON AN ITEM IF SO RECOGNIZED BY THE CHAIRMAN. PERSONS WISHING TO HAVE WRITTEN OR GRAPHIC MATERIALS INCLUDED IN THE CCPC AGENDA PACKETS MUST SUBMIT SAID MATERIAL A MINIMUM OF 10 DAYS PRIOR TO THE RESPECTIVE PUBLIC HEARING. IN ANY CASE, WRITTEN MATERIALS INTENDED TO BE CONSIDERED BY THE CCPC SHALL BE SUBMITTED TO THE APPROPRIATE COUNTY STAFF A MINIMUM OF SEVEN DAYS PRIOR TO THE PUBLIC HEARING. ALL MATERIAL USED IN PRESENTATIONS BEFORE THE CCPC WILL BECOME A PERMANENT PART OF THE RECORD AND WILL BE AVAILABLE FOR PRESENTATION TO THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS IF APPLICABLE. ANY PERSON WHO DECIDES TO APPEAL A DECISION OF THE CCPC WILL NEED A RECORD OF THE PROCEEDINGS PERTAINING THERETO, AND THEREFORE MAY NEED TO ENSURE THAT A VERBATIM RECORD OF THE PROCEEDINGS IS MADE, WHICH RECORD INCLUDES THE TESTIMONY AND EVIDENCE UPON WHICH THE APPEAL IS TO BE BASED. 1. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE 2. ROLL CALL BY CLERK 3. ADDENDA TO THE AGENDA 4. PLANNING COMMISSION ABSENCES 5. APPROVAL OF MINUTES - APRIL 20, 2006, REGULAR MEETING 6. BCC REPORT- RECAPS - MAY 9, 2006, REGULAR MEETING 7. CHAIRMAN'S REPORT 8. ADVERTISED PUBLIC HEARINGS A. Petition: CU-2005-AR-7181, Basil Street Partners, LLC, represented by George Varnadoe, Esquire of Cheffy, Passidomo, Wilson & Johnson, are requesting a conditional use allowed per LDC Section 2.04.03 of the "A" Agricultural zoning district to provide a passive recreational facility, consisting of an elevated screened and covered pavilion, screened deck, and restrooms with showers, which will serve as an amenity and provide beach access for owners and residents of the Naples Bay Resort projects. The Passive Recreational Facility will be constructed on two lots on Keewaydin Island. The subject properties, consisting of4.32 acres, are located at 10111 and 10121 Keewaydin Island, in Section 14, Township 51 South, Range 25 East. (Coordinator: Carolina Valera) CONTINUED TO 7/20/06 B. Petition: CU-2005-AR-8748, Ashraf Fawzy, represented by Alan V. Roseman, of Q. Grady Minor & Associates, P.A., requesting a conditional approval in the Rural Agricultural (A) zoning district to allow aquaculture per Section 2.04.03 "Table 2" of the Land Development Code (LDC). The subject property, consisting of 15 acres, is located at 2060 Tobias Street, in Section 22, Township 49 South, Range 27 East, Collier County, Florida. (Coordinator: Carolina Valera) CONTINUED INDEFINITELY 1 C. Petition: CU-2006-AR-9699, Mining Venture, LLC, represented by R. Bruce Anderson, Esq. ofRoetzel & Andress, requesting a Conditional Use For (A) Rural Agriculture district for Earth mining: excavation of fill material to a maximum depth of 60 feet, or to the confining soil layer, whichever is less, and blasting of material in compliance with all blasting requirements. The subject property, consisting of 2,564+ acres, is located East of Immokalee Road, approximately 2 miles north of Oil Well Road, 1.5 miles north of County Fair grounds, in Section 35 & 36, Township 47 South, Range 27 East, Collier County Florida. (Coordinator: Melissa Zone) D. Petition: PUDZ-2005-AR-8337, Sembler Florida, Inc., represented by Dwight Nadeau of RW A, Inc., is requesting a rezone from the Estates (E) zoning district to the Commercial Planned Unit Development (CPUD) zoning district for a proposed commercial shopping center to be known as Brooks Village CPUD. The subject property, consisting of 22.7 acres, is located on the southwest quadrant of the intersection of Collier Boulevard and Pine Ridge Road, in Section 15, Township 49 South, Range 26 East, Collier County, Florida. (Coordinator: Melissa Zone) READVERTISED FOR 6/15/06 E. Petition: PUDZ-A-2005-AR-8438, Lakeview Drive of Naples, LLC, represented by Clay Brooker, of Cheffy, Passidomo, Wilson & Johnson, LLP, requesting a rezone from the Residential Multiple Family-6 (RMF-6 & RMF-6(3)) zoning districts (a portion of which is subject to a Special Treatment Overlay (ST)) to the Residential Planned Unit Development (RPUD) by amending the approved Windstar PUD to add the subject 20.52 acres and its additional residential units thereby allowing a maximum of 62 1 residential units on 341. 1 acres. The subject property is located in Sections, 11, ] 4 and 23 Township 50 South, Range 25 East, Collier County, Florida. (Coordinator: Kay Deselem) CONTINUED TO 7/6/06 9. OLD BUSINESS 10. NEW BUSINESS 1 I. PUBLIC COMMENT ITEM 12. DISCUSSION OF ADDENDA 13. ADJOURN DA TE/CCPC Agenda/RB/sp 2 June 1, 2006 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, it's 8:30. Thank you. If everybody would please rise for the pledge of allegiance. (Pledge of Allegiance was recited in unison.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Welcome to the Collier County Planning Commission meeting, June 1 st, 2006. Item #2 ROLL CALL We'll start with the roll call by our secretary. COMMISSIONER CARON: Mr. Kolflat? COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: Here. COMMISSIONER CARON: Mr. Schiffer? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Here. COMMISSIONER CARON: Mr. Midney is absent. Ms. Caron is present. Mr. Strain? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Here. COMMISSIONER CARON: Mr. Adelstein? COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Here. COMMISSIONER CARON: Mr. Murray? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Here. COMMISSIONER CARON: Mr. Vigliotti? COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Here. COMMISSIONER CARON: And Mr. Tuff? COMMISSIONER TUFF: Here. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. Item #3 Page 2 June 1, 2006 ADDENDA TO THE AGENDA Addenda to the agenda. There's been quite a few changes to our agenda this morning. And I want to make sure that those of you who are here to speak are here for the only case we're hearing today. It is just one. And it is the one concerning the earth mining pit in Golden Gate Estates. Actually, it's in some sections of land surrounded by Golden Gate Estates north of Orangetree. It's called Mining Ventures, LLC. That is the only hearing that's going to go on this morning. The other four have been continued to various different dates. The ones that were continued is the Basil Street Partners, that's the Keewaydin issue. The Ashraf Fawzy, I don't know -- that's a rezone of an agricultural area, that's been continued. Sembler of Florida, which is a commercial planned unit development in the Estates, the Brooks Village, that's been continued. And Lakeview Drive of Naples, LLC, which is involving the Windstar PUD has been continued. So if you're here for any of those today, we will not be hearing them. We'll only be working on the Mining Venture, LLC. And with that, I'd also like to request that we add to the agenda under old business, I had talked to transportation about some issues that have occurred since we have recommended approvals on various projects involving the transportation system. Some of it's been reported in the Naples Daily News, other are things that we've experienced. I'd like to get an update from transportation. And I was talking to Nick yesterday, and he is planning to be here for a few minutes after the meeting -- or after the first hearing, so we can get an update on some of those issues. Other than that, are there any other addenda to the agenda? (No response.) Page 3 June 1, 2006 Item #4 PLANNING COMMISSION ABSENCES CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, planning commission absences? The next meeting is June 15th. Is everybody planning to be here? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Looks like it. Item #5 APPROVAL OF MINUTES - APRIL 20, 2006, REGULAR MEETING Approval of the minutes from April 20th, 2006 regular meeting. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: So moved. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Motion. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion made by Commissioner Murray, seconded by Commissioner Adelstein. Any discussion? (N 0 response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Hearing none, all those in favor, signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER CARON: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Aye. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Aye. COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: Aye. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Aye. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Aye. COMMISSIONER TUFF: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Any opposed? Page 4 June 1, 2006 (N 0 response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion carries. Item #6 BCC REPORT - RECAPS - May 9. 2006. REGULAR MEETING The BCC report and recaps from May 9th, 2006. Ray? MR. BELLOWS: Yeah, the board approved on the summary agenda two items: The amendment for the Lely Barefoot Beach Tract J and the Tivoli office rezone. Those were both approved on the summary . CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And those were recommended for approval by this board as well, right? MR. BELLOWS: I believe so, yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Good. Item #7 CHAIRMAN'S REPORT Chairman's report. I'm mostly going to discuss the transportation elements during our addition to the agenda later on today, so we'll just go right into advertised public hearings. Item #8C PETITION: CU-2006-AR-9699. MINING VENTURE. LLC The first and only of which is Item C, Petition CU-2006-AR-9699, Mining Venture, LLC, represented by Bruce Anderson. It's an excavation site approximately two miles north of Page 5 June 1, 2006 Oil Well Road, off Immokalee Road. All those wishing to speak in this particular item, please rise to be sworn in by the court reporter; raise your right hand. (Speakers were duly sworn.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. Any disclosures on the part of planning commission members? COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: Yes. I visited the site. And I apologize to the petitioner that I failed to register and sign in when I did. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anything else? I spoke with Mr. Anderson as the representative of the applicant, told him my concerns -- some of my concerns that I knew at the time. Hopefully we will -- we will definitely be rediscussing those today and hopefully he'll be coming with some answers. As far as other disclosures go, I don't believe the application that was provided to us contained all the individual information, so until the applicant tells us who the members are of some of the incorporations and trusts involved, I don't know if there's any conflicts there. So pending that, I don't -- that's the only disclosure I have. Hearing none others? COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: That was going to be my question also. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I was told that -- I had talked to Bruce on the phone -- or talked to Margie, and she indicated that Bruce was going to bring some additional information today. MS. STUDENT-STIRLING: And if I might, the applicant, I spoke with him and he has that information and he'll be glad to put it on the record. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. And with that, the applicant is ready for their presen -- oh, right in the front of my book. I had one e-mail that I received. And I Page 6 June 1, 2006 honestly don't know the individual's name -- oh, I'm sorry, it's in the e-mail itself, Shannon Kelly, concerning the blasting and the affect on some of the domestic animals and farm animals that she has on her site, so -- okay, Bruce. MR. ANDERSON: Good morning, Mr. Chairman. For the record, my name is Bruce Anderson, from the law firm of Roetzel and Andress on behalf of the applicant. As a preliminary measure, I'd like to call the property owner's representative up here to answer what specific questions that you did have on the lack of disclosure information. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's fine, sir. MR. BARBER: Good morning, Mr. Chairman and board members. My name is Don Barber. I am the managing member of the State Road 846 land trust. Some questions about ownership. Mining Venture LLC is a partnership between Jones Mining, Incorporated, who happens also to be the operator of the mine on the site, and State Road 846, which of course is the landowner. That is a 50/50 partnership. And they are making the application today. There have been no -- other than some name changes, there have been no changes in ownership. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Before you go too far, the document that we have only indicates SR 846 Land Trust as the applicant. Are there two applicants that -- MR. BARBER: Well, you read the Mining Venture, LLC. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mining Venture, LLC, right. But the breakdown of the disclosure of interest information, I should say is the one, it only lists 846 Land Trust, and it breaks that one down. I don't have anything in this record breaking down Mining Venture LLC. MR. BARBER: Bruce, do you want to address that? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. MR. ANDERSON: Well, who are the other -- who's the other Page 7 June 1, 2006 entity with -- is it Jones Mining, Inc. and State Road 846 Land Trust make up Mining Venture, LLC? MR. BARBER: That is correct. That is correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Who are the individuals in Jones Mining, Inc.? See, in order for us to know if we have a conflict with any particular potential ownership of any of these properties, it has to boil down to individuals, and I believe that's what the -- MR. BARBER: Nothing has changed from five years ago in terms of the individuals. There have been absolutely no name changes since that time. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I wish I had been here five years ago. MR. BARBER: Okay, well, in terms of Jones Mining, the owners of Jones Mining are Ben Jones, who is here, Ben? And Stan Gedvillas. G-E-D-V-I-L-L-A-S. And I believe then Robert Jones. So those are the three owners of Jones Mining, Incorporated. State Road 846 Land Trust, there had been some name changes because of some family trust partnership changes from the earlier application in '99. However, the owners are H.H. Street. H.H. Street is a 20 percent owner and has -- is a retired attorney and coal miner from Grundy, Virginia. A 20 percent partner is HHH Investments, which is Frank and Mary Pat Hussey. A 30 percent owner is -- and with some family trust is Mr. Ron Brown, his wife, Michelle, and I think he has a family trust. But he controls 30 percent of the State Road 846 Land Trust and BCB Land Company, of which I am the president. And it's my partners at Boran, Craig, Barber, Engel Construction Company, Inc. And that makes up all of the ownership of State Road 846. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: For the record, your partners in the BCB Land Company, Inc. are yourself and what other individuals? MR. BARBER: Myself, Melvin Engel, Richard Craig, Michael Boran, and we have some minor interest owners. Rick Dykeman. Page 8 June 1, 2006 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. MR. BARBER: And I think that makes up all of the ownership. But essentially in terms of personalities, nothing has changed since '99 when we made the first applications. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you very much. MR. BARBER: Okay. I'm so sorry about the confusion, and I'll see that the appropriate paperwork is forwarded to the commission right away. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you, sir. It's all yours, Bruce. MR. ANDERSON: Thank you, sir. You've just met Mr. Don Barber. Also with us today is Ben Jones of Jones Mining, Mining Operator. Bruce Tyson, the Land Use Planner on the project from Wilson-Miller. Jeff Perry, Transportation Planner with Wilson-Miller. Jared Brown, Engineer with Wilson-Miller. Sarah K. Daniels, with the GeoSonics firm, a Vibration and Seismology Consultant. And that is the team. As a preliminary matter, I want to address the suggested conditions of approval for this. With regard to number seven, which imposes some time limits on operation, I would just note that those hours of operation may be at odds with what's currently in effect by edict from the county manager, and so there needs to be some kind of flexibility built in there to accommodate when the county itself tries to alter the hours of operation for the various mines in the county. It's my understanding that they start earlier than these hours, and it's to help with the traffic. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ms. Caron? COMMISSIONER CARON: Isn't there also a problem with what was stated at the neighborhood information meeting? At the neighborhood information meeting, according to our packet, the hours were going to be limited from 9:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m. COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: I think that was the blasting. Page 9 June 1, 2006 MR. ANDERSON: The blasting. COMMISSIONER CARON: Yeah. MR. ANDERSON: That's not what I'm talking about. I'm talking about the hours of operating the mine. I'm sorry. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: May I? Operation of the mine, that means earth hauling equipment and the rest. There's a lot of noise associated with that; is there not? MR. ANDERSON: Yes, sir. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: And if I -- I thought that the issue about the county manager allowing for an earlier operation was associated with trucks only. MR. ANDERSON: Yes. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Are those two things the same? MR. ANDERSON: Well, we have to have the trucks to operate the mine, yeah. I just want to make sure that that's understood. If there's a distinction between the trucks coming in and leaving and actually operating the mine, it's something we need some clarification from staff. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I would, yes. And I would think that -- my assumption, perhaps in error, was that the trucks would have been loaded the prior night or whatever and then they would simply leave that morning with the minimal amount of noise. So that may be an error, and that's fine. I need to understand that. Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Bruce, customarily we have allowed the applicant to make his presentation and ask questions at the end instead of hitting you during your presentation for continuity purposes. Which would you prefer? MR. ANDERSON: That would be fine with me. I would prefer that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You mean to go through your presentation -- Page 10 June 1, 2006 MR. ANDERSON: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- and ask questions after? MR. ANDERSON: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I agree. So if the commission can hold off, we'll just get through your presentation first. Thank you. MR. ANDERSON: Thank you very much. Going back to the recommended conditions of approval. My client is in agreement with the conditions suggested by staff, except as noted about number seven, that question. And also, they take exception to condition number one, which seeks to establish some kind of new procedure and requirement to require a conditional use to be reviewed and extended in just two short years. That's not in the Land Development Code, but that's where it should be if staff wants to create a completely new type of county commission hearing process. My client was previously subject to a staff level re-review at the end of five years, which required submission of studies. And they complied with that. If there had been a disagreement under the existing re-review procedures, if there had been a disagreement between staff and the mine operator, either side could have then appealed that to the Board of County Commissioners. We would request that you strike condition number one and keep the existing re-review requirement that my client is already subject to. This is an application to amend an existing conditional use for-- that was originally approved in 1999 to allow blasting and excavation to a deeper depth. Extraction or earth mining and related processing and production is permitted as a conditional use on agricultural zoned land. Now, normally blasting is allowed as a part of the mining process when necessary. In this case, back in 1999, no blasting was thought to be necessary, and that is how the blasting limitation wound up in the condition for approval back in 1999. The client said I don't plan to Page 11 June 1, 2006 blast, county staff said all right, we'll make that a prohibition, a condition of approval. Back in 1999, blasting wasn't so important. But today, with the cost of fill for homes and businesses and for road base, for road construction, the ability to blast to reach the limestone has become critical. In the words of the Naples Daily News, on December 16th, 2005, quote, the dwindling availability of places to mine the resource in Collier County is driving up the price of roads and homes because the construction material must be trucked in from other areas, said Norman Feder, Collier County Transportation Administrator. The higher prices eventually are passed on to home buyers, taxpayers and those in the commercial industry. Feeder and Stan Chrzanowski, an Engineer for Collier County Government, explained the problem to Lee County officials at the meeting in hope of finding a joint county solution. Collier County has nearly exhausted all of the areas where it can easily mine aggregate. About the only areas left with an abundance of the resource in Collier are in environmentally sensitive lands, Chrzanowski said. Quote, we're at a point where we're running out of areas to mine rock in Collier County, he said, unquote. The lands in this application are one of the few sites in the rural fringe where mining is allowed by the growth management plan, and where there is in fact rock to be mined. Based on the county's needs alone, approval of this conditional use amendment will be of substantial benefit to the public health, safety and welfare. I want to apologize on behalf of my client for a failure. The mine operator has failed to complete a landscaped berm, as called for in the very fine print of the conditional use master plan engineering drawings. It was not listed in the conditions of approval for the resolution, and that's why it was missed. That's not an excuse, but it is an explanation. My client is aware of its obligation and will honor it. Page 12 June 1, 2006 This conditional use application before you today is Phase 1, and it applies only to the area that was previously approved for excavation. A separate Phase 2 conditional use application will come before you, hopefully before the end of this year, to expand the area allowed to be excavated. At this time, I'd like to ask Bruce Tyson to come forward and talk about some of the specifics of the site. MR. TYSON: Good morning, Commissioners. I'm Bruce Tyson, I'm a Certified Planner with Wilson-Miller. We have a map that encompasses a grand total of 16 square miles, simply because we want to make sure that when -- as we describe what's happening here everybody has the opportunity to point the finger and show where they may live or exactly how they get involved in the project. Inside the black band that you see there pretty much in the center of the photo is a land area comprised of four sections or 2,576 acres. The area that is currently being mined is relatively dark, shown right in here, and that is the area that is part of the conditional use today. And that is the area that is the subject of the -- what we're talking about from the standpoint of the blasting. What Mr. Anderson just talked about is a very faint line that we're talking about here, for anybody that's looking in the future, that that will be what's part of Phase 2. But we won't -- I don't even want to discuss that today. The current access is right at this point, off of Immokalee Road. For those of you who have been out there, there's a signal, a flashing yellow signal that was placed there by the applicant as part of the condition of this project some years ago. That has been in place. And as Mr. Anderson indicated, studies have been done to indicate a compliance in general requirements that the county has as it relates to transportation in that area. The total property right now is currently being used for the Page 13 June 1, 2006 mining operation, a sod farm and pasture. One of the things -- and as Mr. Anderson indicated, the area has been cleared, it has been totally scraped down now and we're down to the area where the rock is what's present. And that generally, by the way, is pretty much to a depth of plus or minus 15 feet from existing grade. One of the things that is really good about the current system in the county is the neighborhood information meeting. And as Mr. Anderson indicated along the way, that we learned at that meeting about -- as a matter of fact, we learned about the berm not being constructed. And I'm happy to report to you that that berm is in place. Although not finished, but from a standpoint of fill today, that 10- foot berm that has been requested is in place. In addition to that, we've been able to see the existing -- or the current -- or what was done as the application. And what was stated in that application as Exhibit C does not show that berm. So we understand that there was some confusion, and that part is being completed. One of the things that happened at that meeting that was somewhat confusing was the fact -- and since this project is moving quickly through the system, is that there's an obligation on the part of the applicant to have signs posted along Immokalee Road, in this case, 15 days in advance of this hearing. The actual neighborhood meeting took place 16 days in advance of the hearing. And there was a little confusion on the part of staff and myself as to exactly when the signs needed to be placed. In fact, at that hearing we weren't exactly certain ourselves. The signs did get placed the following day, so they were in place 15 days in front of this hearing. And I indicated at that meeting that we would in fact contact everyone who had been at that meeting, the neighborhood information meeting, to clarify exactly when these hearings would be. And if you'd like, here is a -- I'll enter this. Page 14 June 1, 2006 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You contacted these people the Friday after my phone call to Mr. Anderson. MR. TYSON: I don't recall. We were going to do it anyway. I mean, it was just a question as to -- it wasn't so much -- I'm not sure that it had anything to do with your contact. Whether it did or not, we made a promise that we were going to get in touch with these people and we did that. And so we followed up and between Friday and, as a matter of fact, as late as Tuesday, since we couldn't get in touch with two people. You see the top name and I think it looks like the fifth name down were not contacted until sometime on Tuesday morning, because we could not get them on Friday. So I did want you to know that in fact all of the people who were at the neighborhood information meeting who were neighbors and who did leave their phone numbers or contact information were in fact notified. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: As soon as the planning members review that, then we can take a motion and entertain a motion to bring it into evidence. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: I'll make that motion now. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: We've got this side of the panel to review it first. COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: Don't forget the right side. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I haven't forgotten you. Lindy did this time. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: I'm making the motion. They still have an opportunity to review it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Lindy, did you make a motion then to recommend approval -- COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- or acceptance of this as evidence? Seconded by? Page 15 June 1, 2006 COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: I'll second it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Vigliotti. All those in favor, signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER CARON: Aye. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Aye. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Aye. COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: Aye. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Aye. COMMISSIONER TUFF: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. Nobody opposed. I thought you were pointing this way. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Yeah, I was pointing at them, thinking maybe they wanted to second that. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Yeah, Bob was giving us the big one to second. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I have a copy here for the court reporter when she needs it later. Okay, Mr. Tyson, you want to go forward? MR. TYSON: Sure. Thank you. And we did of course receive some comments that I will somewhat attempt to go through here and answer. As you can appreciate, when you have a project that's adjacent to you, that there's a lot of intangibles that you deal with when you talk about noise, odor, dust, a number of situations that exist with a project such as this. And I want to try to capsulize for you what we found out at the neighborhood information meeting. I will ask these either -- I will point them out either as questions or comments. And a lot of these questions dealing with the blasting, we will have our expert on blasting comment about. But let me just go through and tell you what some of these questions were. Page 16 June 1, 2006 It said, how loud will the blasting be? What will happen to our water wells? When will the blasting occur? Comments here: I have two alpacas that are very sensitive to disturbances; I want to have the operators transport my animals away from and back to home during the blasting operations. My house has cracks caused by blasting. What will be done to protect my home from cracks? So those are some of the questions that we got specifically related to the blasting, and we will answer. Some of the other less -- or more difficult questions possibly to answer come from -- as follows: I have a smell of diesel fumes from pumps running 24 hours a day. While in fact some of the pumps do run 24 hours a day to de-water portions of the project where the excavation is occurring, I'm surprised to see that there would be diesel fumes or smells. This is totally subjective, I realize, but I want you to look at the size of this parcel. Basically what you see in that mine site is over 1,000 acres, two or three pumps. Think of the disbursal in the area that that has to work its way through the atmosphere to anyone specific point source, and it's difficult for me to believe that the equipment that is used on that property would actually create a situation of where you'd be able to smell something specific. Now, that being said, there's also a lot of trucks that line up in the morning at 5:00 -- between 5:30 and 6:00 that will be idling that do have the potential of having that happen. So there's a potential of I think from the trucks that could occur. I think from the standpoint of the mining and for anyone who has seen that operation and what 1,000 acres is and the expanse of that would be hard-pressed to say that there's a direct -- or something is happening. If in fact it is, it could be easily corrected, because we're only talking about 14 or 15 feet pieces of equipment that operate that entire mine. Next: What can you do to reduce the noise? Page 1 7 June 1, 2006 Well, the county has a noise ordinance. I don't believe there have been any specific comments -- or those specific comments to the county indicating that noise violations had occurred, we don't have any records of those. At the same time, with these new berms in place and with a potential of doing some shielding -- and this again is just all information that we have gathered -- there is the potential to reduce some noise by doing some screening and mounding behind where some of these pumps are and equipment is being operated. There was a question that came up about processing or crushing of rock and how loud will that be. And let me tell you why this came up. Because we did the information meeting not only for the blasting portion of this work but also for the expansion of the mine. So the idea was to do one neighborhood information meeting for both conditional uses. So this was mainly addressed to the rock crushing, because processing we are not contemplating being part of this application. However, the interesting thing about the rock crushing is that probably most people think about the old -- what was very visible was along with where Florida Rock had their mine operation just north of Immokalee Road right near the intersection with 951. And there was this -- you know, giant arms that were coming away from and out of this rock crusher. That's not planned here. These are pieces of equipment, very high-tech, current, new that come in on lowboys. They're relatively small. What a lowboy is is an over-the-highway vehicle that will transport heavy equipment. And while they're wide loads, they're typically not much more than 10 feet wide at any point. Some assembly will take place on the property. But that is portable, so it moves along with the operation. And it's not meant to the point of where it gets to be a problem. