Loading...
CCPC Minutes 11/16/2006 R November 16, 2006 TRANSCRIPT OF THE MEETING OF THE COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION Naples, Florida, November 16, 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 !IF" of the Government Complex, East Naples, Florida, with the following members present: CHAIRMAN: Mark Strain Lindy Adelstein Donna Reed Caron Tor Kolflat Paul Midney 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 Page 1 November 16, 2006 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Good morning. Welcome. It's November 16th, it's 8:30, we're all here, so this must be a planning commission meeting. If you'll all rise for the Pledge of Allegiance. (Pledge of Allegiance was recited in unison.) Item #2 ROLL CALL CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ms. Caron, would you do the roll, please. COMMISSIONER CARON: Mr. Kolflat? COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: Here. COMMISSIONER CARON: Mr. Schiffer? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Here. COMMISSIONER CARON: Mr. Midney is not here. Ms. Caron is here. 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: Present. COMMISSIONER CARON: And Mr. Tuff? COMMISSIONER TUFF: Here. Item #3 ADDENDA TO THE AGENDA Page 2 November 16, 2006 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, are there any addenda to the agenda? (No response.) Item #4 PLANNING COMMISSION ABSENCES CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Hearing none, we'll move on to planning commission absences. Monday we have an AUIR meeting starting at 8:30. I'm hoping that all of us will be here. Does anybody know if they're going to be absent or not? COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: I'm going to be out of town. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Kolflat will not be here. Okay. So we will have a quorum. And that will be just for the AUIR, starting at 8:30, Monday. Item #5 APPROV AL OF MINUTES Approval of minutes from the October 5th, 2006 regular meeting. Is there a motion to approve or correct? COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: So moved. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion made to approve. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Second. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Second by Mr. Vigliotti. Any comments? (N 0 response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: All in favor, signify by saying aye. Page 3 November 16, 2006 COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Aye. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Aye. COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: Aye. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Aye. COMMISSIONER CARON: Aye. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Aye. COMMISSIONER TUFF: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye. Anybody opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion carries. Item #6 BCC REPORT - RECAPS Ray, our BCC report? MR. BELLOWS: Yes, on November 14th, the Board of County Commissioners heard the V ornado PUD that was approved. And they also approved the rezone for -- the Manu (phonetic) rezone for residential development. And the Terafina PUD extension was continued. COMMISSIONER CARON: Continued. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The Terafina PUD extension hasn't come before us, though, has it? MR. BELLOWS: PUD extensions go directly to the board. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's what I thought. Item #7 CHAIRMAN'S REPORT Page 4 November 16,2006 Chairman's report. I do want to talk to the commission about a meeting I had yesterday. And it's basically to set up our Monday meeting. I met with the productivity committee yesterday, and they have -- in a lot of discussion, they've done some review already. They also broke down the various elements of the AUIR to sub-groups. So their intention is to come in as sub-groups during the course of events of the day, which will be more efficient for the larger group to work with. I thought that was a good idea. We're going to go in order for the AUIR. And this is important, Ray, for staff. I know when we start these meetings, sometimes staff comes in and wants to utilize the order by which the most people in the audience from staff are in attendance. That's not going to happen with this AUIR. We're going to take it in order of the elements in the book, first of which is transportation drainage, and we'll go on through there. In that way, the productivity committee members who are on their subcommittees can then be in attendance knowing approximately when their group will be heard. The one issue that I committed to, and Ray, I need your help from the staffs perspective. I have a list of the productivity members, who's on what group of the AUIR review and their phone numbers, and what we basically worked out yesterday was that as we got to near the ending of a segment of the AUIR -- and the first one that we will hear will be the transportation drainage segment. As we approach, say, near the end of that, the last about a