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And if I'm not mistaken, just because I'm getting a little confused and I don't want to go too far astray, this Page 18 June 1, 2006 conditional use is not addressing rock crushing here today; is that correct? MR. TYSON: That is correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ms. Student, by having such comments on record and notations that there's a Phase 2 and that it's going to be applied for and that they're going to be utilizing rock crushing and things like that, is there any concern that should they come in with this Phase 2 application for a conditional use, that they would be claiming a hardship situation by us having knowledge of it during this meeting and approving the mining of the material, although not the crushing of it? MS. STUDENT-STIRLING: I don't know that it would be a hardship. And since they've put it on the record themselves, I think what you're talking about is prejudging a future application by virtue of information they're giving you today. They're the ones that put it on the record, so I think you could make an argument that they've waived any such argument that they may have by putting it on the record now. But the board should only consider evidence that's presented that relates to the activity that's being applied for today. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Mr. Chairman, in that same regard, in the recommendations the statement is no processing or crushing of material on-site is being requested, so -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Murray, your speaker, could you bring it -- COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Oh, I'm sorry. Excuse me. Mr. Chairman, what I was attempting to say was that in the recommendations it speaks to no processing or crushing of material, which is of course what you and I both realized. And I'm just wondering what we have here that's developing on the record. If it's not pertinent, why is it even in there? And I'm confused, I Page 19 June 1, 2006 think we need to have a little bit more clarification, if we could. COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: Mr. Chairman? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Kolflat? COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: Couldn't we request the petitioner to contain his remarks relative to this petition, rather than to expand it into a future petition? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I'm sure we could do that, and I'm sure the petitioner probably would rather limit his discussion to this petition, but as Margie has said, they've opened up the issue of rock crushing as something to be realized here today, and so we may have to not consider it as an application but the impact of it. So most certainly, if that's the intended direction this application is going to go at some point, or future application. Mr. Anderson? MR. ANDERSON: If I might try to clear up some confusion, or perhaps engender it more, I don't know. The processing language is in there today about limitation on that. However, in order to provide the road base, rock crushing is going to have to occur. And that's part of the definition of earth mining. So there may not be any other processing, more elaborate processing going on, but rock crushing itself will be necessary to provide the road base. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I would assume that with this application, you're looking to sort, stockpile and dry material at this point in preparation of something to happen in the future then. MR. GEDVILLAS: What was that? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: In this application for the mining that you're going to be doing, the material's going to be just sorted, stockpiled and dried. You're not going to be crushing it. MR. GEDVILLAS: We would like to go ahead-- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You have to be on the record and-- MR. GEDVILLAS: Mr. Chairman, for the record, my name is Page 20 June 1,2006 Stan Gedvillas. I live at 2579 Beck Avenue, in Naples, Florida. We feel that rock crushing is a pertinent application of processing. In order for us to create road base, it's imperative that we crush. We cannot do it any other way. As will be pointed out later on, we are now digging up rock the size of '57 Buicks, it's that hard. And we cannot process it without crushing it or without hammering it or chipping it or breaking it up in some fashion. So yes, crushing is a necessity. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I think the question was, though, under this application, you are going -- your intentions apparently seem to be to excavate, stockpile, sort and dry material, is that -- MR. GEDVILLAS: That's correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You're not doing any rock crushing under this application? Bruce is nodding his head yes and you're looking like you have a question. I'm just -- the record has to be clear. MR. ANDERSON: You want that ability. You need that ability. MR. GEDVILLAS: We would like to have that ability. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But you're not applied for it under this application. That's what I've been getting at. You've been offering testimony about rock crushing. Rock crushing is prohibited by one of the stipulations provided for in today's conditions. And I don't believe staff reviewed it under the auspices under rock crushing. And maybe your sound expert hadn't reviewed it under that regard either, because it looks like his sound report was more on blasting than rock crushing. So if you're going into a rock crushing mode, that's a whole different -- that may bring in different elements that are not in front of us today. But I think that's up to you guys to determine it. Because after today's meeting, if you don't get rock crushing, you don't do rock crushing. That just doesn't happen. MR. GEDVILLAS: Yes, sir, I understand. Page 21 June 1, 2006 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So I don't know who wants to -- if your team is going to try to pursue this avenue further or -- and Ray, I'm not sure what it means for review purposes either. MR. BELLOWS: For the record, Ray Bellows. The definition of earth mining typically includes related processing of materials, which would include rock crushing. I don't think there is a need to state that that is part of a request. The original conditional use for earth mining had a prohibition on blasting, and that was the purpose of this petition today is to allow for the blasting. It goes without saying that the crushing is an accessory use to the earth mining and would be allowed. Now, if staff is recommending a prohibition or delay of the crushing, I'll leave that up to the principal planner who -- COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: It did. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I think as we get through this testimony, then we'll have to get into it as we go on further today. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Can I just ask a question on that? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Go ahead, Mr. Schiffer. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And Bruce, maybe you could answer it. When you -- you intended to do rock crushing for use off-site or were you describing the use of building roads on your own site? MR. TYSON: This is for off-site material. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Thank you. MR. TYSON: The -- one of the conclusions of all of this, by the way, is the fact that the question about noise came up. And right now in order to break up those pieces of rock that come out the size of automobiles is that they have a jackhammer that winds up going-- you know, you can actually hear it if you're on the site. You know, it goes pop, pop, pop, pop, pop. It's relatively loud. The actual crushing operation would probably be less loud than that. So there's a side of it Page 22 June 1, 2006 that has its advantages to the point of where you would go ahead and actually do that crushing. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: If I may? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Go ahead. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: But would you not also -- these huge pieces can't all go into the crusher, so would you not have to use a jackhammer in any event to break up part of it? MR. TYSON: They're going to come out much smaller with a blasting. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: But you would have to use that -- I saw a head nodding. MR. TYSON: Well, probably yes, on what's going on today. But generally speaking, the size of the rock will come out smaller with the blasting. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Thank you. Okay, I can appreciate that. But what I wanted to be clear on the record is that you're not going to advocate that you're not going to use a jackhammer at all. MR. TYSON: Correct. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ray, you had something to say? MR. BELLOWS: Yes. I discussed the issue with Melissa Zone, the principal planner, and the information you were citing about no processing crushing material on-site. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: It's on Page 7 of eight of the staff report. MR. BELLOWS: Yeah. That is -- if you look on Page 6 of eight, it falls under the neighborhood information meeting, and those are the quotes that came from residents requesting that no processing, crushing -- that's not a staff comment. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Well, you know what? I took it as such. I took it -- Page 23 June 1, 2006 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: It says on-- COMMISSIONER CARON: It was their consultant. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Jeff Straw addressed most of the questions as follows. And in his response at the neighborhood informational meeting to some of the questions, the last bullet he said, apparently from what the minutes -- or the document I have in front of me says, no processing/crushing of material on-site is being requested by this conditional use petition that will be requested by the developer in Phase 2 by another conditional use petition. Now, my concern is if they stated that in the response to a neighborhood informational meeting question, what weight should that be carrying? And in the past it's carried substantial weight with this board. I just wanted to point it out. And since they brought it in, they brought up the subj ect, we're now pursuing it, so -- MR. BELLOWS: That's -- it's a question that may require the county attorney to opine if it requires the neighborhood information meeting to be reheard to clarify that point. MS. STUDENT-STIRLING: Pardon me? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Margie, what Ray was getting at is if the information provided at the neighborhood informational meeting in response to the questions by the residents is not exactly consistent with what's being talked about here today, and crushing is the issue, at the neighborhood informational meeting it was said there would be no crushing, and today we heard testimony they're considering crushing. Ray now asks, should that require a new neighborhood informational meeting? Does that sum it up? MR. BELLOWS: That's correct. MS. STUDENT-STIRLING: Okay. I don't have any minutes of the neighborhood information meeting to know. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, would testimony today provide you with enough verification as to what was said or occurred at that meeting? Page 24 June 1, 2006 MS. STUDENT-STIRLING: Let me just put a couple of things, as I understand this, on the record. That this is a petition -- there was an original conditional use for earth mining that encompassed a certain area with a prohibition on blasting; is that correct? MR. TYSON: Right. MS. STUDENT-STIRLING: Okay. Got that. Okay, as I understand it, what this does is allow them in that same geographic area for which they got the original conditional use for the earth mining now to go ahead and blast; is that correct? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I think it does more to it. Also it allows them to excavate on a much deeper depth than was originally anticipated. MS. STUDENT-STIRLING: Okay, plus excavate to a deeper depth. So I don't know that there's any change from what they've already been allowed to do by virtue of that '99 conditional use where they would be excavating. And as part and parcel, that would be doing rock crushing in that area. So I don't know -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Margie? Before you go too far, Margie, the testimony that was provided back in '99 indicated they were going to go down to a 20- foot depth, take the sand material off the top, the overburden, basically. Now, overburden doesn't require crushing. So the issue of crushing would not have come up in the original concept of the project. MS. STUDENT-STIRLING: I see. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: When they've got -- or as they're getting permission to go to a deeper depth, they're getting into a limerock layer that varies in thickness. As they pull that layer up, they want to blast it so they can break it up into smaller pieces, then crush it so they can use it for limerock for roads. So it has changed, considering the testimony in 1999 that I have in my record here and I will be bringing up for the rest of -- as this Page 25 June 1, 2006 meeting moves forward. But they indicated that the overburden is what they're looking for originally. MS. STUDENT-STIRLING: Okay. So just let me clarify what I understand that you said, that you have the other issue that the original was not to go so deep. So now they're going deeper, which means they're going to get more than sand and they're going to get rock and they're going to have to blast that to make it small enough to make it worthwhile to get out of there or efficient enough. And my question and -- back to staff is when the neighborhood information meeting was had and the actual blasting was discussed at the neighborhood information meeting, right? MS. ZONE: Melissa Zone, Principal Planner with Collier County, for the record. To clarify some, the consultant did mention at the neighborhood information meeting that there was going to be no processing, but then Stan Gedvillas -- I'm sorry, Stan -- did stand up and say no, that processing was needed. And staff reviewed it as earth mining, what is under the regulations of Collier County. So we reviewed it as there was going to be processing of these large materials that would be coming up, but only within the boundary that was already permitted with the conditional use of 99-16. So when the consultant spoke, Stan stood up and clarified for the record. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Your staff report doesn't reflect that clarification. And I think that's where the confusion's from. MS. ZONE: No, and I guess I'm uncomfortable, because this was put in by Linda Bedtelyon who is our neighborhood information coordinator, and she provides that synopsis. And just like the growth management plan, I don't have full ability to go in and remove something that they've reported. And this was -- the bullets are the concerns that the residents brought up, and Page 26 June 1, 2006 we did feel that needed to be addressed here today, but that -- and it might have been an oversight on Linda's part that someone did come up to clarify that. But I think what Linda's point was trying to do was to let you know the concerns of those surrounding neighbors, what their concerns were. And maybe making a blanket statement that Mr. Straw addressed everything, all these concerns, is misleading. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well-- MS. ZONE: And I don't know that it is. And administratively if they want to tell me that I have more authority to edit someone else's language, I'm more comfortable with that as well. But that Stan did get up and address that issue, so it was addressed. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Tyson did address the concern-- the questions raised to some part. But the report that was here is not addressing the questions raised, it was addressing the -- looks like the response of those questions by the way it was worded in your report, so -- MS. ZONE: For the neighborhood information meeting? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah, Page 7. MS. ZONE: Right. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I don't think the issue is -- we're not weighing in on blasting right now, we're just trying to make sure that the record is consistent with what was told at the neighborhood information meeting and what is being presented here today. MS. ZONE: Correct. Well, I do have the tape. If you wanted us, we could -- I assume it's audio, but -- MR. BELLOWS: Melissa, if you could just state on the record from your personal observation during the neighborhood information meeting, was it clarified that processing material would occur during this phase? MS. ZONE: Yes. Because when Mr. Straw said there was no processing, that's when Stan Gedvillas stood up to say no, processing Page 27 June 1, 2006 would have to be part of this. It was addressed. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Schiffer? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Is there going to be a Phase 22 application? MS. ZONE: There is another application that's under review. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And what does that contain? MS. ZONE: It's a larger area that -- right now it's about 553 acres. And the applicant is looking to come back and address a larger area. But there are some issues, environmental issues that need to be addressed and so -- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: The statement in your report -- I mean the impression I get from your report is that there's going to be a Phase 22 which is going to request the ability to do this crushing. MS. ZONE: It's going to do -- it's going to widen, go deeper-- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I don't need to know that. MS. ZONE: Okay. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I'm concerned about the crushing. So will it be in Phase 22 addressed, or -- MS. ZONE: All of this will be as well addressed in Phase 22, correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: As well. And Mr. Kolflat? COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: Mr. Chairman, I would accept the affirmation by the planner that the crushing was addressed at that meeting and was made clear that there would be crushing. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. MS. STUDENT-STIRLING: For the record, Marjorie Stirling, Assistant County Attorney. I just want to point out that Ms. Zone is under oath, she's clarified what was stated at the meeting, and I think that just suffices and there's no need for another NIM. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The only thing I was going to say to Page 28 June 1, 2006 follow that up is based on what we've heard then, this meeting's discussions can take into consideration the fact that they more than likely will have crushing on this site as part of the Phase 1 operation. So with that said, thank you, Melissa, and we'll continue with the applicant's presentation. MR. TYSON: Thank you. Next, a comment that came up, there were some mulch piles that had been placed on the property. And they said well, it smells and it gives off unpleasant odors, and when will be removed? The mulch pile had been removed within the next two days, from the NIM. So that is complete. And the question came up about the buffer around the property. It was our first understanding of that. And as Mr. Anderson indicated, that is underway and will be taken care of. Let me just ask this question of anyone who has reviewed this to date. Jeff Perry is here, who is our Transportation Planner, but he has another commitment. And if there's any questions that would come up that he could address, I would appreciate having any transportation points brought up at this period of time. There is a report that was required by the county a year ago, and if he could just address that, or if anybody has any questions about that, I would appreciate it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Does any of the commissioners have any transportation issues? Because I do. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Normally what I do is take -- and Brad does. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And Tor does, too. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And Tor does. So normally we take these -- MR. TYSON: I understand. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I've got them wrapped up in 50 Page 29 June 1, 2006 different points in this book, so I'm going to have to take them out of order, and it's going to take a few minutes, if -- MR. TYSON: Okay. And we -- if also, we have Gail Murray who is here, who is our Groundwater Hydrologist. You may have some questions of her. She also has prior commitments. And so consequently, if we could, just think about that from a groundwater hydrology stand -- I know it's unfortunate, yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You know, I'm glad the experts need our attention for their convenience. When does our convenience come into play? Because we're here today as volunteers; we're not paid to be in this room sitting here today. MR. TYSON: I understand. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So we'll do the best we can. I think we're going to have more questions of our staff and our own transportation department. MR. TYSON: Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: With that, let's just get into the transportation issues real quick. And Mr. Schiffer, then Mr. Kolflat. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Tor was first. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I'm sorry, you spoke first. Then Mr. Kolflat and Mr. Schiffer. COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: My question is does the petitioner agree to submit annual traffic reports to include condition of roadway adjacent to entrance, traffic count, accident reports and status of daily vehicle output from the mine? MR. PERRY: For the record, my name is Jeff Perry with the firm of Wilson-Miller. We have submitted quarterly traffic count reports to the county since the mining operation began. So if that's a condition of the approval, either quarterly or annual traffic count reports, whatever the COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: Well, it was the Page 30 June 1, 2006 recommendation of our transportation department they receive this annual report, and I just wanted to confirm that you would -- MR. PERRY: Yes. COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: -- agree to that. MR. PERRY: Yes. COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Schiffer? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Yes, my question, you're familiar with the original conditional use? MR. PERRY: Yes. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Was the -- and I guess it's Item D, was all that work done, the traffic study, the light, all of -- MR. PERRY: Yes. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: -- the turn lanes, all that is in -- MR. PERRY: Yes. All of it -- it's in place, yes. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: -- in total compliance with -- MR. PERRY: Yes, sir. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay, thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Is that it? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: That's it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Perry, the report that I have on Page 2 of the five-year traffic report shows 600 and 800 loads per day. That's -- by loads, does that mean 12 to 1,600 trips per day? MR. PERRY: Yes, loads would be loaded trucks. So you have returning empty trucks. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. So we would double that to really figure out how many trips equivalent to the loads. MR. PERRY: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Why would originally your applicant indicate there be less than 400 trips per day when they went before the BCC in 1999? Do you know why that may have been said? MR. PERRY: No, sir. Page 31 June 1, 2006 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Is there any way that this project would have been limited, could have been limited or could have functioned at 400 trips per day? That would be 200 loads. MR. PERRY: Could it have functioned? I can't answer that question. That's an economic question I guess as to whether or not the -- such a limit would -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, originally in '99 there was considerable questions of the BCC at the time, and commission -- or Chairwoman Mac'Kie brought up a lot of traffic issues, and Mr. Anderson responded to one of her questions as: Well, I wanted to reemphasize the fact. And about the trips, it's important to note that this project will generate the same number of trips that 40 single-family homes would generate. That's all. But they pay several times as much as impact fees, road impact fees, as single-family -- 40 single- family homes would. Now, I asked transportation to provide me with what 40 single- family estates homes would generate on a daily trip basis, and they said they would use nine. I think that's high. I think it's generous, but nine times 40 is 360 trips, versus the 12 to 1,600 that are coming out of this mine right now. Do you believe that 40 single-family homes are an equivalent to what's operating on this site now? Is that statement made in '99 consistent with what's actually happening on the ground today? MR. PERRY: No. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. I'm going to have to ask transportation then at some point today to clarify how they looked at this application in light of that loading versus the loading that was originally stated to be provided by the approval process for the BCC. And Mr. Perry, I may have more questions on transportation, but I just won't be able to find them until I go through in order. And I think most of mine will be of county staff anyway, so -- MR. PERRY: Okay. Page 32 June 1, 2006 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Is there any other questions? Mr. Kolflat? COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: Yes. You were talking about 400. On Page 2 of the condition of application for approval it says the limitation of haul trips from the project to a maximum of 175 for 24 hours. That's in the condition of approval for the original resolution. Page 2 at the top. So I'm confused as to where we're getting the 400. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You need to pull your speaker a little closer. That's a good point. Could someone -- and I think it's more of a staff question. If they were supposed to limit their haul trips from the project to a maximum of 175 for a 24-hour period, how are they submitting a traffic report as required that shows many, many times that? Is there any way staff would have looked at that when they reviewed the traffic report, versus what was actually recommended and stipulated for approval of the conditional use? Wow, silence again. Mr. Barber? MR. BARBER: Commissioner Strain, the conditional use said that in five years -- in fact, six months short of five years, the applicant was to submit to the county a noise and traffic study and some other commentary about what was happening out at the mine. So we did that six months before our five-year conditional use annual time period. If you'll look at that conditional use, it says that at that time, .if there are any concerns about traffic being generated from the mine, that the county may limit the mine to 175 trucks a day. The language that you heard Jeff use was in that report, which is over a year old now. We had absolutely no response from the county, no concerns for limitations. Obviously the road's being constructed out there. There were some problems with times, which you've also heard Page 33 June 1, 2006 today were adjusted so that the trucks weren't interfering with school traffic and of course people trying to get to work and so on and so forth. So another point that I'd like to clear up is that the applications require the applicant to summarize his thoughts in terms of the length of time that the mine would operate. How many years, how many truck loads, how many this. We should all know that a mine is obviously subject to market conditions. And there were no limitations that I'm aware of as to how many trucks per day, but we were asked how long did you think this would work? And if you'll look, you'll see, I think we said 13 years. And I think if you took the estimated amount of fill dirt that we expected to get out of the mine at that time, divide it by the 13 years, divide it by approximately 300 days a year that you're hauling dirt, I think you'll come up with that 375 truck per day number. And that's how that came up at that time. It was just a guesstimate of what we thought. We were asked how long do you think this mine will be in operation, and it's 13 years. Now, to the benefit, if we're doing today 800 trucks a day, it's not going to be 13 years, it's only going to be six or seven years. And quite frankly, we're in the sixth year, and we are about out. In fact, you probably, if you haven't, will hear from Ben Jones. He is, he's out of dirt. We're down to the rock level. And quite frankly, it was a little higher -- the rock at the site was a little higher or closer to the ground surface than we first thought five or six years ago. And we weren't concerned about getting the rock five or six years ago. It wasn't a marketable commodity. The dirt was. We were interested in the overburden, as you aptly stated earlier in the discussion, and that's all we were going for. The comments in regards to the blasting prohibition were again unfortunate comments written into the conditional use for being prohibited. And the same thing with the processing. Page 34 June 1, 2006 Quite frankly, the Land Development Code describes earth mining and all related processing. I've got the section of the code that says that right now. We didn't know we had to ask for a crushing or a processing permit or even specially request it. I would assume that it comes under the guise of commercial earth mining. So that's why there was probably no language from our point of view specially requesting that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And I think the reason the earth mining question came up was specifically because staff in their report indicated there would be none. And had that not been in there, it probably would never have been questioned. MR. BARBER: Right. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But there was certainly a discrepancy when your presentation contradicted what the staff report included, so that's why the issue came up. MR. BARBER: You're talking about Jeff Straw's comment at-- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes. MR. BARBER: -- the -- okay . Jeff is a Blasting Consultant. That's his business. His comments were in regards to blasting of that rock. His analysis of the rock on the site, blasting of the rock on the site, from his point of view as a Blasting Consultant, no further crushing or no further processing of that material would be required for rough fill. But, and if you have any knowledge of the business, if you're going to make pea gravel for asphalt aggregate or for concrete aggregate or for road base material or for stabilizing material, DOT standards do have very strict size requirements. You do have to process that material to make that kind of material. And you'll see in the soils reports MacTech has said that we have the ability to produce some of that material on this site. So processing will be required from that point of view. Page 35 June 1, 2006 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: One other point I want to make. Your conditions of approval for CU -99-16 did have a statement under B Roman numeral II, and it said that additional mitigative measures that may be required, including -- I highlighted the word may, because the word may is not mandatory, it's optional. And the limitation on the hauling was one of those things that may be required. And the fact that may was used, it is not an obligation nor a requirement, unless someone were to impose it as a result of your submission. So I would have to agree with your statement that if staff did not impose that upon you because of your reports, then you would have no obligation to meet that, because it was may instead of shall. So I agree with you. So thank you. MR. BARBER: Thank you very much. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Any other questions at this point before we -- of the traffic? Let's move back to traffic for a minute or two. (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: None. Thank you, Mr. Perry. I hope you make your next meeting. Mr. Anderson, is there any continuation of your presentation? MR. TYSON: There was one question that came up during the neighborhood information meeting that I indicated that -- dealing with wells. And I think it would be appropriate to have Gail Murray answer that question. So Gail, if you would? MS. MURRAY: Good morning. I'm sorry, I have to go to another meeting. It's actually doing some field work with wells. F or the record, my name is Gail Murray. I work for Murray Consultants. I've been a private consultant now for 25 years. I'm not too sure what the question was that the neighbors had as far as wells, other than I just heard that they had a question with wells. I don't know if it's in relationship to the blasting or if it's in relationship to the mining operation as far as the dewatering goes. Page 36 June 1, 2006 Okay, both, I'm told. As far as the -- I can give probably the best response as far as the dewatering goes. I did the water use permitting for this project for South Florida Water Management District, and that's the agency that deals with any potential impacts that has to do with dewatering or lowering of the water table. This project has been re-permitted, or the permit renewed for this area. It was allowed to go 23 and a half feet below land surface for dewatering. The renewal allows it to do the same. So as far as what they are allowed to do has not increased. Even though they are proposing to dig deeper, they are not proposing to dewater any deeper than the 23 and a half feet below land surface. Anything that they do below that point will be done in the wet. So that condition since 1999 has not changed. Now, physically I believe it's just been in one area that they've actually dewatered for a short term down to that point. But the rest of the property they -- in the permitted area they have not. The district has required many measures to protect not only the wetlands in the area, but also the off-site wells. Because the wetlands are closer in many of these areas than the wells, what the district has required and what has been implemented is a monitoring program. And this monitoring program requires that we record water levels within the wetlands, water levels within the groundwater system, water levels within the recharge ditch, which is one of the areas that we retain the water on-site. And so if in that program any issues would come up with water levels being extremely low that could impact wetlands, then they would have to be addressed, and that would have to be addressed, and that we stop pumping or we relocate where we're dewatering, or we offset the impacts in some fashion. And I would assume that in doing this we would not have any impact on any wells, because the wetlands are much closer. Page 37 June 1, 2006 The other thing I want to point out, too, is that any wells off-site, we have a double row of protection. I believe on this map -- let me find a pointer. Okay, on this -- can you hear me? On this map, the South Florida Water Management District has two very large drainage canals that border this particular piece of property. One is on the east side and one is on the south side. And those are very large ditches. They have control structures at the southeast corners on each one. These canals are maintained at certain levels throughout the year. They are probably -- my understanding of district canals, they're at least 15, 20 or 25 feet deep. And in addition to that, the mine retains all other discharge water on-site. We retain it in another ditch inside the property line on the south side, on the east side, and also surrounding the mining area itself. In addition to that, we put water all through this area, when it's available, in the sod farm. So we are allowing the water that we dewater to go back on the land and soak back into the ground so that we retain everything on-site. The other thing with the ditches being as deep as they are for the distract canals, if we start dropping the water levels, the water's got to come from someplace. And by putting it back on, we allow it to filter back down in and -- in other words, offsetting that drawdown. And also, if the drawdown were to exceed as far as the property boundary line, the water in the canals would be intercepted before any water's in anybody's wells. And so basically what it does, it provides a buffer for that drawdown. And because we are constantly putting water into those ditches, when the cone of depression -- and this is theory and it's also reality -- when the cone of depression hits those canals, it takes that water and it doesn't extend any further off-site. This is a practice that the District has been permitting for years. It works. We haven't had too many of any that I know problems, the District receiving complaints. The only time it has received Page 38 June 1, 2006 complaints has been when there has been no perimeter ditch or any recharge ditch. The perimeter ditch and recharge ditches do supply that level of protection for your off-site wells. I don't know if I've addressed it, if I've gone too far. But if you have any questions? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Murray? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Yes, ma'am. You did make two points that cause me to be concerned here. One you said about putting water back into the sod farms when available. And of course that was -- that is an indicator of when it's not available for you, it's also not available for the others. What then happens is the water is drawn down all around the properties, are they not? MS. MURRAY: Well, what happens when it's not available just means that they're not mining or they're not dewatering at that particular time. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Okay. So that's -- MS. MURRAY: That's what I meant by that. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: -- important to hear. And then you made a correction, you said not too many, and then you said you don't remember any complaints about that, receiving any complaints about that. I just want to qualify -- MS. MURRAY: Okay. Well, I don't work for the Water Management District anymore. I used to but I don't anymore. So basically what I hear from staff, I know of only one area where there was a dewatering operation, and they had some issue with some wells, but that's because they didn't have a recharge ditch. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Okay, so just -- MS. MURRAY: And the District is being very adamant now about every dewatering proj ect having their discharge water go into recharge ditches. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Very good. I'm glad to hear Page 39 June 1, 2006 that. And just finally, for me, just to make it really clear, because the other gentleman, the owner, Mr. Barber, indicated that perhaps 300 times a year they take trucks out of there. Is it your assertion that if there's insufficient water, that the mining process stops? MS. MURRAY: I'm not so sure I understand. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Well, you indicated before when were talking about the sod farms and the unavailability of water -- MS. MURRAY: Oh, what I said was availability of water to go to the sod farm. Only that when you dewater is the only time that you're discharging water. And that's the only time that you need to protect off-site uses or you need to protect wetlands is when you're lowering the water table. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Absolutely. And that's -- MS. MURRAY: And if you're not lowering the water table, then you're not discharging any water and there's no water available to go anyplace. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: But if the -- MS. MURRAY: And you don't have to because you're not dewatering. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Well, in the event that there is insufficient water, there's insufficient rain and so forth and the table drops, is it your testimony that the mining process stops because there would be insufficient water and the concern would be for drawdown on adjacent properties? MS. MURRAY: No, no. If -- all right, the mining process, to be able to get to the soils and to get to the soils dry, we pump the water. Because normally in the State of Florida, as most everybody knows, the water is usually between three feet and five feet below land surface, just as a natural thing. So you can take off the fill you want Page 40 June 1, 2006 down to five feet and you don't have to get rid of the water if you want to do it dry. And then if you want to get the soils below the water table, then you pump that water to dry the soils out. And then they obviously mine the water. If it's a real, real dry season, and for some reason naturally the water level drops seven feet below land surface, I mean, the miners have no control of that, we have no control, that's Mother Nature. The mining operation would not be impacting anybody one way or the other if Mother Nature naturally drops the water level because it doesn't rain. Now, that would mean if it drops seven feet, let's say below land surface, they don't have to dewater if they want to mine down to seven feet. If they want to mine down to 10 feet, yes, they're going to have to dewater 10 feet. Or if they're going to want to mine down to 20 feet, they're going to have to dewater and then they will be pumping water out and putting them into the ditches to protect that drawdown that they create when they go down to 20 feet. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Okay, just so you understand what I was attempting to get at: I'm visualizing on the larger scale of things, as water tables drop, the water is drawn to the lowest level. And how far that extends. You're telling me that the ditches, which are not very -- I can't even observe them on this drawing. But you're saying that they represent a perimeter barrier that prevents a drawdown from adjacent properties; that's what you're -- MS. MURRAY: That's correct, that's correct. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Okay, I thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Schiffer, then Ms. Caron. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Could you also testify the effects of mining down to 60 feet would have on wells, if any? MS. MURRAY: Well, the mining itself would not -- the dewatering would be the potential impacts which are being buffered Page 41 June 1, 2006 by the recharge ditches. And according to the current permit through South Florida Water Management District, they cannot drop the water level more than 23 and a half feet below land surface. Now, if they mine down to 60 feet, they're mining in the wet, which does not create any additional impact. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay, thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ms. Caron? COMMISSIONER CARON: And you've addressed dewatering very thoroughly here, but the question at the neighborhood information meeting concerned blasting. MS. MURRAY: Blasting. The last time I did a project that had anything to do with impacts on wetlands due to land vibrating or land shaking or blasting, we found that there was no direct correlation as to the blasting and any function of any wells. Your wells are dependent upon water, and your water comes -- I don't know exactly how deep these particular homeowners' wells are. I would assume that most of them are within the lower Tamiami aquifer, which is probably 60 to maybe 120 feet deep. You know, the earth-shaking part of the blasting, I don't see how that would affect the function of a well. They're usually screened and your screening, nothing's going to happen to your screening. If it's open hole, which I doubt if any of these are, because most of your domestic wells are screened and gravel pack wells, and I don't see how that would have any effect. And I'm sure that the blasting expert could maybe help address some of the concerns with that part of it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ma'am, your south Florida permit, a copy of that was provided to us, expired in December, '05. MS. MURRAY: It has been renewed and was reissued on May 10th, 2006. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. I'm assuming then the packet that goes to the Board of County Commissioners will have a current Page 42 June 1, 2006 permit in it? MR. BELLOWS: Definitely. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Did you review the MacTech soil borings? MS. MURRAY: I -- yes, I believe that a while back I did look at the soil borings, yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Did you observe a confining layer on those soil borings? MS. MURRAY: I had done a report on those and indicated how deep that could be gone, based on where the confining layers are. And so there were certain areas that there were confining zones. I'd have to pull my notes to find out exactly where they are, but yes, there were some confining zones, some in higher areas than others. In some areas I indicated that we couldn't go deeper than 30 feet and couldn't go deeper than 45 and couldn't go deeper than -- but it varied across the property and I'm not too sure what is in the application. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: If you had confining layers on the property and you know that when you have a confining layer that generally separates the different layers of aquifers and it's not -- MS. MURRAY: Right. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- good to breach those confining layers, and south Florida, from my experience, doesn't particularly like you to breach those confining layers. MS. MURRAY: That's correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The application here today is to go to 60 feet. But your testimony just now said that you have some confining layers as shallow as I think you said 30 feet. MS. MURRAY: But in the areas that are not being mined. And I had provided the client with a map that showed where those confining layers were and how deep they were. And I also just testified that there were areas that the confining layer was deeper. So it's my understanding that the -- it is going to be a variable Page 43 June 1, 2006 depth, and they're going to possibly avoid those areas where the confining layer is shallower and obviously not mine those any deeper than a confining zone. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, my question goes back to the MacTech soil borings. Those borings were only taken within the area of the excavation. They were taken only down to about 40 feet. They show different layers of fractured limestone at intervals all the way down to 40 feet and at varying thickness. You just said that other sections of the site had confining layers. Where is the information that allowed you to know that? Did you see a soil test? Because MacTech's borings didn't exceed the exterior of this excavation pit. So how did you know that confining layer -- MS. MURRAY: I was provided with borings across the site. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. And those borings across the site provide you with information there are confining layers, but none of them happen to be in this location they're going to be excavating, based on this conditional use that was supplied by -- the borings by MacTech? MS. MURRAY: Let me get my notes. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Mark, while they're doing that, I don't have any information past 40 feet in my packet. What's a Mac -- I have the Law Engineering report. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I'm sorry, Law sold out to MacTech. MacTech's the new name of Law. So the Law report you have is the 40-foot report. MacTech's their new name and I keep using that. Sorry. It's Law Engineering. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: But do you have any report, Mark, that goes below 40 feet? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No, which was an issue that was going to come up later today. Because all the borings do go to 40 feet. And I've seen nothing outside the excavation site. And my reading of these borings indicate it's fractured limestone, Page 44 June 1, 2006 and I didn't see confining layers within the excavation location itself. But I wanted you to for the record state what your conclusions were, since you're the hydrologist, and confining layers are very important to hydrology. MS. MURRAY: Okay. One of the things that I was just advised was that the application states that they're requesting mining down to 60 feet or to the confining layer, whichever comes first. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, then -- MS. MURRAY: That's what I was told is what the application states. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: In your review of the log -- MS. MURRAY: So in the review of my logs, I had made a recommendation. We were originally looking at this when I was hired for the Phase 22 of the expansion area, so I was provided with some borings in the expansion area, which is probably why you don't have it, because this is just for the existing area, okay? And in the existing area, maybe my borings were a little bit deeper, I don't know, but I show that an area where the mining depth to be no greater than 45 feet because there was a confining layer encountered at 45 feet. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Then that's a point that's going to come up -- MS. MURRAY: And there are some areas where I also said mining no greater than 30 feet, because the confining layer hit at 30 feet. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: We are on -- the court reporter is trying to take minutes as we speak. Both of us cannot speak at once. MS. MURRAY: I'm sorry. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So if I start a sentence, or you, I'll try to wait for you to finish. And you need to try to wait for me to finish. The applicant is requesting 60 feet. But based on the soil borings, it indicates that 45-foot depth or 40-foot depth where the soil Page 45 June 1, 2006 borings are, they really won't be going deeper than that. Is that a statement that -- MS. MURRAY: That's correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- is accurate? MS. MURRAY: That's correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Is there any other questions of the -- from a hydrological nature at this point? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. MS. MURRAY: All right. Thank you. MR. TYSON: Thank you. Yes, and definitely there is a statement in the application that indicates it's to the -- it's 60 feet or to the confining layer, whichever is less. That's how that is termed. I'd like to have Sarah Katie Daniel come up. She is our blasting expert. She is here as part of GeoSonics. That is the same company that Jeff Straw works for. He was unavailable today, so Katie is here to respond to any questions that deal with blasting. MS. DANIEL: Good morning. As a matter of introduction, my name is Sarah Daniel. I'm here for GeoSonics, I'm a Technical Representative with that company. A little bit of background information. I graduated with a Bachelor of Science Degree in Geology from the University of the South, Swanee From the Sea. And I'm again currently employed with GeoSonics, Inc. Jeff Straw was originally scheduled to be here today to speak with you about blasting, but he's been subpoenaed for another hearing in Miami and could not be here. I'd like to answer any questions that may come up. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Adelstein? COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Yes. A term inch per second. MS. DANIEL: I'm sorry? COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Inch per second. Page 46 June 1, 2006 MS. DANIEL: Yes, sir. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: What does that actually mean? MS. DANIEL: Inches per second is the -- is the way that we measure particle velocity. It's the unit of measurement for particle velocity. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: The length of the explosion or what would actually sayan inch? It will move an inch per second; is that what it's saying? MS. DANIEL: No, sir, it's actually fractions of inches. It's -- an inch per second is the unit of measurement for particle velocity. But nothing will actually be moving an entire inch. I'm sorry? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I didn't mean to -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You need to use your microphone. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I probably shouldn't have said -- I was going to suggest, it's the motion of -- it's energy movement, is it not? Isn't it in fact transmission of energy? MS. DANIEL: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, did your question get answered? COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: It was. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Are there any other questions? Mr. Kolflat? COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: Yeah. There was a letter from GeoSonic of May 4th, 2005 to Wilson-Miller, and in that letter there was a statement that said, a comment made by Mike DeRuntz was that the noise level measurements were not taken at appropriate locations. I'd like to understand the background of that of what was not appropriate, if there was anything inappropriate. MS. DANIEL: To the best of my knowledge, the sound study that I believe Jeff did was appropriate for the job prospects, or the aspects of the job. Page 47 June 1, 2006 From what I understand, he monitored at the ends of the streets adjacent to the job site for a period of time. COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: Well, his letter merely states what was taken. There were four sounds taken at different locations. But what concerned me was that the opening paragraph of the letter indicates that there was some difference of opinion, apparently, between his findings and what Mike DeRuntz had found. And I was curious whether the staff or -- if they could enlighten me on that. I have a copy of the letter, if you're not familiar with it. MS. DANIEL: I'm not familiar with the letter. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: If she's not familiar with it, I'm not sure what good it will do to give it to her. Maybe staff can address it when they come up for their presentation, Tor. COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: All right. Okay, let me ask another question, if I might. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Sure. COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: Where is the location of the nearest structure to this blast site on this chart that's in front of us? MS. DANIEL: All right, I believe the closest structure is 1,070 feet. There's a small arrow there indicating it. COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: About 1,000 feet? MS. DANIEL: Yes, sir. COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: Now, will the Collier County standard maximum PPV of half-inch per second ground vibration be met at that site? MS. DANIEL: That's what I -- it has to be. Ifvibrations exceed the county limits, then blasting will have to be stopped and readjusted. COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: Now, the law report -- and I don't remember the revised name of it, but they referred to this as a law report -- in that law report, they recommend vibration monitoring of any nearby structures. Will this structure have a monitoring device? Page 48 June 1, 2006 MS. DANIEL: If it is the closest structure, then yes. GeoSonics is recommending two seismographs to be simultaneously used: One on the south side of the site and one on the east side of the site. COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Schiffer, you maybe had a question? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Just quick. Is the decibel rating really going to be 133? MS. DANIEL: No -- well, not necessarily. That's the state maximum permitted decibel rating. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: In the neighborhood meeting, there's some structure 350 feet away. Is that on-site or is that a potential residence off-site? MR. ANDERSON: That 350 is a number that's in the county's ordinance. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. So what the county ordinance would say, you can't exceed 133,350 feet away? MR. ANDERSON: I don't think you can do any blasting within 350 feet. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's correct. You've got to hydrologically ram it or something like that, you can't blast it. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Well, anyway, the thing I'm reading is at the neighborhood meeting it says decibel level of 133 maximum from nearest structures. So I guess what you're saying, that's not the case here, that's the county ordinance. Okay, thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Any other questions? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I have a few. What I'd like to do is try to finish up on the blasting questions, then we'll take a IS-minute break after that. Ray, I'd like to put this on the screen. I think it might be a more recent photograph. Page 49 June 1, 2006 I have questions concerning GeoSonics' location, which is the map that's going to be shown to you in just a minute. What this map shows -- first of all, it is a more -- is the January, I believe, 2005 -- it's the most recent the county appraisal site had of the subject site. It definitely shows a distinct contrast to the photograph we've been using. It shows substantially more dark water, but it also shows the limitations of the scraping that have occurred on the site. And the orange dots that I have are the locations at the ends of the street that I was assuming were the recorded locations on Page 2 of the Noise Measurement and Evaluation Report by GeoSonics. Now, if you look at this, numbers one, two, three and four, they're all -- the shortest one is 4,382 feet. And the most distant is 6,336 feet. If you look at this map and you go to the appraiser's website, they have a measurement technique there and you can actually measure the distances from the ends of the street to the edge of this conditional use excavation. And at 14th Street it's 1,118 feet. At 20th Street it's 746 feet. At 52nd Street it's 1,200 feet. At 56th Street it's 1,321 feet. And at 58th Street it's 2,219 feet. And my concern is that while this report was provided and it shows in some cases the distance of impact over a mile away, in reality the neighborhood's going to be affected by excavation much, much closer to it and in some cases less than 800 feet. So I was just wondering why you chose to do this report in this manner at this distance? What's your estimenations (sic) if you were to take a mile and reduce it to 800 feet, or actually take a mile and almost a quarter and reduce it to 800 feet, what will the decibel level be? MS. DANIEL: It would be higher. But it's not permissible to be higher than 133 decibels. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Currently your report indicates, and I Page 50 June 1, 2006 believe the highest decibel level was 54. Is that consistent with what you believe currently. MS. DANIEL: 54? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah, 54 d.b.a. MS. DANIEL: Not usually. It's usually-- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, well, maybe I'm saying it wrong. On Page 3 of your report, you have something called the noise level measurement. And at the end of 16th Street Northeast, north end, at 6:45 in the morning it was 54.0 d.b.a. Is that decibels? MS. DANIEL: Yes, it is. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Well, then the highest decibels in your report currently were 54.0. MS. DANIEL: At 6:00 in the morning. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: At 16th Street Northeast. So now you're proposing that your highest decibel level, based on blasting, may get up to 133? MS. DANIEL: It's possible. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. And the 54 that you have here was almost a mile away. MS. DANIEL: Yes, but it was recorded at 6:00 in the morning, and that's recording normal ambient noise. Since they're not currently blasting, we can't perform a sound study to record the sound pressure, air pressure and decibels that would be created by blasting. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But see, a lot of the comments then, and we'll be getting into a lot of them before this meeting is over, focus on the item that this is not much different than the current conditional use and the blasting won't have -- and there actually is a statement, and I don't know which one of these tabs it is, but I'll find it as I go through them, that's it's not that much inconsistent with what the current conditional use allows. While I think doubling the decibel level may be more inconsistent than what the current condition allows. And that's the point I was trying to make. Page 51 June 1, 2006 Also, the way I read the code section that defines our noise ordinance, sound should be measured at or beyond the property boundary line of the site or unit from which the sound emanates. . Now, that means you've got to measure it right at the property line. I'm not sure where the end of the street falls or where some of these measurements were in relationship to the edge of the property line, but I'm wondering, do you know how far the distance was from the property line? MS. DANIEL: I do not. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, since this is a big issue, blasting, I wish we had more information. And you used wind screens. Do you know why wind screens were used at 6:45 in the morning? MS. DANIEL: Wind screens are always used when performing sound studies. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, according to our code, it's when appropriate. MS. DANIEL: We always use them. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So it's always appropriate in your case? MS. DANIEL: Yes. It is our standard procedure to always use a wind screen. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Do they have an impact on the noise ratings? MS. DANIEL: No. It protects against accidental noise from cross-winds or unintended non-reading, so to speak. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: As far as your instrument, there's various levels of instruments, type one, two, whatever. How do you rate those instruments? If you have a type two instrument, is it better or worse than a type one instrument? MS. DANIEL: That I don't know. I can tell you we used a Larson Davis for our sound study, but I am not familiar with what type it is. Page 52 June 1, 2006 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, it's type one. And the code requires a type two or better. So now that you know that, I bet type one is a better instrument. But I was trying to find out if we knew that offhand, if a type one is a better instrument than a type two. I think that would be important to be -- know if you're consistent with our code or not, because it says very clearly, the sound level meter used to determine compliance with this article shall meet or exceed the requirements for type two sound level meter in accordance with NC standard S 1.4. Now, I know type one does meet that standard, S 1.4, but I don't know if it's a better instrument than a type two. Maybe -- are you going to be here today for long? Could you make a phone call during the break and find out for us so your testimony then will reflect whatever the accuracy is? MS. DANIEL: Yes, I will. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Are there any other questions at this time about blasting? COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: Mr. Chairman? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Kolflat. COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: If she's going to make a phone call to the originator of this letter that I referenced, as far as a question on Mike DeRuntz, if she could also seek out the answer for that? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Certainly. Would you mind doing that? It may end up being the same element that we just talked about versus where they measured from at a distance to the -- COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: Could be, but Mike is not here, so I can't ask him. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. Okay, is there a -- Mr. Vigliotti? COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: You had said that the allowed decibel level is 133 maximum? MS. DANIEL: Yes, sir. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Who monitors that? And can't Page 53 June 1, 2006 it be monitored before the blasting? MS. DANIEL: It's normally monitored in association with monitoring ground vibration. Most seismographs are equipped with a microphone as well. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: And you report that to the county? MS. DANIEL: Well, ground vibration and monitoring associated with blasting for quarries is reported to the State Fire Marshal. It falls under regulation by the State Fire Marshal. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: But these are county ordinances? MS. DANIEL: Yes, they are. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: And the county is not notified in any way if you go over it? In other words, if you go over it, how does the county know what's -- MS. DANIEL: If theirs exceeded, then they will be notified, yes. MS. ZONE: Excuse me. Again, Melissa Zone, Principal Planner with Collier County. Commissioner, we have -- whenever there's blasting, we have a -- one of our county engineers goes to the site and monitors it for per county regulations, as well as the homeowners who are notified beforehand that there will be blasting. We have here, in case you have specific questions, any of you, two of our county engineers who actually do the monitoring for Collier County. And blasting. And, you know, they stood up and got sworn in, too, just in case. So if you have questions that pertain to how we actually monitor it, I'm sure they'd be more than happy to answer your questions. But we -- the engineering department goes out every time there's a blasting. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Every time? MS. ZONE: Every time. Page 54 June 1, 2006 COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: That was my question. So the county -- MS. ZONE: And the homeowners are always notified, so they know in advance as well. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Okay, so it's not a matter of oh, we had, we had a blast and it was over 133. MS. ZONE: Absolutely not. No. In fact, the county takes even more stringent actions than what the federal and the state regulate. So the county's taken much more stringent actions. And they're there every step of the way. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: So there's no -- MS. ZONE: And if they were by chance -- I'm sorry to interrupt. If by chance that they were to do something that is illegal, that could stop the mining operation, and I don't think it would be economically feasible that they would want to do that anyways, because it would hurt their company. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: So then we are reassured that they will never go above 133 -- MS. ZONE: Oh, yeah. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: -- and the residents will never MS. ZONE: Absolutely. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: -- have a problem above 133. MS. ZONE: Absolutely. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. With that, we'll have to come back to this after the break. Let's take a IS-minute break for the court reporter. Thank you. (Recess. ) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ladies and gentlemen, if you'll resume your seats. At the break we left off on discussion about blasting. There were Page 55 June 1, 2006 a couple of questions remaining that were hopefully going to be researched during the break. One was about the type of meter being used and whether a type one was better or worse than a type two. MS. DANIEL: To answer that question, yes, a type one is considered to be better than a type two instrument. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. So the higher the type number, the more not as quality or not as accurate, possibly. But the type one is the best you can get; is that the way it goes? MS. DANIEL: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Mr. Kolflat's question concerning Michael DeRuntz's comments, did you confirm any of that? MS. DANIEL: With the discrepancies and the distances in the recording? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes. COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: Yes. MS. DANIEL: Yes. I believe that that may have -- I have before me the report that we did. And the distances are reported as 4,382 feet, 4,488 feet, 4,963 feet, and then 6,336 feet. And it's listed as those are the distances from the operating equipment. COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: Not the blast. MS. DANIEL: Not necessarily. So I would imagine that the shorter distances you were speaking of, the 700 feet and so forth, is the distance to possibly the property perimeter. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: How did they clear the property on that photograph? MS. DANIEL: How did they clear the property? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: They used equipment? MS. DANIEL: I believe so, yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. My point is that it's fine that we've got decibel readings nearly a mile away, but there are obviously Page 56 June 1, 2006 activity -- there was activity and there was excavation closer to the property line than what was provided in your report. That was the point I was making. MS. DANIEL: This report, though, was intended to test the decibels and the sound that's produced from activities, mining activities specifically on the property site. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. And I just mentioned that you cleared and you -- by this photograph I'm showing you now, you have center line excavations down those parcels that certainly had to be excavated with the excavators, and undoubtedly the material had to be moved around. So you would have had other equipment in there as well: Loaders, excavators, track hoes, whatever. True measurement for impact on the neighborhood would seem to be the closest to the neighborhood, not the distant measurement. That was the only point I was making. Mr. Kolflat? COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: So does that mean then that this report has no relevancy relative to the blasting? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No, this wasn't for blasting because they haven't blasted. This has no relevance to blasting. COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: This has no relevancy at all to the blasting. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No, sir. I wouldn't think so, because this isn't based on any blasting sounds. Because they can't be blasting at this point. COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: So we really have no report then relative to the effect of blasting? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: They couldn't have that until they started blasted, which is why they're here today. That's what they're asking for. So -- okay, any other questions of this young lady? (No response.) Page 57 June 1, 2006 No? Thank you, Miss. MR. TYSON: Yeah, if I could, I'd like to just try to clear up a couple of points that were made about the ordinance and about the -- about blasting in general. And at the neighborhood information meeting, Mr. Straw indicated there's a very significant difference in the megahertz or the hertz measurements that happen when it comes time to -- for a blast in the way in which blasting is calculated, versus the ambient noise and what you hear. And while I'm not a technician in that, it's very, very significant is the difference between the two. And you can't compare the two directly. There's an indirect comparison that can be made. The person who is going to be doing the blasting on the property is Rory Simons from Florida Energy Services. He is here today. And I think it would be appropriate to have him come up and maybe explain a little bit about the techniques, where it would start, how the process would go on. So that -- and then you can ask any specific questions that you may have about it that are a little bit more detailed that are focused on the blasting and exactly how that may occur. . CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Murray? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Mr. Tyson, before you ask the gentleman to come up, just so we can contemplate it, inasmuch as the boundaries are irregular and blasting will occur at various locations over a period of time, would it -- is it the intent of your organization to establish the boundary lines for blasting decibel levels? This is merely a question actually for you to contemplate, as against where those lots are, the ones that have been recited, something in the neighborhood of 700 feet away from the nearest residential lot. It would seem, if I were going to try to do that, I would try to find a perimeter, okay. It's an irregular perimeter, and I do set charges to determine what my baseline is. Page 58 June 1, 2006 And is that something that would normally be done? And maybe the gentleman you're about to have come up would answer that. MR. TYSON: Yeah, I'd just as soon have him answer that specifically. The closest structure, by the way, is 1,070 feet. And surprisingly the picture that we have had up here, the photo that we used, we actually have that. That's a 2006 photograph from June -- excuse me, from January. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So the new one -- this one is -- MR. TYSON: That one is a -- what was on the -- Ray, if you would just take that one off, please? And I think the other one is right there. This is a blended photo that shows -- this is actually a January of 2006 picture of the property. It's blended into the county aerial that you had, Mr. Strain. And I would say, generally speaking, maybe about -- you go out from the property approximately, it looks to be, about 1,000 feet, somewhere about 800 to 1,000 feet, and it's blended into the county aerial. So what happens on these properties is that there's dewatering that takes place in different locations. And really, the difference there is the color. And you indicated yes, in fact you do see different colors, because those are places where the water's been removed. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So the black water on the county assessor's website -- which I don't know the date of that aerial. Is it on there, Ray, anywhere that -- MR. BELLOWS: Yes, 2004. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So that black water is not excavation, it's dewatering? MR. TYSON: That's water that is present, and in this photograph has been dewatered -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. MR. TYSON: -- so that the excavation could occur. Page 59 June 1, 2006 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. So the north part of this excavation then has not occurred. MR. TYSON: Oh, yes, it has. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: It has. Okay, well, the-- MR. TYSON: Yes. Because that showed where the water -- oh, to a different level. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: There's going to be -- and the reason I'm asking is, is later on in today's discussion that's going to have an impact on your blasting is where you've currently excavated in depth to which you've excavated. And that photograph that was on there that I got from the county assessor's site that Ray's putting back on now, that black water on the north side of your site, that is excavated or not excavated? MR. TYSON: It's excavated. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Well, on the most recent photograph that you have that's underneath this one, it doesn't appear as though it's excavated. MR. TYSON: It's dewatered. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. So you just -- okay, so you dewatered it. For what reason? MR. TYSON: So you could excavate it deeper. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But you haven't got permission to do that. MR. TYSON: Deeper to the point of where we go to 20 feet. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Oh, so you're -- okay. MR. TYSON: See, the water will come in at -- I think everybody's tested that that's somewhere between three and five feet, according to Ms. Murray. And so you're going to get water automatically. So you have to start to dewater if you're going to excavate below that. I can't tell you to the depth of which the excavation took place here. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. I understand. Thank you for the Page 60 June 1, 2006 clarification. Any other -- why don't you just go on with your presentation, and I think your blaster was going to come up? MR. TYSON: Yes. MR. SIMONS: Good morning. My name is Rory Simons. I live at 11518 Timberline Circle, Fort Myers. Been a Southwest Florida resident for 30 years. I've mined and blasted in Collier County since 1981. And I have not been sworn in. (Speaker was duly sworn.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you for the reminder of the swearing in. I appreciate that. Okay, did you want to -- just want us to stick to questions, or do you have -- make a statement? MR. SIMONS: No, I wouldn't mind making a statement first. I blast presently in Collier County every day on usually four to six job sites. Have been doing that for 14, 15 years. Prior to that, I ran a quarry in Collier County and blasted from '81 to '88, so I'm not new to the regulations or the people or the rules or procedures to blast. I'm very, very familiar with it. In this particular project, which I don't look at a whole lot different than any other project we blast on, we've got a standard to adhere to, a county ordinance to comply with, and we will do that. F or this particular proj ect, how I would approach it, I would meet with the owners and confirm where it is they would like to blast fjrst, I would like to tell them where I would like to blast first, and then we reconcile the differences. We start accumulating data blasting on-site. We wouldn't blast on the perimeter first. As data was accumulated and information gained both with regard to decibels and ground vibrations, we adjust the blast plan accordingly. There's all kinds of things a blaster can do to stay in compliance with the county ordinance. Right now we blast many times a day within 350 feet of a Page 61 June 1, 2006 structure and comply with the county ordinance. It may not enable the mine to quite remove all the material that they might like to remove at that close proximity, but blasting is safe and can comply with the county ordinance at a close distance like that. We're certainly very sensitive to neighbors. We would pre-blast survey dwellings to get a baseline of the condition of those properties. Pre-blast survey is nothing more than photo documentation of current construction deformities before blasting would occur. So we know the conditions of somebody's property within a close proximity. The ordinance has certain standards where those pre-blast surveys would be performed. My policy's always to go way beyond those standards, so we have a greater element of information, a data base of the condition of somebody's home before blasting occurs. Usually we use a roll or two rolls of film per house. That could be anywhere from 20 to 40 pictures. Those deformities existed before blasting ever occurred. The causes of those 40 or so pictures of deformities goes on ad infinitum. The environmental forces that cause construction deformities to show up in pictures is a phenomena that exists in Florida sometimes more than any other place in the country because of high moisture and temperature change every day and groundwater seasonally fluctuating. So when all those forces occur, degradation to property is inevitable. The problem is, a homeowner needs to understand that's the condition of their property before blasting and not after the fact. Because the natural reaction is to go out and look and say that crack wasn't there the day before. And typically it was. And those photographs will help us in pre-blast surveys prove our position. But beyond that, we will measure and monitor every time we blast. Blast plan for the extraction rates that the mine owner intends to implement would be blasting two times a week one week, one time a week maybe another week. So we're talking six or eight shots a months. Page 62 June 1, 2006 As we gain that data, the amount of explosives used in any single home would be adjusted to stay in compliance with the county ordinance. I mean, that's a brief blast plan thumbnail sketch of the blasting procedure from my perspective. I'd be happy to answer any questions. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. Mr. Kolflat? COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: Yeah, the target of the blasting is the hard limestone; is that correct? MR. SIMONS: Yes, sir. COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: Now, looking at this boring report here, about 67 percent of the planned area, that bores found hard limestone. And that hard limestone was in tiers of about three- foot thickness and eight-foot thickness throughout the area. MR. SIMONS: Yes, sir. COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: Now, how do you designate what areas you do your blasting relative to that knowledge of limestone position, that location? MR. SIMONS: Okay. My understanding right now with the information I have from the owners is that typically we would be blasting about 18 feet below the ground surface of the stripped off area. So if you had natural ground, you have overburden removed, you have a new elevation down there that is dewatered, the drilling equipment would work on top of that elevation, and we would possibly be blasting up to another 18 feet below that. So in that 18- foot layer, there are -- I mean, that's the geology typically of Florida. And as I said, I managed a quarry on Immokalee Road, the Florida Rock Quarry that was eluded to earlier was another quarry before Florida Rock owned it. And we had the same geology there. Typically you'll put in a column of explosives. And the energy in the areas where there's rock is absorbed in the rock blasting. Areas Page 63 June 1, 2006 where there's void, it's not desirable to put explosives in there, but sometimes it's expedient to do that. So we will blast where the hard rock layers are. There might be some lenses of less consolidated area, but there will be rock above and below that. There's no sense to put explosives in anywhere where rock doesn't -- where something doesn't need to be fragmented. But if you have a lower layer of rock, a void of unconsolidated material and then another layer of rock, typically the explosives would go from the bottom layer to the top or within one foot or so of the top layer of rock. And there may be a void in between, but explosives would likely be placed in that area as well. In a cardboard tube of varying diameter, depending on desire to keep seismograph readings to a certain level, we could with a smaller diameter tube. Then that puts five pounds of explosives per running foot of a cardboard tube, or we could use a four-and-a-half-inch diameter tube, and that puts eight pounds of explosives. I may have said a foot ago and misspoke. So it's either five pounds per foot or eight pounds per foot. And a blaster has a choice of what diameter hole he wants to load explosives in, based on trying to comply with a vibration reading, a peak particle velocity of .5 inches per second. COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: But relative to the noise issue, how do the adjacent homeowners know that the blasting is being done as economically as possible relative to the number of blasts so that they are at minimum? MR. SIMONS: Well, first of all, the economic issue would seem to me to be, with all due respects, the owner's concern. I'm not sure I understood how that related to the homeowner's concern. But from my perspective, it's not good for me to anger the neighbors, whether it's ground vibration or noise. So we want to do everything in our power to minimize and stay well below. My typical goal is we try and stay about 50 percent of the county ordinance. The county ordinance Page 64 June 1, 2006 has such safety in it versus natural standards, and 50 years of data by the U.S. Bureau of Mines, that a .5 in the decibel reading is very, very safe not to damage property. We try and stay below that another 50 percent. COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: So it's economically advisable for the owner to limit the blasting as low as possible; is that correct? MR. SIMONS: Yes, sir. Because it's very expensive to do. COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: Thank you. MR. SIMONS: There's no sense to use any more explosives than minimally required to do the job. COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: Thank you. MR. SIMONS: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Any other questions of the blasting individual? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I have a few. MR. SIMONS: Thank you -- oh, you have a few, I'm sorry. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes, I've got a few. Have you done any blasting on this site to date? MR. SIMONS: I'm sorry, ask-- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Have you done any blasting on this site to date? MR. SIMONS: To date. Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You have? MR. SIMONS: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Did you get a permit for that? MR. SIMONS: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, that will be an interesting answer from staff as to how they can issue a permit when it was restricted. So I'll save that for staff. Overburden. MR. SIMONS: Yes, sir. Page 65 June 1, 2006 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: How much overburden do you generally need when you blast? MR. SIMONS: Actually, none. It generally helps, because the explosives, as they go off, the closer the explosives are to unconfined or unrestrained material, you get bigger fragmentation pieces. So what we typically try and do is keep the explosives at a level below the ground surface we're working on and we've drilled and an area where we don't have a noise problem and we don't have a fly rock problem. So overburden helps when it's there, but it's by no means necessary or mandatory. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Do you know of any county requirement that there be overburden present -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- when you blast? MR. SIMONS: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Do you know if there's any regulation as to the quantity of overburden present? MR. SIMONS: Two -- on the back of every one of our blast permits from the county, there's a standard that says if we approach a job site and overburden is not present, we need to alert the county and they'll come out and inspect the site. And then the county's greatest concern about whether overburden is there or not first of all has to do with safety, fly rock flying to hit something unintended, and noise. But as long as the blaster is aware there's no overburden, he certainly adjusts the blast plan to take that into consideration. So the county will allow blasting with no overburden in place, but not without their knowledge. They come out and inspect and the engineering department approves what we would intend to do. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The volume of your charges I know can vary. When you vary the volume of a charge, wouldn't you also have Page 66 June 1, 2006 to vary the pattern in which you have to place -- MR. SIMONS: Absolutely. I use about three-quarters of a pound of powder per cubic yard of rock. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And the closer to the pattern, that means the more holes you're going to have to shoot -- MR. SIMONS: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- and the more blasting you'll do, but it will be at a much lower volume. MR. SIMONS: Correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Your cost per acre I imagine varies depending on the number of holes you're shooting and the size of the charge you're using and the pattern that you're using. MR. SIMONS: Absolutely. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But would it be fair to say that a low volume charge at a close pattern will be a more expensive cost per acre than a high volume at a more scattered pattern? MR. SIMONS: Very much. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. And with a lower volume charge at a close pattern, the effects to the neighborhood would be minimized? MR. SIMONS: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. That's all the questions I have at this time. Ms. Caron? COMMISSIONER CARON: Yes. Since you've already done blasting on-site, do you have pre-blast surveys? MR. SIMONS: No, ma'am. The limited blasting we did a few years back -- and I don't even remember how many years, but it's not been in the last several -- the limited blasting we did out there, we used a packaged explosive, only breaking about eight or 10 foot of rock. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, any other questions? Page 67 June 1, 2006 (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Sir, thank you very much. MR. SIMONS: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Bill, I see you standing back there. You know where the question's going to go. I appreciate you being here today. MR. SPENCER: I'm Bill Spencer, I work with the Engineering Department for the County. To answer the question on blasting out there with a permit, I issued that permit in error. I wasn't aware of the no blasting requirement of the PUD. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, that's fair enough. MR. SPENCER: As soon as it was brought to my attention, I canceled the permit. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Do you think the applicant knew that they had a no blasting condition when they came in with a permit? MR. SPENCER: I'm not aware of that knowledge. But the blaster, ifhe had been aware of it, he would not have never (sic) applied for the permit. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I'd agree with you. MR. SPENCER: And he wasn't aware of it either. So he came and applied for it. I issued it in good faith, and as soon as it was brought to our attention, we canceled it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Appreciate your clarification. Thank you. Mr. Vigliotti? COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: When was the blasting done? MR. SPENCER: I think it was about three years ago. I don't have that information, but it was about three years ago. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: And how long did it go on; do you know? MR. SPENCER: I think it was about three or four blasts total. Page 68 June 1, 2006 They took out a year permit. What we have is a 30-day permit, a 90-day permit, a year permit. He applied for a year permit and paid for it, and he was going to blast for that year. But as soon as we was aware of it, it was about a month or so, then we were aware of the no blast and we canceled it at that point in time. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: How did you find out about the no blast? MR. SPENCER: It just come up through knowledge through the department. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: The county itself picked it up? MR. SPENCER: Yes. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Okay, thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Bill, one other question on the overburden. It's me. On the overburden. The larger quantity of overburden, would that act as a deterrent in the sound effects of a blast? MR. SPENCER: It depends on how the blaster loads. He can load for virtually no overburden, and he still stays within the ordinance of the blast, the noise that the blast makes. If there's overburden, he's allowed -- he'll change his load to stay within that. He can have a larger charge, more overburden, or he can have a larger charge. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. MR. SPENCER: Blast charge. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I appreciate it, thank you very much. MR. SPENCER: Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, Mr. Tyson, is that the end of your presentation? MR. TYSON: Yes, sir, that is the end. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. I have quite a series of questions. Some for staff but quite a bit for you. Now would be the appropriate time for me to start with mine but I want to make sure the rest of the Page 69 June 1, 2006 commission has an opportunity. Mr. Schiffer, then Mr. Kolflat. By the way, I'm noticing I'm looking right a lot today guys. COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: They get missed out all the time on the questions. COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: Go ahead. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Bruce, one quick thing. How far have you excavated so far then? You're -- are you within the 25 feet that the original -- MR. TYSON: Generally speaking, it's, you know, somewhere plus or minus down to -- I believe the permit said 20 feet. And I think it's above -- the rock is above that. It's 18 feet, plus or minus. It's getting close. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I think, Mark, you're going to probably cover them. I had a concern about that we don't have data below 40 feet, but let me let Mark review that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Kolflat? COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: Yeah. Well, regarding that, you have a permit for excavation at the moment. How deep does that permit go? MR. TYSON: To 20 feet. COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: Twenty feet? MR. TYSON: Correct. COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: Now, you'll have to get a permit then down to 60 feet. Will you amend that permit? MR. TYSON: Well, that's exactly what we're here to do. COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: To amend the permit? MR. TYSON: Well, we're at-- COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: Well, you'll need an excavation permit. MR. TYSON: They will get a new excavation permit after the Page 70 June 1, 2006 conditional use is approved to go to -- COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: That will require a boring report going down to 61 feet; you're aware of that? MR. TYSON: Whatever is required by the excavation permit, we will do. COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: And the LDC will require that. So you don't have that permit yet but you will come forward with that before -- MR. TYSON: Well, you can't get the permit until you have the COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: Right. MR. TYSON: -- approval from the board. COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: Now, can you on this map that we have in front of us identify the mining operation that is adjacent to developed residential right-of-way property that will have the new view obstructing screen of compatible native self-sustaining vegetation? That was in the report. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Kolflat, you need to bring that a little bit closer for your microphone. Thank you. COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: Yes. What I'd like you to do on the map in front of us here is to identify the portion of mining operation that is adjacent to developed residential and right-of-way property that you will have the view obstructing screen of compatible native self-sustaining vegetation. MR. TYSON: I need to understand where that is from. COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: Just a moment, I'll-- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I think -- you know the berm that you guys have already supposedly partially created? I don't -- MR. TYSON: Correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I haven't seen it, but I'm assuming it's there. You had mulch on it, you're now going to revegetate with vegetation. I think he's looking for the location of that berm. Page 71 June 1, 2006 MR. TYSON: Oh, okay, let me point that out. That berm, as required in the plan, was along the south line in that location, and then along the east line in this location. So that's where those berms have been constructed. COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: And that's where this screen will be put? That's where the screen will be? MR. TYSON: Yes. Well, I'm not sure about your -- I'm not exactly certain what you're reading from, so it's difficult for me to give you a specific answer. COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: Well, let me find it for you then. COMMISSIONER CARON: Exhibit D? Is that what you're looking at? COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: I think it was in the staff report. On Page 6 of the eight-page staff report. And the report states, the portion of the mining operation that is adjacent to developed residential property and right-of-way shall provide a view-obscuring screen composed of compatible native self-sustaining vegetation. That was a commitment in the staff report that I understood we -- MR. TYSON: I believe this ties directly to item number two in the conditions of approval, which request then a 20- foot wide type B buffer to be installed within six months of the conditional use, adj acent to residential structures. So my interpretation of that is that that will -- because the buffering requirements of a vegetative nature need to be along the property line, so that will then be -- where the residential structures exist will need to be placed a 20-foot wide type B buffer. And that will be in that location and in that location. We would assume that the thousand feet plus of distance between the residential structures and any mining operation to the south and to these portions to the -- you know, along the south line and along the east line will wind up being satisfactory to accommodate that B buffer. Page 72 June 1, 2006 COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: So those are the only portions to the south and the east that you contemplate doing that? MR. TYSON: According to what is worded here, yes. That's what I believe it is. That may be a better question for staff. COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: All right. Another question I had: In our staff report there's Exhibit D, which lists conditions of approval. Outside of the two that Bruce mentioned earlier, number one, I think, and number seven, do you comply with all the rest? Or will you comply with all the rest? Or do you have any argument about all the rest? MR. TYSON: No, all those are being -- with two, that's got to be one that needs to be done, and everything else is to be complied with. There's a second sentence in item three that, you know, it's like, you know, we're not going to do something that we're not allowed to do. COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: Right. Another question, what does the million dollars of insurance cover that you reference? MR. TYSON: I believe that's simply a matter of a liability policy or general insurance policy that any -- or the businesses need to have. It's a county requirement that blasters and contractors have that type of an insurance so that if there is a problem, that that insurance can cover the claim. COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: Is that a liability for the public or just for the owner's property? MR. TYSON: I'd have to look exactly what it is. Bill, are you aware of what that answer is? I'm not sure. MR. SIMONS: It's liability for the public. MR. TYSON: Liability for the public. COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: Thank you. Now, would you accept the stipulation that the blast will be Page 73 June 1, 2006 limited to six to eight per month and no more than three seconds in length? That was the stipulation you presented at the neighborhood information meeting. You said that -- MR. TYSON: Certainly the six to eight per month. But now, that has to be coupled with another question that came up. Because you heard Mr. Strain ask the question to Mr. Simons before about the positioning and the smaller blast field. So if there's less material in a zone to be blasted, then the number of blasts are going to increase. So the six to eight may have to be varied, depending upon other limitations that are placed upon the blaster as we go through this process. The three seconds, I need to yield to Mr. Simons about that. Typically I think that's accurate. COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: Well, my concern is that at the neighborhood information meeting this statement was made by your representatives, and I want to find out whether that stipulation could hold as far as a conditional use. MR. SIMONS: In a -- the closer you get to the perimeter where neighborhood property exists, the blasts will not cover the square area that they would more remote in the center of the project. So if I can work with the mine operators in a way that we still have a goal of not exceeding eight blasts per month, we'll need to do some close proximity blasting to -- at the same time we do the exterior blasting where there's less limitations and no likelihood of going over an ordinance. So it's a difficult question to answer, but typically I would think eight blasts a month should be more than sufficient. COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: Well, I'm only repeating what was in the neighborhood informational meeting. And this commitment was made, and I'm trying to ascertain whether you still stand by that commitment or whether you want to change that Page 74 June 1, 2006 commitment. Of three seconds duration. MR. SIMONS: Yeah, we should be able to make it work. COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: Thank you. MR. SIMONS: Yes, sir. COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: Then I have another one. Would you accept a stipulation that blasting will only occur Monday through Friday, no weekends, no holidays, and only between the hours of 9:00 to 4:00 p.m. MR. TYSON: Yes. COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: Next question: What type of notice and inspections will be given to surrounding property owners prior to the blasting? MR. TYSON : Well, I think from a standpoint of the pre-blast inspection that Mr. Simons already went through, that he will do an exterior inspection, photographs. That will be done. The frequency and the method by -- are you asking the way in which people get notified? COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: Yes. How do you intend to notify them? That commitment was also made at the informational meeting and that's why I want to find out. MR. SIMONS: The county formula for pre-blast surveys also has a mechanism attached to it that's called the 50 percent rule. So where pre-blast surveys are mandatory, whatever the formula is that calculates where those surveys must be done -- say for example it's 1,000 feet. The ordinance has a provision in it that says another 500 feet beyond that 1,000 feet where surveys must be done, notices must be given. So our vibrations consultant that does the pre-blast survey work would in fact hand out memos to additional residents that didn't receive a pre-blast survey, to alert them of blasting. It typically would give them a duration, a period of time when blasting would occur, and it gives them a little information about what to expect from the blast Page 75 June 1, 2006 itself. COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: Thank you very much. MR. SIMONS: Yes, sir. COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Bruce, is your -- well, your excavator, let's start there. Is the person who's going to be doing the excavating on the site or overseeing it here today? MR. TYSON: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Do you mind if we ask him some questions? MR. TYSON: Not at all. MR. JONES: My name is Ben Jones. My address is 430 San Juan Avenue, Naples. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Bet you thought you were going to sit there and not have to answer -- MR. JONES: I thought I was going to be an observer, yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I've got to ask you some things, Ben. I know you've got some big equipment on that site. Komatsu, one of your pieces? MR. JONES: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Reaches what, 35? MR. JONES: About 35, 37. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: What thickness can you rip with that? MR. JONES: Currently? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, let's say if you were to change the extended reach arm or anything like that, what's the maximum thickness you can rip with that machine? MR. JONES: Fifteen -- about 45 feet, roughly. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No, thickness of lime rock. You know, rippable (sic) material. MR. JONES: Oh, you mean if it were blasted and I could dig it? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No, ifit weren't blasted. What could Page 76 June 1, 2006 you rip with that machine without having to blast it? How thick of a layer could you rip with that machine without having to blast? Break it up. MR. JONES: That all depends on the hardness of it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. This is some pretty hard stuff you've got out there. MR. JONES: We have the top layer, which takes us down to our allowed depth that we have now. We're popping that off now. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. A few feet thick? MR. JONES: Two to three, something like that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: What I'm trying to get to is not all of the site has thick layers of hard limestone. Most of it is anywhere from two to five feet. You have a couple locations on the site that are thicker than five feet. MR. JONES: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And I'm trying to look at a way of minimizing the amount of blasting on that site by using my rippable -- using -- ripping the material instead of blasting it. If you've got an above standard piece of equipment, which you now have on that site, you might be able to rip a lot of this material without the need for blasting. MR. JONES: That's exactly what I took out there. I took a 248,000-pound machine, which is one of the largest in this area. I took -- it would normally carry an eight-yard bucket. I put a 3.5-yard ugly bucket, which looks like a claw, and it brings it up in school bus size blocks. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So again, I'm trying to -- I think there's a way to compromise on some of this today, and that is that you don't have as many areas that are real thick, hard limestone. You've got some. But based on the borings that were represented here today, the entire site isn't hard limestone and the entire site is not real thick hard limestone. And I'm trying to find out what it is you can mechanically Page 77 June 1, 2006 remove without having to go to the blasting. MR. JONES: I'm trying to find that out right now. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. MR. JONES: I've got that machine moving about now. Going by the soil borings that we had, I'm just driving around the perimeter, actually, trying to find those soft spots. Borings don't necessarily -- a 4- H boring doesn't necessarily tell you what the actual hardness is. So the only way you can tell is take that ugly bucket and scratch it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Thank you, sir. That's the only question I had on that particular issue. Does anybody else have any? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ben, thank you very much. MR. JONES: Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Bruce, back in '99, you all submitted a plan for this site. And a stipulation on the plan said -- or a note on the plan said lake excavation shall commence on the eastern shoreline and continue westward until the excavation is completed. Now, I imagine that was to the benefit of the neighborhood, getting out of the area as quickly as possible. Now, the evidence, from what I see, it looks like you've started on the western site, which means you're now moving east. Just out of curiosity, were you aware that this notation was on this document? MR. TYSON: No, I haven't been involved in this project. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Do you know why they wouldn't have wanted to stick to this document's -- MR. TYSON: The only thing I can think of is the fact that west was closer and that's where they started. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Do you have any objection from (sic) working from the east to the middle or to the west where you've left off and trying to get away from the residential area as quickly as Page 78 June 1, 2006 possible? MR. TYSON: Well, I even think that's exactly what Mr. Simons was indicating. The point was that when you start to do this blasting, you just don't want to start on an edge condition, you want to start somewhere in the middle and you want to figure out exactly what the nature of the rock is and what's going to happen. So as a matter of fact, I'm not sure which is better. I'd just as soon, I think if I were a resident, to get close to me and get away from me as fast as you can versus work your way toward me. That's -- you know, quite frankly, that's the way I'd look at it. We can put up whatever buffers we've talked about, but over time they should be as effective and, you know, get in, do what you need to do and get away. And the other fact is that we're three times at this point the distance from -- in terms of blasting, basically from any structure that is allowed by the county with this pit. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. MR. TYSON: Meaning 350 feet to the closest one right now, about 1,070 feet. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I'm trying to see if I have anymore questions of you, or if the rest are going to be of staff. The rest are of staff. MR. TYSON: Okay, thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody else? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Just maybe one. Bruce, in the original thing there's a requirement that if you wanted to go deeper, you could get that approval through the hearing with the EAC and then ultimately the BCC. Has there ever been a hearing about going deeper with the EAC? MR. TYSON: No. But the problem is we had to get rid of the no blast. And just the -- just so that you're aware, the EAC and the environmental staff indicated that there was no need to come back to them if we were staying within the confines of the original permit. Page 79 June 1, 2006 COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Other than this condition, maybe. I mean, there is a condition that you go to the EAC if you're going deeper. But the staff said -- MR. TYSON: But we're going back for a whole new permit. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Which would remove that condition. Okay, thanks. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: May I? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Go ahead, Mr. Murray. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: It just -- it provoked a question in my mind. You're going back for a whole new permit but you're going to have an enlarged site. Will the permit cover the two sites then, or will they be conjoined? MR. TYSON: Two separate permits. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Mark, can I ask you a question real quick? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Sure. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: When we do approve this conditional use, will it vacate the other conditional use? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I believe, but we'll ask Margie. That's more Margie than me, but -- MS. STUDENT-STIRLING: I -- can I ask Ray that question? Because as I understand it -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Gets passed around here. MS. STUDENT-STIRLING: Now, this was coming back in, they're in the same land area, but it was coming back in to allow the excavation, where the other one was just doing earth mining; is that correct? And I think the other question I have, and I'm not privy to the old -- it's not in my packet for some reason, the other conditional use from 1999. But was there not a condition in there that they would have to Page 80 June 1, 2006 come back for re- review? MR. BELLOWS: Yes. MS. STUDENT-STIRLING: So correct me if I'm wrong, my understanding is this is the re-review which would be the continuation of the earth mining, as well as picking up the blasting activity and going deeper. So I think it's -- and was it your intent that this replaces the 1999 one? MR. BELLOWS: I'm reading over the resolution, and it doesn't say it's repealing. And I think that's the intent. This was a -- MS. STUDENT-STIRLING: Well, we don't usually repeal resolutions. They're superseded. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, Margie-- MS. STUDENT-STIRLING: So I believe the language is broad enough in the existing resolution that it would -- that it does supersede the prior resolution because it allows for earth mining and related activities with these additions to it. That's what my take on it -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Margie, the original conditions of approval of the CU contain several pages of very intense limitations and stipulations, none of them involving traffic, reports and studies that had to be submitted and items that would be ongoing on this site, whether it went on for five years or 20 years. I can't see why we would want to take those away from the site and rely strictly on the staffs recommendations today, because they're far less comprehensive as the ones that were imposed earlier. So I would think we would look at both of them with the exception of if this blasting issue is resolved today, the only one then that wouldn't apply from '99 would be the blasting. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Right. MS. STUDENT-STIRLING: Well, I can tell you that conditional uses do -- once they're up and running, so to speak, they do go on until they stop. So the argument could be made that this Page 81 June 1, 2006 additional resolution augments the '99 resolution. And perhaps there should be a stipulation added to it that it in fact does that, together with all its exhibits. And I think that would work as well. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Now, hearing no other comments at this time from the applicant, let's move on to the staff report. MS. ZONE: Again, for the record, Melissa Zone with Collier County. We're here to -- the applicant's here for the conditional use to allow blasting in the permitted boundary of the old 99-16 conditional use. Right here in front of you, you have a location map where it shows the project location is. It is within the county limits. It's an aerial that we've been looking at all day. And I'm going to move through some of these quite quickly. You've seen the zoning map from the applicant. During the 99-16 conditional use, there were some proj ect contributions. The northbound right-turn lane at the entrance, as well as the southbound left-turn lane at the entrance. There were warning signs placed at about 200 feet before the entrance, and flashing traffic signals at the intersection of the project entrance at Immokalee Road. This picture here, as you will see, you have the warning sign that's 200 feet -- approximately 200 feet from the entrance. Where the arrow is there is the entrance to the proj ect. Not only are those the flashing lights, but these are the turn lanes, and they are going northbound as well as southbound on there. Just a closer view of the intersection. Typical traffic. I was out there. Cars and trucks. Here's the entrance itself. The typical truck that I saw out there. These signs -- and unfortunately they didn't come up as clear, but, I mean, it not only tells you it's Jones Mining Pit, but where that trailer is, the sign is warning you that everyone has to check in. So Page 82 June 1, 2006 it's not as easy to access this site. The machines that you were talking about earlier this morning -- and I wanted to come up and say I have the photos of them. But here they were told to me are the excavators, as well as the picker that's breaking up the rock at the moment. This is what they're limited to at the moment. Because of the -- they've hit limerock at a much higher level than they had thought it was. This is -- this machine, which is breaking up the rock, is probably what I think a lot of our residents are hearing a lot, the breaking up of these boulders. And not that it would stop, but it would definitely be limited once blasting can be permitted. Because what it's doing is they cannot break up these rocks, put them into the machine to -- or not the machine but the excavator to haul them out. So you have to break them up in little pieces. So unfortunately it's a sound that is -- I think would be taxing to hearing it so much. Blasting will help limit that constant breaking up of the rock. These are the boulders that are currently coming up across. And they're quite large. I mean, they're definitely easy six to eight cubic feet in size. And I wanted to show you, we have one of our engineers there, and Steve is six-foot three, and showing you the -- you know, his height to these boulders, just to give you a visual of the size. I mean, they're as tall as he is and in all directions. What you see now towards the back here are the residents. I'm guessing, without actually surveying, probably about 1,100 feet. But this is the rooftops here. And this is the property that you see along the east side. This is the -- which should have been but now they're starting to put in place is the barrier. And I've been assured that they're going to be spraying it, putting sod up on there. But they have started to construct it. And in fact, this rooftop here is Mr. Kolflat's, and he's here today. Page 83 June 1, 2006 And I just wanted you to see like the -- this being the barrier that they're starting to construct and the distance from his house. There is a fence. It's hard to tell in this picture, but there's a fence as well here. To give you the size of -- I zoomed in so that you could see the size of the barrier along with the truck, to give you a good idea or indication. Of course it's not completed, and again, they're going to be surfacing that with plant material. The layout of the mining property. And as we know, this being Immokalee Road. This is the current boundary, and this is where they're doing the excavation and wanting the blasting permit. This border right in here is an island. It's about 17 acres of cypress that is to be considered preserves. So once they're finished with excavating in this lake area -- lake boundary is how they depict it -- this island will stay there always as preserves. The entrance to the mine is right here on Immokalee Road. So there's that dirt road that brings you into the site. This is the island that is starting to form. It's the cypress. You can see sort of how they have bermed it up along here in the cypress. So that -- the pictures don't show it as well, but for a mining site, that was definitely very pleasing to me to see something visual, visually nIce. And you can see in the process now just with the water levels as it's moving along what the intent will be. That's it. You know, this is a permitted use in the rural fringe mixed use district. It's surrounded by agricultural and low density housing. And two sides of the property, the south and the east, have canals, and then Immokalee Road to the west. It's not only permitted through the growth management plan, this is where the county -- this is an area where the county itself has designated is appropriate for mining. The county has become more stringent and is not allowing as many mining operations out there as Page 84 June 1, 2006 there used to be, and so the quality of the mining and the amount of mining that's needed, we become more limited. And to stop this operation, I'm wondering at what point would we be harming our county. Because at some point we might actually have to pick up and start something else. The one thing that I noticed, and I was going there not thinking I would be as impressed, is how clean of an operation it was when I went to the site. And just how the trucks, when they go on the site, they pick up the fill, they're not standing there idling. They go -- Stan took me on tour, and I appreciate that, because he keeps the trucks moving so you don't hear the idling of the diesel trucks. They take a couple of buckets, they move on, go to the next spot. So it's actually a very high productive operation. Not only does the growth management plan allow this -- or encourage -- not encourage but designate the rural fringe area as an appropriate place for mining, but the LDC has regulations, one of them being that they have to come in for a conditional use and get approved. Within that, they also put our excavation, mining and blasting regulations. And there's an ordinance and it's very stringent that gets attached to this conditional use. So there are different levels throughout the counties when they review it to make sure that everything is appropriate and complaint. And this application has met those regulations, as well as all the commitments. If there's any questions that I can help you with? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, your narrative certainly is interesting. Is there any questions from the planning commission? Mr. Vigliotti? COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Melissa, you said the equipment there right now is very noisy and it will reduce the need for Page 85 June 1, 2006 that equipment when we blast? MS. ZONE: Well, very noisy. I mean, for an island -- mining operation, I have to say, it wasn't as noisy as what I was expecting. I sure went in with my arms crossed and scouring. But hearing that picker, it was loud. I mean, is it loud -- it's no louder than when I'm driving down 75 and hearing a bunch of trucks running alongside me. That's a much louder, roaring sound. But the blasting will allow that picking to be reduced at a considerable -- it still probably will be needed, but nowhere at the intensity that's what's happening now. The blasting and -- I'm sure most of you are aware of, is an underground blast, and so it's a rippling sound, as opposed to above the ground where that sound gets carried. So I felt that knowing that the blasting, though it's occurring, having that picking sound constantly going at you, it would upset me. And so I -- it definitely supports having blasting having to not have that as much. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Does that picker run five days a week? MS. ZONE: You know, I don't know how often it works. Five days a week, I'm getting nodded. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Five days a week. MS. ZONE: It's five days a week but it's not 24 hours. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Eight hours a day. Normal work day? MS. ZONE: Normal work day. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: That could be annoying. Okay. MS. ZONE: Exactly. So, I mean, the fact that it could be limited more than half of that noise in itself I think is helpful. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Any other -- Mr. Kolflat, then Mr. Page 86 June 1, 2006 Murray. COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: Melissa? MS. ZONE: Yeah. COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: During my questioning of the petitioner, I mentioned three stipulations that I asked if they would be willing to incorporate -- MS. ZONE: Right. COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: -- and they acknowledged they would in all three. MS. ZONE: Right. And I'm going to -- and as you probably know from the past, is kind of draft something, send it out to the board, hope all of you say yes, this is what we wanted and incorporate that in. COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: You'd have no objection to incorporating those three in your list of conditions? MS. ZONE: I don't have any objection. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Melissa, before you do that, though, would you check, if they're already part of an ordinance that's required anyway -- MS. ZONE: Then I wouldn't -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- we would need to restipulate it. MS. ZONE: Certainly. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Some of those, from when I heard your question, seemed to be already spelled out, notification and all the rest of it, in our ordinance. MS. ZONE: It is. It's in our ordinance. If there's anything that exceeds -- and I'll make it a point so that you can see that. I'll work with the applicants to make sure that those are all incorporated. And if it is part of our ordinance, then there's no need to be redundant. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Murray? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Yeah, Melissa, in your advocation of this, you indicated that you thought the picker would be Page 87 June 1, 2006 used perhaps as little as 50 percent of the time. How do you come to know that? MS. ZONE: Well, you know, obviously I'm not an excavation expert, and you wouldn't want to take -- but I do know from the size of the boulders that I showed you on the slide, that's what that picker is doing is breaking them up. Because right now you can't -- the machines can't pick them up in their barrel. There's no way that bucket could hold how many tons one boulder itself is. So you have to break it up to be able to, you know, move it and place it. So just knowing that from speaking with our county engineering staff, speaking with Stan, who is part of this mining, that they felt that -- not they felt, but that it would be less because the mining -- or the blasting reduces these large boulders. But I'm not making it probably as technical as you would want to hear it. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Well, no, it's not a question of that. In terms of qualification of it or how we could even evaluate that or qualify it, there is no way that I could conceive of -- we wouldn't dare put a stipulation you could only use it for four hours in the morning, that type of thing. MS. ZONE: Right. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: So the use of the machine will be there as a needed -- MS. ZONE: Correct. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: -- requirement. And so I also realize from my knowledge that when they do use the blasting, they will still have some fairly large fragments, and they will continue to use that operation, I'm quite sure. You know, I think it would be more appropriate for us to be open about it and suggest that two types of noise will continue to exist and not try to mask it in any way or try create the impression that there's some kind of benefit to it. Page 88 June 1, 2006 MS. ZONE: You're absolutely right. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ms. Caron, then Mr. Schiffer. COMMISSIONER CARON: Melissa, at the neighborhood information meeting, they were talking about excavating to 35 to 40 feet, and now they're proposing 60 feet. How did we get from -- MS. ZONE: No, Commissioner, how that was stated was the residents stated they didn't want them to go -- the requested they could limit them to 35. The application asked for 60 feet or the confining layer. At the neighborhood information meeting, you know, it was mentioned that they can't guarantee that they could only go to 35 feet. But with county ordinance, with the blasting that -- the perception of it going more than 60 was not going to be. But that wasn't agreed on. It was -- those bullets again were just comments that I felt, you know, needed to be put in that were concerns of the residents. COMMISSIONER CARON: Okay. How many actual residences are involved? MS. ZONE: How many residents? Structures, you mean? COMMISSIONER CARON: Yeah, how many structures are actually around the east and south? MS. ZONE: You know, unfortunately, I'm sorry to say, I didn't actually go out and count the houses, personally. There were about 18 people, 18 to 20 people who were there. But there are a lot of homes all long down those streets. But I didn't count the structures themselves. COMMISSIONER CARON: Okay. Noise levels within Collier County, if you look at the GeoSonics letter, it says noise levels within Collier County are based upon the receiving land use. Specifically for this location noise is limited to 60 d.b.a. for residential properties for time periods of7:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m. and 55 d.b.a. for periods from 10:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m. And Page 89 June 1, 2006 they're following within those guidelines certainly now. MS. ZONE: Right. COMMISSIONER CARON: Once they start blasting, we're hearing 133. MS. ZONE: Right. That 133 is a different level, from what I was explained, as opposed to the decibels. And I'm not very -- I don't know, Rory, we keep pointing back there, but he would be the one to explain that more, because I'd hate to botch that answer. Bill Spencer probably as well, who monitors the sound levels as well. Because they have to adhere to what we have as our -- per our ordinance. MR. SIMONS: I'm not real sure of the -- COMMISSIONER CARON: Thanks for explaining. MR. SIMONS: Oh, I'm sorry, Rory Simons again for the record. I'm not real sure of the 55 or the other d.b.a. D.B is the definition -- is abbreviation for a decibel. And the decibel recording would be for a moment in time typically a couple of seconds during the blast itself. I'm not sure about the other information. I don't know what it is, I haven't seen it, I'm not aware of it, and so I don't know what people are trying to compare one thing to another. It may have to do with frequency or hertz. But again, you're asking me a question I don't understand the data or the different information reported to you that you're reading from. COMMISSIONER CARON: No, it's strictly decibels here. Decibels against decibels in the neighborhood information meeting. The decibel level of 133 maximum is stated. And specifically what I read, it says specifically for this location, noise is limited to. And then there are hours and decibel levels. MR. SIMONS: I've got to admit, I'm at a real disadvantage, because I don't know what this is specifically limited to. I don't know if that was a study GeoSonics did that checked ambient decibel Page 90 June 1, 2006 readings with no blasting or no equipment running. I've heard different things. But I'm just not in a great position to answer. COMMISSIONER CARON: Well, it says here noise levels within Collier County. So-- MS. MASON: Excuse me, I think I can explain this. For the record, my name is Susan Mason. I'm with Collier County Environmental Services. I used to work in code enforcement and was talking with some of their noise people over there. There's two different ordinances that have to do with decibel levels. Apparently there's the blasting ordinance which is the 133 -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: If you could just slow down your discussion just a little bit. MS. MASON: I'm sorry. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Her fingers are moving way too fast. MS. MASON: Sorry, I tend to talk too rapidly. The blasting ordinance has the 133. And for more specifics on that, you should speak with the engineers. But the general noise ordinance that covers all the areas of the county does have different rates. It's that 55, I believe, at night for residential and 60 during the day. And that has to do with sounds that take place over an average of a one-minute time frame. So these types of short bursts of sound wouldn't qualify as violations of that noise ordinance. And I believe in their report they're referring to the regular noise ordinance and not the blasting. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you, Susan. Mr. Schiffer, did you have a question? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Yeah. And maybe Susan, I'm concerned why we didn't send this to the EAC going down to the 60 feet in depth. Are you comfortable with that? I mean, obviously I know we're not going to change the surface, but we are going down deeper. The prior condition required it visiting the EAC. Page 91 June 1, 2006 MS. MASON: I didn't know about that prior condition for increasing the depth to have it go back to the EAC. There is an EIS currently under review for the expansion of the mine. And we did seek technical assistance from the wildlife agencies about blasting and how it would affect any of the listed species in the area. And since it was staying in the same footprint and there were no additional wetland impacts or wildlife impacts, we didn't think it needed to go to the board. I don't know if the engineering department thought it should have as part of the stormwater management. But as far as the environmental parts of it, I didn't -- it did not trigger it for our review. I did want to clarify one thing about what Melissa was saying about that cypress head that's in the center of that. That is being preserved as part of the requirements of their South Florida Water Management District permit that's not a county preserve, and that's not any of the preserves that we would accept as part of our ranking requirements in the growth management plan when they are coming in for that additional conditional use which you'll hear about later. The preserve is selections will be part of that. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Before you leave, Susan, you are with the environmental department, right? MS. MASON: Yes. Environmental services. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That cypress head, I did have a question that I was going to ask Melissa, but since you're up here, it's probably better for you. You answered part of my question, that the county's not accepting as a preserve, and I would assume then that's because the hydrology can't be retained or there surrounding the cypress head is all going to be excavated as a lake. MS. MASON: Right. It won't be -- it's not capable of being part of a larger contiguous area. And there -- I haven't looked at that Page 92 June 1, 2006 petition too recently. I think it's right around 140 acres of preserve that's required, and we need to go with a listed species habitat that's on site first, which would be that area -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, that's not so much the concern of this particular portion. MS. MASON: Right, it's -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But back to that cypress head, I notice that in the photograph we saw from Melissa, there looked to be a berm being created around it. Would there be potential for the hydrology to be stabilized because of that berm? MS. MASON: I'm not as familiar with how those -- I know that they do require the berming to go around it to maintain hydrology, and one of the requirements of the district permit, as far as our environmental reviews go, is they have to demonstrate that they're going to improve or at least not damage the hydrology in any of the wetlands that are to be preserved. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. N ow we're on questions for staff. Does anybody else have any questions of Melissa? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Just a couple real quick. Melissa, the -- there's a couple of conditions in the old thing. Are they not in there because they're in the code? For example, there's the 10 percent littoral zone around the perimeter; is that -- MS. ZONE: Right. That's part of the code. They have to do that. Most of those were a part of the ordinance and the regulations then. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And maybe Margie could listen to this. Is there any way they could interpret that they don't have to do that because we didn't put it in the second version of the conditional use? MS. ZONE: I would defer to our legal staff on that. MS. STUDENT-STIRLING: Thank you. I think we probably Page 93 June 1, 2006 need to amend the proposed resolution for this petition and state that it is an augmentation of the prior resolution. And the prior resolution, together with its stipulations, remains in full force and effect. If you could make a note of that. MS. ZONE: Absolutely. I also wanted to note the applicants pointed it out, that to get the permit that they still have to come in front of the EAC and be heard to go to the deeper depth, so -- for the excavation. So for the conditional use, they didn't need it. But when they go before for the permit, they will be in front of the EAC to go to excavate it, if it's 60 or the confining layer. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Any other questions? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: If not, Melissa, I have a few. MS. ZONE: Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I was going to try to make sure I don't reask the ones that have already been answered. As far as the -- I have a question of actually the applicants again, maybe the excavator, Mr. Jones, since he's the one actually doing the work out there. So if you don't mind me bypassing you for just a second. MS. ZONE: I will say, though, when I was out there, that he was out on the machines himself, as opposed to having staff. I found that . . very ImpressIve. MR. JONES: Ben Jones again. Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ben, are you bringing a drag line in? MR. JONES: No, I don't plan on bringing the drag line in. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Then you can't get to 60 feet, right? MR. JONES: I can get as deep as I need to go with hydraulics. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. But, I mean, your excavators got a maximum reach of 35,40 feet? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Thirty-seven. Page 94 June 1, 2006 MR. JONES: This one does. I can put extensions on it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. And how far will you go with the extension? MR. JONES: Without checking the specs on it, I think I should be able to go about 50 feet. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, thank you. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Wait, one second. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I'm sorry, Ben, Mr. Murray has a question. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Sir, just to qualify. If you put the extension on, the bucket has to be smaller, no? You can't pull as much up, your reach is too great. MR. JONES: Well, I plan on putting a nine-yard bucket on these machines. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Even with an extension? MR. JONES: With an extension, again the specs will probably call for a reduction in size or adding counterweight. . COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Okay. So that means that you'll be operating more intensively. MR. JONES: Yes. And I can also lower the water a little bit more -- COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Which will help you. MR. JONES: -- and sit down another layer or two, if I needed to. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Okay. But for the reach, the bucket has to get smaller. MR. JONES: Yes. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Melissa, we've heard comments earlier that there's pumps operating there 24/7 for dewatering? MS. ZONE: Right. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The operations, allowable operation-- or operating time, are pumps part of the operation? Page 95 June 1, 2006 MS. ZONE: Well, there are water pumps, and they were not -- when I was on the site, they weren't going. I mean, they were done. And as it was explained to me, that if they're at a location and they're excavating them, the pumps come on to extract that water to another location on their site. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. MS. ZONE: The 24/7, I didn't go out there at different times in the night. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Let me ask the question differently then. MS. ZONE: Please. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Does the ordinance that we have for operation of excavations allow for pumps to be operated beyond the times of the operations stated in the ordinance? Which I think is early in the morning, 6:00 to 7:00 or something like that. MS. ZONE: Right. If you give me a second, I want to look at the ordinance. But I don't know if Mr. Spencer-- MR. SPENCER: The ordinance allows it. MS. ZONE: The ordinance does allow it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Does the ordinance allow trucks to arrive at 5:30 in the morning? MS. ZONE: No. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No. So the testimony we had about trucks being there lining up at 5:30 in the morning to 6:00, which obviously they're very noisy; they're noisy when they start up in the neighborhoods when they leave their homes in Golden Gate Estates. So those trucks are not to be lining up at that early in the morning, or how does the ordinance address that kind of an issue? MS. ZONE: Mr. Spencer? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Why don't we have Mr. Spencer come up and address -- MS. ZONE: I appreciate it. They had a crash course in excavation. Page 96 June 1, 2006 MR. SPENCER: I'm Bill Spencer with the Collier County Engineering Department. I'm not an expert at that ordinance, but the way I understand it, and the legal assistant probably can explain it probably better than I can. We addressed that at an earlier date on problems we've had out in Golden Gate Estates on other mining operations with trucks lining up. And they do line up 5:00 in the morning. Whether they're allowed to run or not, I'm not sure. She would have to answer that question. MS. STUDENT-STIRLING: I'm not familiar with that ordinance. I would have to defer to either the appropriate staff or -- I just simply don't handle and haven't handled excavation. I can -- MR. SPENCER: They were -- I'm sorry. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Bill, go ahead. MR. SPENCER: That was addressed at an earlier -- around Orangetree about the truck noise, and I wasn't part of that investigation. But the way I understand it, there was nothing against the ordinance that didn't allow the trucks to be there. So-- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, by there, I'm assuming they line up on the property -- MR. SPENCER: But they can't start loading until the time is allowed to load. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So by being there, though, that means they're lining up on the property, I would assume, because -- MR. SPENCER: Right. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- they're certainly not lining up on Immokalee Road. MR. SPENCER: Right. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So they enter the property prior to the hours of operation, and then -- MR. SPENCER: But they're not allowed to load. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. But loading isn't anymore noisya Page 97 June 1, 2006 than them standing there. MR. SPENCER: I agree. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I mean, I-- MR. SPENCER: Again, I'm not privy to that information. But to answer your question on lining up, there was no -- nothing found that prevented them from lining up. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Do you know how their other fill pits in the county are regulated in regards to that issue? Do they all line up early, or do they all-- is there any regulation done or anybody in the county that oversees these other sites? I know there's other fill pits. MR. SPENCER: I think code enforcement oversees that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Do you know if there's any issue lining up -- that they do line up, or do you know anything about the procedure in the morning prior to the operating time? Have you ever had any experience with that? MR. SPENCER: The way I understand it was handled around Orangetree, I don't know what the outcome of that was, though, I apologize -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, no-- MR. SPENCER: -- for not knowing. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- I was just hoping that if you had the information, it would be helpful. But if you don't, I understand. MR. SPENCER: No, I'm not. I just know that they were -- there was nothing against them lining up that early in the morning. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: There's a significant impact, depending on whether material is mechanically removed or blasted first. If something -- if a limerock shelf is rippable by mechanical -- by machine, do you have any way of in your department determining that? So if someone comes in for a blasting permit and the blasting permit had a stipulation that it would only be used where the materials could not be ripped by mechanically removed, would you have any way of monitoring something like that? Page 98 June 1, 2006 MR. SPENCER: No, sir. No, sir. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, thanks, Bill. Any other questions of Bill? MS. ZONE: To follow up, Commissioner, I also, when reviewing this, went in and looked to see if there were any code violations or complaints for this operation and found none. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Melissa, on your staff report, Page 6 of eight, the fourth paragraph, it was interesting because I've lived here a long time and I've not understood this to be the reason. It says, once the mining has concluded, a lake will be formed. MS. ZONE: Yeah. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Lakes are necessary in the south Florida region to control floods. Actually, you know, flooding is a result of people filling property and pushing the water elsewhere, so I'm not sure lakes control the floods. MS. ZONE: Well, they don't necessary -- what they're doing is help to alleviate the flooding by having the lakes there. Because we have, you know, an anomaly, we live on a peninsula that is wetland, and the fact that we fill -- the simple fact of bringing back another lake that was here at one time is looked upon favorably as opposed to having all hard land. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I'm not sure I agree with you on all that, but I just -- MS. ZONE: I understand. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: It's an interesting statement, as has been your narrative today. On your application for public hearing for conditional use, the top of it's not filled in. There is no date. How long has this been in the works? MS. ZONE: For the application? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: It says date petitioner received, and it's Page 99 June 1, 2006 blank. MS. ZONE: Okay, that was -- yeah, I have to go back to my meeting. Well, actually -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I mean, there's a stamp on the top that says 5-8-06. MS. ZONE: Right, but that wasn't when they came in and applied for this. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. So does it tell when they came in? Just out of curiosity. I'm not used to seeing these blank, so -- MS. ZONE: Right. And, you know, the -- do you have our pre-application notes with you? MR. TYSON: I'm getting them. MS. ZONE: So that-- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So you don't know when it came in. Were you the planner that started this? MS. ZONE: Yes, absolutely. Oh, thank you. May 2nd. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Of what year? MS. ZONE: Of2006. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: This application came in on May 2nd of 2006? MS. ZONE: Correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And it took a year before this -- MS. ZONE: Well, actually it came in -- it was a week prior to, and then we modified some stuff per environmental and traffic. So then we went with the notes of May 2nd, because we changed some of the pre-application notes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Melissa. MS. ZONE: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: How in the world did a project get in one month's time to this board? That's unheard of in Collier County. MS. ZONE: We went through the reviews. Everyone signed off. Page 100 June 1, 2006 Once they were signed off, I followed the procedures of taking it to the board hearing. When someone comes in and they apply, we -- the county gives them a time that could be met. If the application is found complete, then we can come back and have the time heard sooner. Or if it's not complete, then the hearing dates then are pushed back. And it's determined on the application itself. MR. BELLOWS: In addition -- for the record, Ray Bellows. This petition is not a freestanding earth mining conditional use. It is going in conjunction with the one that's currently in effect. It's only dealing with the ability to allow blasting, and that's why it was a shorter review response in that regard. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Not only a shorter review, but you've actually got it scheduled before the public boards and everything in a much abbreviated time frame than what we usually -- MR. BELLOWS: This is identified as a need to be brought to the county commissioners as soon as possible. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I think every developer who's got a home out there thinks they have a need, too. Interesting. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Mark, can I ask a question? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah, go ahead. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Ray, in the condition three it states that -- and I don't know why this is in there anyway, but it's AR6904. In other words, is this a spin-off of another conditional use, or -- so essentially you just decided to grab this topic and run faster with it. MR. BELLOWS: There is an existing conditional use under review, and this would take much longer for that petition to get through, because it's expanding the excavation area. That is still under review. That's why we decided to go with this interim conditional use or middle conditional use as a phase, just to address the blasting issue. And that's why it was able to get to the board as quickly as it has. Page 101 June 1, 2006 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's fair. MR. ANDERSON: If I could answer that. The original conditional use application for the larger expanded area was filed in December of2004. The review process has been dragging out and dragging out. There's a need for the fill. So a decision was made to split the application into two parts and to deal with just the existing approved excavation area and separately allow it to proceed on its own time table the larger expanded area. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. Any other questions of staff at this time? Any staff members. (N 0 response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I do have one of transportation. I don't recognize the gentleman, so I wasn't sure they were here. So we have a new transportation person today. Good. MR. TINDALL: Hello. For the record, Phil Tindall from the Transportation Planning Department. Mr. Scott had to attend another meeting, so I'm here for him. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Actually, he probably slid out and was grateful for it. I have one question. I notice in the photographs that were supplied there's a lengthy decellane southbound making a left turn into this property, and there's a lengthy northbound lane making a right turn into the property. Traffic traveling on that section of Immokalee Road moves pretty fast. I do so myself along there. As you approach these trucks when they make a left coming out of there, because most of them will be making lefts heading towards the coast rather than towards Immokalee, getting up behind one of these large trucks that are just pulling into that fast lane is sometimes a dangerous situation. Do you have any suggestions on how there could be an addition to that lane in front? Since this project, if it is approved, would go on for a quite lengthy amount of time, more than anticipated. It's going to Page 102 June 1, 2006 have a Phase 22 that mayor may not get approved. Those trucks making that left and trying to head south pose a probably concerning problem to fast-moving traffic. Is there some traffic solution that could be suggested for that? MR. TINDALL: I can go back and talk to our traffic operations staff and see about some warning signage. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I'm not so much worried about that. But what if you were to widen the asphalt and actually put an acceleration lane in the median, so that when the trucks first pull into that roadway they're hitting that acceleration lane and then any traffic has a way to get around them while they're accelerating up to speed, at least up to a substantial speed. Does that sound like a reasonable thing, or has it been done before in the county? MR. TINDALL: Probably so. We can take that into consideration and study it. Is this something that would be an issue affecting your decision today, or is it something we could just make a commitment to pursue, if feasible? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I know Jeff Perry's here. Maybe I'll ask him what he thinks, since he's very familiar with the site as well. Thank you. MR. PERRY: Again, for the record, Jeff Perry from Wilson-Miller. That kind of acceleration lane -- typically an acceleration lane is constructed on the right-hand side of existing through lanes. The driver's expectation is, you know, if you're in that acceleration lane you have to turn around and look over your shoulder to try to see the oncoming cars as to whether or not you could actually get into the through lane. If you had a truck pulling into what would be in essence the fast lane, if you will, if you're talking about multi -laning that section so that southbound trucks coming out of there coming into -- would Page 103 June 1, 2006 come into two lanes, they would actually be in the fast lane. Your southbound vehicles in the through lane would actually be in the right-hand lane, and you'd have those trucks actually looking out the right-hand side trying to determine whether or not they could pull over into that lane. It doesn't seem like a very operationally safe kind of movement. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, then what's the suggestion? Because, I mean, this is a long -- going to be a long-term issue in that area. And so the trucks pulling into a fast lane of traffic like this is -- creates a real dangerous situation. And you're actually using a lot more trucks than were ever anticipated in this location. So what's the suggestion? MR. PERRY: Well, the suggestion at the time, and I believe the appropriate operational suggestions were to have yellow flashing lights, warning signs that you have a mine entrance ahead. The deceleration lane, southbound decellanes sort of takes the moving trucks out of the mix. The southbound vehicles would continue on around them. The driver's expectation is hopefully if they see warning signs and they see yellow flashing lights, like any other kind of intersection you would take care as you're traveling into or through that intersection. Likewise, vehicles exiting, trucks exiting the mining site are looking northbound to see if there's oncoming vehicles that they're going to have to compete with. We would hope again the driver expectation would sort of lend itself to the safety issue that the truck driver doesn't want to get into an accident, he's going to wait for there to be an adequate gap. I don't know that any physical improvement could be suggested. We can certainly sit down with traffic ops and see if they have some sort of suggestion like that. But certainly what has been done is what would be operationally safe. Page 104 June 1, 2006 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: What about dual southbound lanes both approaching and leaving that area, so when the trucks pull in they obviously can see they're making a left turn, they can get over into the right lane while they're accelerating. And I've traveled the country over the mountain roads periodically and I know there are truck lanes on those roads, and that's exactly what happens there, the trucks pull over to the right, the traffic moving faster passes them because they have to slow down because of the climb. Similar situation here, would that help? MR. PERRY: From a dual southbound lanes from the entrance to the south? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, approaching the entrance of that -- someone coming down that Immokalee Road at a high speed and start to see they need to move over because there's a truck waiting, or the truck can get over and they can bypass the truck. And then as you hit the intersection, dual southbound lanes for a length of time that it would take for a truck, if he were to be able to pull in the lanes, he'd have the option of pulling over into the far right lane and letting the traffic pass as he accelerates. Is that -- would that help? MR. PERRY: If I were heading southbound in that travel lane, I would be worried about which lane that truck was going to be moving into. I would be very concerned about creating an unsafe condition. If there is an operational solution there, we can certainly look into -- check with traffic ops and see if they have a problem. But with every solution, you have to look and make sure that you're not creating some other unsafe condition. And I just can't tell you right now whether or not that would be a proper solution. Maybe separating the lanes physically would be some sort of opportunity, but I would be very concerned about the truck, trying to figure out which direction, which lane that exiting truck was going to get into, whether he was going to be moving into the far right-hand lane or whether he was going to stay in the what we would call the Page 105 June 1, 2006 inside lane next to the gored-out median. And if I were traveling through there, I think that would be my concern at the time. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I mean, it doesn't sound any different than any truck making a left-hand turn on a lane -- MR. PERRY: Or any other intersection, for that matter. So that you have approaching vehicles approaching the intersection in this case that we believe is abundantly warned that there is an intersection with slow moving vehicles with proper signs and notification. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. Are there any other questions of Mr. Perry? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No. Thank you. Transportation, thank you, sir. With that, we have to make a choice here. I'd just assume we keep continuing forward and hear the public testimony and then finish this today without taking a lunch break. Is that okay with the rest of you. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: That's fine. COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: Yes. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Fine. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Good. We'll move forward. Ray, how many public speakers do we have? MR. BELLOWS: We have five speakers. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. For those people wishing to speak, all of you I hope have been sworn in. If you haven't, as you approach, let us know. You will be requested to limit your discussion to five minutes. So with that, we'll start calling the speakers. MR. BELLOWS: First speaker is Marie Sanchez, followed by Douglas Wilson. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: When you come up to the speaker, you'll have to just state your name for the record. Thank you. Page 106 June 1, 2006 MS. SANCHEZ: Good morning. I haven't been sworn in. (Speaker was duly sworn.) MS. SANCHEZ: My name is Marie Sanchez and I live at 1195 47th Avenue Northeast. And I recently just received a letter talking about the blasting, that it was going to be taking place within 500 feet. I have never received any type of information whatsoever or any notification that anything was going to happen in that area. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. I'm sure that's a question we'll follow up with the applicant, by what they meant by 500 feet. Is there anything else you want to add to it, ma'am? MS. SANCHEZ: Yes. I've noticed, I've heard all these speakers, and I don't think anybody here lives in that area. You know, everybody here, you know, they're talking about blasting and noise and everything else, and I don't think anybody lives in that area, so they're not really familiar with what people have to deal with on a daily basis, the traffic, the noise, the dust, and everything else that goes along with that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I don't doubt your statement one bit. Most of the applications that we have come before us aren't from people that live in the area, but the reason for these public hearings are to get the public's input and try to accommodate as much as we can. MS. SANCHEZ: I would love to see any of these gentlemen that runs -- you know that run the machine, the one that owns the 2,500 acres and stuff like that to live 500 feet from that noise all day long. And I've heard neighbors who tell me that they listen to that noise up to 10:00 at night. So I don't see how they're saying that they only work during eight hours, when people hear that noise that are closer at 10:00 at night. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Thank you. MS. SANCHEZ: Thank you very much. Page 107 June 1, 2006 MR. TYSON: Mr. Strain, could we have her point out a location on the map where that is? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Where is it you live? Could you show us on that map there, ma'am? MS. SANCHEZ: Oh, I wouldn't be able to show you on that map. I'm not familiar with-- COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: What was the address? MS. SANCHEZ: 1195. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Forty-seventh? MS. SANCHEZ: Forty-seventh. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Is that towards the excavation site? MS. SANCHEZ: I believe it is. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Bruce, the map that I provided over there has the street numbers on it. So you could probably see it much MS. STUDENT-STIRLING: There's another question. We rely on the latest rolls that the tax office has. Have you recently purchased property? MS. SANCHEZ: No. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you, ma'am. We'll be asking some questions of the applicant that you may want to listen to. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Douglas Wilson. MR. WILSON: I'm Douglas Wilson, representing the Corkscrew Island Neighborhood Association. Mr. Chairman, I'd request leave for 10 minutes rather than five because of representation of an association. I'll try and -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes. MR. WILSON: -- keep it brief. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's fine. MR. WILSON: At this time, I would also ask leave to put into the record a resolution which the neighborhood association passed two nights ago. And I have sufficient copies to pass to the commissioners, Page 108 June 1, 2006 if you would permit me to do that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes, sir. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Mark, do we need a motion to CHAIRMAN STRAIN: As soon as it's all passed out. If you have an extra one for the court reporter. Is there a motion to accept this notification -- COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: So moved. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: So moved. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- of Corkscrew Island Neighborhood Association into evidence? Motion's been made by Mr. Kolflat, seconded by Mr. Adelstein. All those in favor, signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER CARON: Aye. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Aye. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Aye. COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: Aye. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Aye. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye. COMMISSIONER TUFF: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Nobody opposed. I looked right again, Mr. Kolflat. COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: Thank you. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Could you show us where this association represents? MR. WILSON: The association service area is to the north of the property. It abuts it and goes as far north as beyond Immokalee Road. And west to the Corkscrew Island Sanctuary. And east, I can't remember -- we don't go as far as Everglades, but it's over that way. A number of our residents, one of whom is here with me today, live on property very near the area that is under consideration. Page 109 June 1, 2006 You have the resolution, but let me just summarize in saying that the first paragraph after the resolution clause just states our general belief, and I think we've been fairly consistent about this as an association, that while we recognize that this area is in the fringe area and is primarily agricultural, we also accept the proposition that noise and mechanical activity associated with agricultural uses is appropriate. What concerns us is that this area is evolving towards a residential character. Ave Maria is going in quite near us. That means that there's going to be a community of 20,000 people out there in the next few years, and many of them are going to reside all around this property . It concerns us that decisions may be made that are not of an agricultural character but of an industrial character. And we think that the -- we urge the commission to consider that it needs to be as conservative as possible in expanding uses that are in reality industrial. That having been said, we are realistic about the county's need for rock and everybody else's need for rock, and the fact that there was a plan to permit this mining activity to go on. And we are impressed with the care that the presenters have made. Nevertheless, the bottom line initially in our resolution is that the association votes to oppose the petition. However, if this commission and the Board of County Commissioners deems it appropriate to grant the petition, then we've put down here a list of concerns. Now, some -- one or two of them make specific requests that the commission consider. Listening to the presentations today, I realize that some of these have been anticipated. I tried to get a copy of the prior permit before today's hearing, was unsuccessful in doing so. And in that regard, let me digress briefly. Note has been made that this process has been abbreviated. As I Page 110 June 1, 2006 understand the policy of the county, there's only a two-week requirement between the public hearing and the presentation of the petition. I'd like to respectfully suggest, and it's probably the Board of County Commissioners that has jurisdiction over this, but I'd like to mention it anyway. Two weeks really is not enough for a neighborhood association like ours -- and there are others in the areas that are going to be commenting as development continues out there -- for us to do a responsible job of looking into the materials that are presented and getting together and talking about our issues as an association and preparing a response. Wernet as soon as we reasonably could as a group after the public meeting, but that was not until two nights ago. So it's somewhat burdensome on the public I think to limit that time period to 14 days or 15 days, whatever it is. Should be longer than that, as the process itself typically takes quite a long time anyway. Why not let the public have a little opportunity to respond? I'd like to just kind of summarize the conditions and the concerns that the association have presented in the numbered paragraphs by saying, as you might expect, the concern chiefly in a few categories. One is damage from blasting. It is gratifying to hear that there is a requirement for a pre-blast survey. Also gratifying to hear that there is a million dollar insurance policy. The only concern we have in that regard is it may be burdensome on the property owners who are damaged by blasting, if such damage there be -- and we were impressed also by the testimony of the blasting person that he's very experienced and really knows how to minimize that. Nevertheless, unexpected things do happen. We would urge that the commission consider a requirement so that the victims don't -- if there be, don't have to be dealing with an insurance company and wrestling with that, and that there be a third-party escrow fund which has authority to dispense compensation Page 111 June 1, 2006 to the victims of blasting damage as that goes along. The other -- I suppose the main concern is, and we do understand that there are zoning requirements on the blasting and that every care will be taken not to disturb. The other subject is the noise. And in that regard, I noticed that the questioning today was paralleled to what we did in our neighborhood association meeting. And there's some confusion about what the decibel numbers mean. Now, I'm surprised that you were not told today what we were told in the neighborhood association meeting several times, and that is when they talk about 133 decibels, they're talking about a so-called linear measurement of sound, which includes not only audible sound but inaudible sound at the lower frequencies. In other words, lots more than the 50 some decibels that are tolerable within the audible range. That's where the pictures start falling off the walls, at that higher vibration. Now, there's an ordinance that deals with that. They understand that, but I'm just a little surprised that they didn't explain that to you. So on the presentation, if I understand it, and I'm subj ect to correction, every time you see decibel estimates down in the 50 range, that's audible. Anytime you see decibel estimates above 100, that's across the board and includes the inaudible frequencies. We just want -- you know, understanding that there's going to be more residential development, more people moving in, we would like to see great care be taken to erect berms around noisy equipment. You can do that fairly simply. And, you know, on three sides of a big piece of noisy equipment that's going on out there all the time. You can erect those noise buffers. And we haven't seen a lot of specificity of that in the petition, and would urge the commission to protect our interest in that regard. And that applies -- well, we've got a couple of references to that. Now, regarding the excavation depth, I'm also surprised that the Page 112 June 1, 2006 presenters did not convey to you what was conveyed to us at the neighborhood hearing and that was that the -- while the petition requests a depth of 60 feet, the statement was made very clearly by I think it was the -- well, I can't remember what his qualifications were, but it was a gentleman that spoke very directly and we appreciated his direct statement, that they anticipated that there would be a clay base, a containing layer around 45 feet. And it was the 45-foot level that became magic in our minds. And so in coming to you, we are simply urging that if 45 feet is the realistic level, that the permit should be limited to 45 feet, that's all. Now, there are, in our group, people with a lot more knowledge about geology and water than I have. I was having trouble following some of their expertise in our meeting the other night. And you can just -- this is only hearsay, and I don't ask you to accept it as professional testimony, but I'm saying that there's a great deal of fear, maybe exaggerated, that there will be damage to the water table, to the aquifers, the typical kind of thing people worry about when you talk about blasting when you go down. We just urge you, be sure it won't happen. And if you as commissioners are not satisfied that you have enough information that that is not going to happen, that for example the clay layer that's talked about isn't really all that firm -- there was one person in our group that said he knows about the stuff in that area and it's kind of porous and unusual things happen and you can do dye tests and all of a sudden you're looking at the dye coming through a lot faster than you anticipated. All this is hearsay, it's anecdotal, you can't rely on it, but we just ask that you satisfy yourselves that you've got the best information possible about the effects on the water and the aquifer that will result from this activity. Regarding the trucks and the traffic, I would like to thank Mr. Strain personally for bringing up the issue of the turn lane. I drive Page 113 June 1, 2006 down Immokalee Road all the time, and I'll tell you how I solved that problem. I go left of the double yellow line and get around that truck, if I can. Now, I challenge the traffic gentleman -- transportation gentleman to tell me which is safer, me doing that, which I see happening all the time, or doing as you say and putting an acceleration lane on the right, which is perfectly safe as long as the trucks go to that, and they will. One thing I will say about the trucks that is positive: The miners out there are real good about making sure the trucks follow the rules. We appreciate that. All we ask is that we all be on the same page about what the rules are. And in terms of public safety, I think you're exactly right about that acceleration lane. And I urge you to consider that seriously. One of these days there's going to be a hell of a crash out there. I think I've said about all I have to say and I welcome any questions, if anybody wants to ask me. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I've made some notes for follow-up questions for the applicant, so that's where I'll probably be focusing my questions, based on your testimony. MR. WILSON: Thank you, sir. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you, sir. MR. BELLOWS: David Purdie. MR. PURDIE: I'll try and keep it around five minutes. I'll make it as quick as possible. My name's Dave Purdie. I live at 4860 14th Street Northeast. I've been up there for five years. I've had my share of problems that go on out there. I won't go into it, unless you want to know about it. N ow you're going to come into my backyard blasting. Is anybody here going to give me a guarantee that my pool's not going to crack, my house ain't gonna crack, and then when I call you and Page 114 June 1, 2006 tell you about it, I'm going to go through like I did a couple other times, it's going to be one big circus of nothing. You know what I'm saying? Nobody's going to assume responsibility. I know what's going to happen already. Please do not do this. Don't let them do it. If you want me to do it in your backyard, okay. Don't do it in mine. Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you, sir. Next speaker, Ray? MR. BELLOWS: Janitza Delgado. MS. DELGADO: Hi. Good afternoon. I haven't been sworn in. (Speaker was duly sworn.) MS. DELGADO: Good afternoon. My name is Janitza Delgado. I live on 4920 14th Street on the southbound of the quarry. My main concern here is the blasting. What damages would be done to my house, structural. My house is only a year old and it's settling right now, so I'm worried that the floors are going to start cracking, the tiles are going to start lifting. Like the gentleman said, frames are going to come off the walls. Who's going to pay us for that? Please do not allow them to go in there blasting. I don't mind the digging, I don't mind the traffic. I mind the blasting. Please do not allow this to go on. Do not allow them to do this to us. Please. Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. MR. BELLOWS: Last speaker, Alan Keller. MR. KELLER: My name is Alan Keller. I am a Collier County resident off and on since 1946 and feeling almost every moment of it at the moment. I'm here representing Collier County Audubon and also the Audubon Corkscrew Swamp Sanctuary. I think the concerns that the neighborhood association has expressed are largely ours also, and particularly the question of the depth of excavation to 60 feet to 45 feet or whatever it may be. Page 115 June 1, 2006 There's considerable concern of cross-contamination to the aquifer that feeds wells and so forth. And there's a strong belief among the scientists at Corkscrew Swamp Sanctuary that the so-called confining layers that are often really clay lenses and not contiguous clay layers and therefore may allow all kinds of contamination problems of the aquifer. And I think it was extremely well put by the head of the Corkscrew Island Neighborhood Association, that it would be critical to have enough testing to know the nature of those confining layers before permission is allowed to get close to them, actually, before excavation reaches there. The argument's been made that the fill will be much more expensive if it has to come from far away. That isn't necessarily the case. If the fill comes from close, but there are unintended side effects of removing it, the costs may actually be greater from material obtained close by. Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you, sir. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I'd like to ask him a question. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Sir, Mr. Schiffer has a question for you. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Are you familiar with the process they'd have to go through before the EAC to get a permit? MR. KELLER: No, sir, I am not. And I'm not sure that this word of caution is even appropriate to deliver to this body but rather there. But I'm sort of following my marching orders. I'm a bit of a novice about drilling holes in the ground. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: All right, thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Brad, are there any other speakers? MR. BELLOWS: No other speakers. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, does the -- I have some questions again of the applicant as a follow-up to the speakers. I'm sure if any others have, we'll continue. Mr. Tyson, would you mind telling me the closest point, if you Page 116 June 1, 2006 were to blast, that you'd be blasting to your property line? MR. TYSON: The property on-- CHAIRMAN STRAIN : You can't blast any closer than -- MR. TYSON: I believe we did that measurement. It was 980 feet. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's what I was getting at. How high is the berm that you're proposing that would not be in the perimeter of the property line but would be the sound (sic) of berm that is now mulch that's going to be vegetated? What is the height of that berm that -- MR. TYSON: It was required at 10 feet on the plans. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Do you have any problem with a higher berm at 20 feet? MR. TYSON: Other than the fact that it takes up a whole lot more land. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But it take it outside the excavation area. MR. TYSON: It could take it outside the excavation area. I'm not -- I think what I'd suggest is that it can be higher. Fourteen feet is basically the height of any truck that you would find that's the height of the bridges typically that we find. That would mask the exhaust pipes from any vehicles. I'm not sure that you gain anything by going up 20 feet. If there was something to be gained and it was to everybody's advantage, then I think that could happen. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: It was an issue that was mentioned and I wanted to bring it up to you and hear your position on it. The limit to the number of loads on the site. Currently you're indicating I think it was six to 800 loads leave that site a day. Do you have any problem with limiting the number of loads that would leave that site each day? MR. TYSON: As long as the number of loads don't impact or Page 11 7 June 1, 2006 affect anything to any great degree, which I think has been determined that they are not, then yes is the answer. You want to limit it. I mean, if we had a problem, if the roadway didn't show the capacity and we were causing a significant problem, obviously it would be -- you'd want to change some things. At this stage of the game, it doesn't appear that that's necessary. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You're coexisting right now with six to 800 loads a day. Could you continue with at that rate under the program that you have planned? MR. TYSON: I need to check on that. Hold on one second. I think my comment stands. In other words, what would you-- you're suggesting to limit it to some number? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes. That's what I'm asking you. MR. TYSON: Which is? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I'm asking you. You guys have (sic) currently operating at six to 800 a day. MR. TYSON: Correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: If you -- if this goes -- is approved to go forward in any manner, and there's a series of stipulations attached to it, is there a number that -- since you're living at six to 800 a day and the traffic obviously is -- the roads are bearing that traffic at this point in some manner, is there a reason that you need to go beyond that in the future? MR. TYSON: Well, there's always a desire. We're going to come up with a couple of different products, so consequently we'll have relating -- relating to this mine site right now, solely, staying with the -- I think the highest number that go out of there approximately is 850 right now. Sticking with that number would be suitable. I think when the time comes to go for the next permit to look at that, there may be an increase because the number of product types will be different. Page 118 June 1, 2006 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Good. Then you just created a question for Mr. Scott, since he's here. Thank you. (Speaker was duly sworn.) MR. SCOTT: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Good morning, Don. Or afternoon. Time's rolling. I don't know if you were here for this morning's -- all of the discussion this morning, but back in '99 when this proj ect was presented to the BCC, there was a comment made on the record that it would not impact the roads any more than 40 homes would impact. And I know your department uses nine trips per day for estates homes times 40, would equal 360 trips a day. What we're discovering through the traffic impact statement that was reviewed by your department, and its timely submittal which was, what, a year or two ago, they're actually operating at I think it was 12 to 1,600 trips a day. MR. SCOTT: Okay. Trip, though, is a one-way trip. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No, that's a two-way trip. Six to 800 loads a day. MR. SCOTT: I'm saying a trip from a house, that's a one-way trip away -- a trip is considered from a house is one way to wherever you're going, a trip back. So two trips is a round trip to a house. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But EDT for a single-family Estates home; you don't use nine, you use 18? MR. SCOTT: It isn't -- it's nine trips per day that a house as an average does. So it might be four and a half, I guess you would say, if it's a round trip. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So the nine trips a day is equal to about 360 on the road for 40 homes. MR. SCOTT: Would be essentially one-way trips, yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Now, as far as the traffic from the site goes, it's much more than that. Page 119 June 1, 2006 MR. SCOTT: Right. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: How much did you gear into your road impacts when this was approved back in '99? Because what is actually happening is different than what was anticipated to be stated back then. And what is it you're looking at in the future for that segment of Immokalee Road? MR. SCOTT: Well, for '99 I don't know exactly what they were looking at. Obviously we'd have bigger concerns if we didn't have the sections of Immokalee under construction right now to be completed. The section to the north is not programmed at this point. It is in a longer range plan to be widened, but obviously Oil Well Road and Camp Keis is the first -- is our priority to get out towards Immokalee, not Immokalee in this area. As for trips, we're about 50 percent capacity on the two-lane section of that roadway. And I don't see that changing substantially in the near term. Obviously as more growth happens out in the future, it will. But Oil Well and Camp Keis will be the major route to Immokalee in the future, not Immokalee Road existing. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. So at this point if they were to double the trips per day, would that have a concern on your part? MR. SCOTT: Not strictly by capacity. Obviously trucks have more impact in the traffic flow than vehicles do, as has been raised about acceleration and issues like that. You know, we might have some concerns right in front of there -- you know, until they get up to speed essentially. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, that brings me to my next question then. There was a comment suggested earlier that why don't we two-lane the southbound side of this so that when trucks do enter that left turn and go south, they can pull over to the right or whatever they have to and there's more of an opportunity for traffic to get around them. I think the testimony by the gentleman earlier was that he has to go into the median. Well, I do the same thing. Page 120 June 1, 2006 MR. SCOTT: Which is not safe. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I'm not sure that's -- I think that's a lot less safe than having the ability to go around him on a paved lane. MR. SCOTT: Yeah, my qualification -- obviously you have -- in other parts of the county you've seen it before, you have passing lanes in a certain area. You're talking about essentially a passing lane for a certain distance, and it has to be, you know, an acceptable length and stuff. And I'm not going to sit here and design it, but you could build a third lane for a distance and have the proper transitions. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Good. Thank you, Don. I don't have any other questions of transportation. Does anybody else at this time? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, thank you, Don. Mr. Tyson, do you have -- the other suggestion that was made that I'd like to follow up on was a third-party escrow for insurance claims. What's your thoughts on that? MR. TYSON: I don't know anything about it. It's not my area of expertise at all. I think it sounds like a real challenge. Right off the top of my head, you've got to set up rules. How do you sit there and say who pays out what when. It's a real challenge. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I was just asking to find an answer to the question. The gentleman posed a question and I don't know of anybody that has an experience in that area over here. MR. TYSON: It's not my area of expertise at all. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Are there any other questions? Mr. Schiffer? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And oddly enough, it's attached on the back of a 1999 soils test, but there is some concern from some neighbors, contemporary concerns that -- what to do with animals and stuff like that during the blasting. Has any thought been given to that? I mean, I'm not sure what you would do. I guess some people are actually requesting you transport them, but -- Page 121 June 1, 2006 MR. TYSON : Well, there's -- you know, through this process it's been told to me that, you know, some of these -- if you were going to be adjacent to this blasting at its worse, it would be like somebody slamming the door to your house. You would get a greater vibration and a greater sound than you would out of the blasting. Now, I know we've heard numbers. Somebody has to attest to that. That's what I've heard, that's what I've been told. What happens to any animal out there or anybody in a passing thunderstorm? It seems to me that that would be far worse in terms of what would happen on a daily basis or during the summer. You know, they could last an hour. We're talking about something that's going to last three seconds. I just don't understand how that could be. With what we're talking about and what I'm understanding about the blasting, I don't see that as being a significant issue. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I kind of agree. I just wanted to bring it up because somebody did. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Any other questions? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Do you have any rebuttal, Mr. Anderson or yourself? MR. TYSON: Yeah. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah, meaning who? MR. ANDERSON: I just want to put the comments from the Corkscrew Island Association in perspective and in the interest of full disclosure, that it's my understanding that the president of the Corkscrew Association is a competing mine operator that is operating just north of this one, and I'll just leave it at that. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Sounds fair to me. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's your rebuttal. Then with that, Ray, there's no other speakers? MR. BELLOWS: No other speakers. Page 122 June 1, 2006 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No other testimony? We'll close the public hearing and entertain a motion. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I'll make a motion. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Schiffer? I looked right. Mr. Schiffer? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And I'll make a motion for approval of CU-06-AR-9699. If it's seconded, we'll work to merge these conditions from the old to new together. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, motion's been made for recommendation of approval, subject to our discussion. Is there a second? COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: I'll second. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Vigliotti seconded it. Yes, sir. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: I understand the six to eight months -- six to eight blasts a month, I can see why they should be happening. But not six to eight years. Noise starting at 5 :00 a.m. in the morning, trucks, dust, all the other things that we've been discussing, I know I wouldn't live that way, and I honestly believe these people shouldn't have to. I'm afraid I'm going to have to vote no on this. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Is there other discussion? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Well, I'd like to work on the conditions a little bit, I think. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Go ahead. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: First of all, I think in the old conditional use, there was a requirement that in five years they would have to have a review by the county. They kind of outlined it rather well. What I'd like to do is change that to be every five years so that that could happen again a little bit less than five years down the road on the old one. Page 123 June 1, 2006 Margie, I think the way you worded it, that you gave a phrase that would make it so that it included everything on the old one and this one. MS. STUDENT-STIRLING: Right. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Could you do that again, or if the court reporter -- MS. STUDENT-STIRLING: I believe -- it's in the record, but I believe I stated that the new resolution would augment -- I believe was the word I used -- Resolution 99, whatever, and Resolution 99 remained in full force and effect. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. And then what that means is I think that the conditions in 99-16 are a little bit better than the way number one was worded. Number one, the applicant kind of had a problem with anyway. So what I'd like to do is strike one and rely on the legacy of the old continuous use. MS. STUDENT -STIRLING: Could I ask for clarification? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: What it's subjecting it to, the conditional use has to be rereviewed every two years. MS. STUDENT -STIRLING: I know that's in the new one. Is that also in the -- I thought the old resolution was five years. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: The old resolution had five. MS. STUDENT-STIRLING: That's what I thought. And the new one has two. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Has two. And I think it's essentially describing the same process. Maybe a little bit less. There's a lot of staff review in the old one. MS. STUDENT -STIRLING: So is the clarification then to put the language from the old one into the new one? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Well, what I'd like to see we just do is just merge the old one into this new one and so people aren't going back and forth to try to get -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Why don't I make a suggestion then. In Page 124 June 1, 2006 line with your comments, leave the old one stand as it is, use all the new recommendations exempt one number. I think that's what you're trying to say. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: That would do it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. I'm not saying I'm there with you, I'm just trying to get your point across. MS. STUDENT-STIRLING: Okay, on the new one, I think we do have to have some language about, as I'm hearing the commission's will, another review period. So that language should probably go in the resolution you're now considering, because the event would have already taken place in the '99 resolution. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Could we -- could the new one reference back to the '99 one? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Why should you? MS. STUDENT-STIRLING: Yes. MR. BELLOWS: For the record, Ray Bellows. I think the best way is just we'll replicate the existing conditional use conditions and replace it in this one also. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: With the exception that Mr. Schiffer suggested, changing the review period instead of five years to every five years. MR. BELLOWS: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That would cure that issue that you're-- Mr. Kolflat? COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: The previous resolution gives an operating period of7:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m., but the new resolution we're talking about had a different operating arrangement. I think it's 9:00 to 4:00. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I think the blasting was 9:00 to 4:00. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Yeah, it's 6:00 -- COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: But I don't think it's Page 125 June 1, 2006 differentiated. It isn't defined as blasting only. Then we should leave this here as it is for their operation without the blasting. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The operations, if it's -- COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: That's on Page 3 of the conditions of approval. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The operating hours are 6:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m. But the blasting will be limited to 9:00 to 4:00; is that what you're suggesting? COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: Well, what I'm saying, the condition of approval on the previous resolution on Page 3 said the hours of operation shall be 7:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. And that differs from those other numbers. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: So Ray, I think -- at least let me make it as part of the motion, that if there's a new condition that has different hours, the old one actually has Saturday operation, which this one doesn't have, so that the new one would prevail. I think there's three items: One is the hours, one is no blasting and the other one is the depth. So E, F, G we could override with the new conditions. MS. STUDENT-STIRLING: Yeah, and what we might do is in the new one put the new condition and expressly state that conditions numbers so-and-so of the old one are hereby superseded by this, and spell them out. I think that's easier without -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah, but the items that -- we need to make this clear because -- MR. BELLOWS: Yeah. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- it's a motion that the staffs got to follow up on and present to the BCC. So it's going to be redundant here for a bit. The items that Brad's suggesting get clarified from the old to the new is that the condition of the five-year review becomes every five Page 126 June 1, 2006 years; that the provision for blasting prevention be eliminated; and that the hours of operation be consistent with the new staff recommendation, not the one from 99-16. Is that what we -- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And G, if you look at the same list, we're amending the depth, which is G on the old one. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Depth will be amended to whatever comes out of today's motion. Is that where you're heading? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: That's where I'm heading. There's only one more thing on the new one. Item three, I think the last sentence should be struck, because I don't know why it's there. But for example, let's say they want to expand this in another continuing use, there would be something eliminating them to use that number. So it doesn't mean anything. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I don't have a problem with that. Do you, Ray? So we'd strike the last sentence of item number three under the new conditions for approval. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anything else, Mr. Schiffer? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I'm done. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Commissioner Murray, did you have anything? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Yeah, I just had a question, really. On the conditions of approval number eight, I'm not really clear on what that last sentence is, precautions must be taken to minimize the deposit of dirt and mined materials, et cetera, et cetera. And it says summary hearing, removed at regular intervals. I don't know what regular intervals really is. It seems -- I'm sure the intent is to do it fairly frequently, but I don't know what it means. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, since we don't know how often they're going to spill, it's going to be hard to tell them how often to clean it up. Page 127 June 1, 2006 COMMISSIONER MURRAY: So how -- what are regular intervals? Maybe we-- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ms. Student? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: -- could have a better understanding? MS. STUDENT-STIRLING: And I have another question. Does that mean any roadway that they drive over? Because how are you going to know that and how are you going to do it? Because there could be dirt from lots of different sources. And I don't mean to be funny, but does that mean that the guy's supposed to get out with a broom and -- I mean, I'm not trying to be funny, I'm just -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But before we go too far-- MS. STUDENT-STIRLING: -- I just wanted-- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- isn't the way a truck's loaded regulated by Federal or state or other regulations within the county? And isn't -- if a truck is spilling material on the road, aren't they obligated to clean it up, by the laws that we already have existing on the books -- MR. BELLOWS: That's my understanding. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- and therefore isn't this all redundant? MR. BELLOWS: Yeah. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: That was my question -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And number eight is redundant. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: -- is really what does it mean. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So we would strike number eight because it is covered by -- MR. BELLOWS: I would have no problem with that, because it is redundant. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Now, other issues that came up that aren't covered in what we've already discussed. First of all, there was a suggestion originally to work from the Page 128 June 1, 2006 east and go to the west. I still think that's a better idea from the site, because it gets it out of the people's backyards quicker. And the population out there isn't going to decline, it's going to increase. So the sooner they can get out of the way of the people, the better. So I'd like to see that considered. Pumps and rock processing: There was a suggestion that they be screened for noise reduction as well, and I think that would be a good idea. And the same kind of berm that goes around the property should go around the pumps and rock processing equipment up to a height of that equipment. So if you've got a 10- foot piece of equipment, you have a 10- foot berm. As far as the other berm that was already shown at 10 feet, I think it ought to go to 15 feet to make sure that the trucks are adequately masked. The depth: We've had plenty of testimony today about the depth. Practically speaking, they're not bringing on a drag line. Their excavator commented he might get to 50 feet. But effectively I think a 45-foot depth would work better. It's consistent with the soil borings, and we're assured then that they're not getting the confining layers because the soil borings really don't show any confining layers. The traffic solution on Immokalee Road: I certainly think we ought to be looking at the creation of a passing lane to meet the specifications that transportation would come up with for an acceleration period for any trucks that would be going southbound in that location. Any right-of-way lacking width in that area can be compensated for from a property owner who's causing the problem. And I think that there should be a limitation right at this particular time on loads per day, not to exceed what they currently have as a maximum which is 800. Now, having said all that, back to the blasting issue. I know the Page 129 June 1, 2006 suggestion was to remove the idea of no blasting from the original conditional use approval. I think the blasting still ought to be restricted to that material that isn't rippable (sic). And by that I mean most of your sites have limerock of some nature in this area. Heavy machines like are on this job can rip that shelf apart. They don't need to blast the whole thing. It's more convenient to blast it but I don't see why they can't rip it. I know other sites are ripping material like that consistently. So I think that where on their soil borings they show a layer that's greater than four feet thick, then they are allowed to go forward and blast that with a low volume load at a close pattern. Now, by doing that, that will have the least affect on the homeowners. And I think anything four feet or shallower in thickness can be ripped with a machine. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Mark? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes, sir. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Question is, how enforceable -- how would that be enforceable? Is it strictly based on the layers, and there would be demarcation lines, or what? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: They have soil tests. Soil tests are pretty clear. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Oh, okay. But I -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And it shows you -- and I've actually laid out the soil test on a pattern on the site to show you where the thicker layers of limerock were. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I guess my question, and maybe I didn't ask it properly, was how can it be enforced by our county staff? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I think staff could look at the soil test and realize that if you have a soil test boring site here, one at seven feet and the next one closest to it is at three feet, that you're not going to have a layer that's going to go past the three feet from that one Page 130 June 1, 2006 that's seven. So the area around that seven-foot bore test would be blasted and the rest of it would be ripped. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: What I'm getting at is does it require an engineer to determine that or would it require an on-site individual or an inspector of some sort? Is it feasible from the county's point of view? I have no objection to what you're saying, I think it's a great idea. I'm just wondering if there's any problem associated with enforcing it, that's all. And if there is a question, I think it -- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Wasn't there testimony that there's a staff -- someone's on-site when the blast is occurring? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Yes. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Would he be able to make that judgment that that blast wasn't necessary, or would he be able to make that -- COMMISSIONER MURRAY: This would precede a blast. That's the point. It's a decision point. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The soil tests indicate by the bore locations -- and the bore locations are on the map that were attached to the soil tests. If you were to look at each soil test and look at the bores and go back and it tells you on the logs how thick most of the layers are. Wherever that layer is thicker than four feet, the blasting pattern would be shown in that vicinity up to the next bore hole which would be less than a four-foot depth. And from that bore hole out it would have to be ripped. I don't see a problem with it. If Bill Spencer wants to comment on how he could oversee it based on the blasting permit submittals, then that's fine. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I hear you and I understand it. I just would -- in order to make sure that if we do agree to that, that it Page 131 June 1, 2006 will happen that way, perhaps the gentleman could add something to it. MR. SPENCER: Again, Bill Spencer with Collier County Engineering Department. When they apply for a blasting permit, they're required to show exact locations of where they're going to be blasting. That can be designated blast zones on -- when they apply for the permit. And those -- we could guarantee that that's the only zones they're blasting In. And as far as telling you beforehand before they blast if the rock's too thin or too thick or whatever, there's no way of doing that, from my point of view. We'd have to go strictly by the -- COMMISSIONER MURRAY: The soil test. MR. SPENCER: -- soil borings and have the blaster designate his blast zones on the permit and make sure he stays within those blast zones. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: If you've got soil logs like you have here and they have areas that are over four feet thick and he shows a blast zone around that area and he submits that for a permit, you know exactly -- MR. SPENCER: Right. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- where he's blasting, and he knows by the soil tests where he can blast. MR. SPENCER: Right. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: My question was asked in the ignorance of the subject, and so now I'm very happy with the knowledge. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I think that's good. Thank you. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I'd accept that, Mark. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Well, how about all the rest of the stuff that I suggested? Page 132 June 1, 2006 COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: I have one question, Mark-- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Sure. COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: -- and I don't want to belabor it, but the issue has been noise here all day. And the existing CU indicates the hours of operation are 7:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m., which I construe to mean is the operation for the normal excavation work that they're doing now. In addition to that, the new CU that we're proposing here talks about noise sound, but that is blasting, and that runs from 9:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m. Do you concur with those two designations as far as noise? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I think that's what we're -- we're talking about, though, the operating hours pursuant to the new recommendation. COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: And that will all be defined in the CU. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. With the addition that the operating hours will have another segment of hours specified for blasting, and blasting will not exceed eight times a month with a three-second maximum duration, as you previously requested. And we already stated a low volume and close pattern for the blasting. So blasting on the site, based on the soil tests I received is going to be greatly minimized. It's not going to be over a majority of the site. It looks like it's going to be over a minority section of the site. And I think this would help find a compromise between blasting 500 acres versus a much smaller quantity than that. So that's why I'm suggesting it. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I have another question. Ray, in the resolution itself it references the 60 feet or containing layer, and it references the blasting. Would that be something that's better to move into the conditions? The prior approval gave him permission to do the mining and then set the conditions. This one's actually a resolution that gives Page 133 June 1, 2006 them depth and blasting in the resolution itself, and then obviously sets conditions. Just so that they're not missed, I wouldn't mind if that was pulled out of the resolution wording and actually put into the conditions. Based upon -- MR. BELLOWS: I don't believe there's a problem with doing that. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Just to get the information for this one. We didn't have the conditional use in our packet, and I think if I had to go back and there was something in the actual regulation, I might have missed it. So I think put everything in one spot would be good. COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: I think that's a good idea, Ray. MR. BELLOWS: It can be done. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And then number nine, you're removing buildings and stuff. Could we add to the berms? I mean, I don't know, maybe the neighbors would want that, but why leave 20-foot high and all these other berms around? When the project's over, they could sell the berms and move on. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Are there any other comments for discussion for this lengthy -- Mr. Tuff? COMMISSIONER TUFF: You just mentioned about the transportation -- THE COURT REPORTER: Excuse me, could you speak into the microphone? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Use your speaker. COMMISSIONER TUFF: I'm sorry. Just that you hadn't clarified or finished or finalized anything that I heard for the roadway on this approval. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I did suggest or I thought I stated that they would add southbound lanes -- COMMISSIONER TUFF: That's number six I'm missing. Page 134 June 1, 2006 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- to include a passing lane to the satisfaction of transportation, based on the need for acceleration of these loaded dump trucks. And whatever that comes out to be. And if additional right-of-way is needed to do that, it will come out of the land owned by the applicant, since they're the one creating the problem. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Mark, in the conditions from before, there is a review by the Transportation Department. They just did one I think within the year, at least if they're on time with this thing. Should we let them come up with that need, or do you want to establish that need for that thing right now? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Need for? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: The additional passing lane. In other words, why didn't transportation -- I mean, actually they said this has a level of service A in this area. MR. BELLOWS: For the record, Ray Bellows. There is the Phase 2 of this conditional use under review, and the traffic impacts from the increased change in traffic impacts will be addressed at that time also and brought back before the planning commission and the board. So, you know, this conditional use was only to allow a blasting to occur under the existing conditional use, so the traffic impacts weren't necessarily going to be different from the original. The phase two will come in with the additional traffic, and then we'll address the other impacts such as turn lanes at that time. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And maybe give them a chance to think about it. In here there is the ability for them to control the traffic. Essentially they could say -- you know, they could limit them to 175 trips a day, if they want. So there is a handle on traffic. Whether it would come up with that lane or not isn't obvious. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, my recommendation, and you can Page 135 June 1, 2006 tell me if you're going to accept it or not, is that a southbound passing land be installed and it be at the length approved by transportation based on a loaded acceleration rate of a loaded dump truck coming out of that site. If you don't want to accept that, then you need to say so. But I thought -- that was the intent of my discussion part of this motion. And I don't think -- you just need to make up your mind. You're the motion maker. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I'll accept it. It's safe. It's a safety issue. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Now, Ms. Caron? COMMISSIONER CARON: As one of the conditions, the pre-blast surveys, photos and survey? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Those are required by the blasting ordinance, if I'm not mistaken. COMMISSIONER CARON: Okay. Just trying to cover notes I have made. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah, there's been a series of stipulations added to the motion that's been accepted by the motion maker. Has it been accepted by the second? Mr. Vigliotti? COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Any further discussion? MR. ANDERSON: May I ask a question, sir? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Sure. MR. ANDERSON: I would ask you to please consider lifting the limit on the number of trips, based on two factors: One is if we're going to have this new southbound passing lane, that should help address some of that concern. And secondly, we are going to be getting new material that has not been previously gotten from this site. And I would ask you to exclude from any limitation, if you must impose one, any truck trips Page 136 June 1, 2006 which are associated with county road building. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I like your suggestion about the southbound lanes, and if the southbound lanes are added and when they're added, then the limitation on loads could be removed, from what I understood. I mean, I don't see a need for it at that point. But not until those lanes are installed and completed, so that the public has an adequate way to safely get around the additional trucks. Because just south of your site, if I'm not mistaken, you have a pickup of a six-lane Immokalee Road section not too far south. So once you get there, it will be moving pretty fast anyway. MR. BELLOWS: Yeah, I think we could do 800 trips per day maximum until the passing lane is constructed, and then -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. Just leave it until the passing lane is constructed. Is that acceptable? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I like that. That makes a lot of sense. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Does the second accept that? COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, any further discussions? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: All those in favor of the motion, signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER CARON: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Aye. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Aye. COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: Aye. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Aye. COMMISSIONER TUFF: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody opposed? COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion carries 7-1. Page 137 June 1, 2006 Okay, thank you very much. That's the end of that issue. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: We need to turn in the conditional use document. MR. BELLOWS: Yes, please turn in the findings. COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: Mark, did you say 7-1? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes. COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: Oh, Paul's missing, okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Paul's missing. Okay, the -- we will try to move through the rest. We'll take a 10-minute break and come back and try to finish up in about a 30-minute time frame, if that works for everyone. Thank you. (Recess. ) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, we're back from our break. We'll take a few minutes to finish up old business, and basically it's something I asked to have added to the agenda. And Mr. Scott, now that you're here, if you wouldn't mind coming up and addressing some clarifications that I think the planning commission could help with. I have been asked, as a member of this commission, by various citizens who I bumped into concerning things they read in the paper concerning traffic problems on the road. And one in particular is the target. And we had anticipated when that was recommended for approval that the applicant would start in a time frame that was going to coincide around the building of that cloverleaf and the widening of Immokalee Road. And I know that was the intent of this panel at that time, and I'm sure it was the intent of the Board of County Commissioners as well. Well, now that whole schedule's basically out the door. And I'm a little surprised that kind of like that Signature Community's issue with the eagle's nest, testimony was relied upon. Even though it wasn't in the record it wasn't written in the PUD, it was in the transcript, comments made and commitments made.o Page 138 June 1, 2006 Well, there were comments and commitments made about this target and when it could start. And as I see now, it's not going -- it's going to go ahead and start but the road's not even going to be close to coinciding with it. If you could kind of fill us in on what's going on with that cloverleaf so we could answer people's questions. MR. SCOTT: Yeah, I actually came up last night, too, so Bob Murray's heard some of this before. The original intent -- it's funny, because they're not on their schedule now at this point either. Our design/build has started. The original intent was to have the loop included as part of the design/build proj ect which would have, if not coincided would have been a lot closer than where we're at now. FHW A raised concerns with us doing the proj ect for some different reasons that I really haven't nailed down at this point, which I will nail down in the next couple of weeks, because I have some other issues I'm dealing with, some other interchanges, and we can get those answers done before we go on with those. But if HW A basically said that they wanted FDOT to do the project, then that would be done as part of the I-75 widening, which is the design/build project. They're out for letters of interest right now and they will not start that probably till about a year from now. Now, that's starting the I - 7 5 proj ect. Do I know if the loop -- the commission, in the form of the MPO board, has made that a request of FDOT to have that as a front portion of that three-year project, but at this point FDOT is not making any commitments until they have the submittals in from the contractors on how they're going to go about building 35 miles ofI-75. The issue with the applicant specifically is when we had raised, even before we were at the planning commission and the board, tying that to the construction, and that was a deal killer to them. To us it was more of a benefit to have them reduce their square footage and Page 139 June 1, 2006 have that land donated to us than having it tied strictly to the loop. That's now turning into -- I understand that some square footage across the street has just sold for $22 a square foot, so we're up to four and a half million dollar range now for that property that they donated to us. The project changed many times. I know when we first started talking to FDOT about the concept, it was around $5 million. Weare now about $25 million, our portion being 16 and a half million, which included a $5 million grant that we got and two and a half million from FHW A. So they're still coming up -- they're essentially coming up with money, just as we're coming up with the money. I have a $12 million loan that I've gotten from FDOT in Tallahassee for two percent interest to make up some of the gap on that. We'll have paybacks over the next six years. Yes, it's not the same project we started with. Now, some of the changes that happened. We originally talked to the applicant about having I think it was two, two and a half acres, something like that. We had to go to four acres based on FHW A's criteria of how big the loop had to be for speed. Even with that, our original -- and I can -- our original -- let me get north going the right way. If you look at the loop coming off, the original plan was to hook it right at the bridge. And they had concerns with the speed of the traffic coming into I-75, so that turned into this long bridge transitioning back in, added a bunch of cost. Some of the original conversations didn't include the six -laning underneath the I-75 -- underneath -- on Immokalee under I-75, and we're cutting the slopes back under there to get to the six lanes. So now the project as we stand is at that level. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's quite a bit different than what we were talking about. That certainly clarifies it. Thank you. Wow, that's a lot different than what we originally spoke about. Page 140 June 1, 2006 MR. SCOTT: Well, and it's a much bigger project. Unfortunately the cost side of it caught a lot of us by surprise. Because even some of the other costs, we had interim costs that were like eight, $12 million. And we locked in by agreeing with the board this last meeting that we're paying them 16 million and that's the end of it for us. Meanwhile, they're not starting for a year or more. They're stuck with whatever costs come above and beyond. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But see, Don, the way that I've seen this phrased in the media, it would appear that staff erred drastically in their estimatation (sic). It's huge number from five million to whatever it is now. But looking at this, it's now obvious that it wasn't an error so much in your estimate, it was a change in the design. I mean, this lengthy bridge and everything else is hugely expensive. So I think that's a good clarification. MR. SCOTT: FDOT had a consultant working with them that had some original concepts. There were like four different concepts that grew from there. But FHW A had final say in this, and it's pretty much driven this project. And, you know, from the start it -- we still are pushing forward to do it. It's larger than what we originally intended. We would like -- essentially we'd like FDOT to be paying for this project. It's not the way it's working out. It's been nice to be able to get the land for them and move forward. CHAIRMAN S1:RAIN: Okay, thank you. I appreciate it. I'm going to try to move forward here rapidly. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Can I ask a quick question? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Go ahead. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Does this mean we're going to be taking out some of the parking lot? That what it looks like is happening. MR. SCOTT: Yeah, they lost -- they're getting to the -- they're above code. They -- obviously if you've dealt with some of the things Page 141 June 1, 2006 like Wal-Mart or Target, they like to be above code. I think it's like four and a half spaces per square feet, something like that. They're in roughly the four, I think, so they lost some parking regarding that. We've worked with them on some issues with stormwater in the middle of the loop. There's a lot of give and take throughout this whole process. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Now I have two other areas I want to quickly touch on, and one is in particular, Mr. Kolflat, when he first came to our commission the first day, he brought up a comment that lingered in my mind, and I think I just saw the application firsthand recently, and that was how do we deal with this construction traffic on these big projects that comes up. Well, we a long time ago recommended for approval the Wal-Mart site, Wal-Mart number, I don't know, 10, or how many we've got in this county now, down on 951 and 41. They were held up on concurrency issues. They recently I guess had a DCA approved, that gave them the right to move forward with some improvements. The proj ect is rapidly moving forward. They're clearing the site, filling the site and they have contractors out there. But they have not done any of the improvements during this construction phase. So what's happened is there are no decellanes turning into that facility, there are no accellanes turning into from northbound turning into it. There are no acceleration lanes coming out of it. So they just got gravel going up two lanes of 951 in that area and traffic is swerving in and around these big trucks because there's no place for them to pull off and get out of the lane of traffic. It's a mess out there. They have a highway patrolman hired full-time, apparently, who sits there in the front entrance trying to keep his lights flashing to warn people. It is not a good situation. It's one that is prone to have a real serious accident one of these days with the amount of heavy traffic going in and out. And it's one that we didn't anticipate in theG Page 142 June 1, 2006 construction phase. From now on when projects come forward, is there a way that-- a logical way that we could stipulate some of these deceleration lanes and acceleration lanes be installed prior to the initiation of the work on the site? MR. SCOTT: I don't want to say yes or not. I mean, obviously it depends if you're building to the inside to the outside what you're turning away, but it doesn't always have to be a permanent turn lane to start with, too. I understand there's been some concern with maintenance of traffic. We have right-of-way permitting dealing with that right now. It's actually further along than I knew from the pictures I was sent a week and a half, two weeks ago. It was razed. Tells you I haven't been down there for a while. Yes, I think there are some stipulations. And it has been raised in the past. We don't have -- like for trip generation, we don't even have anything to even -- that says yeah, this is the number of work trips that are going to be produced by something being built. But obviously when you're talking about some of the size of developments that are being built, that could be a big impact to people. The one thing that -- I mean, one of the things that why it's being done right now was to fit to try to be right between seasons that they construct it now to be less impact to season traffic, less traffic overall. Those are the types of things we've done in the past. We've held trucks at certain levels. Yes, I think we could do -- I mean, we could do some more in some of these areas. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Could you, from now on when projects come forward that you've reviewed, if there are issues in construction where we could stipulate or help you with a stronger recommendation for construction access lanes that get the construction traffic out of the lanes of traffic faster and sooner? Because that is not an acceptable solution down there. And if we had known that, and I can't imagine Page 143 June 1, 2006 anyone of us not hesitating to see that happened as far as stipulations prior to the commencement of site construction. MR. SCOTT: Well, I'll raise, too, that we have issues with -- sometimes what people use as temporary access, things like that. We usually deal with those more -- further on the process. But those are some things that we can deal earlier in the process. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The last one I want to comment on is the other Wal-Mart on Davis and 951. The site in the southwest corner has just cleared a huge amount of acreage. Which I can tell, they intend to move forward. And I know, I understand they vested some by buying early. MR. SCOTT: Right. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And there's nothing we can do about that. Basically that intersection is at an F, it's been at an F for some time, and it's at an F before they've even built what they're vested for. So it's kind of odd that that all would happened, they'd be vested for something and we're functioning at an F before they even got built. So I don't know if our concurrency program is looking at things right in all ways, but that sure is one that doesn't stand out too well. MR. SCOTT: That was vested before the rules changed. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Before checkbook concurrency? MR. SCOTT: Yeah. It was vested at the last hour before all those -- that stipulation where you could come in and prepare was taken out of the code. And he paid a lot of money to do that too at that time. Weare working with them on all the different corridors in there, trying to figure out how to get Davis Boulevard widened sooner than right now where it's not programmed. We've had numerous conversations over the last couple of weeks on how we might be able to get to that to try to include some of that possibly in the 951 project which would be starting early next year. Hopefully some of that will bear some fruit. Page 144 June 1, 2006 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Don, those are the three issues I wanted to get cleared up a little bit so we all know where they're coming from and especially where we can help in the future. So thank you, I appreciate that this morning. MR. SCOTT: Thanks. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: With that, is there any new business? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Any public -- well, there's no public to comment. Motion to adjourn. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: So moved. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Meeting is adjourned. Thank you. ***** There being no further business for the good of the County, the meeting was adjourned by order of the Chair at 1 :07 p.m. COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION MARK STRAIN, Chairman TRANSCRIPT PREPARED ON BEHALF OF GREGORY COURT REPORTING SERVICE, INC. BY CHERIE' NOTTINGHAM Page 145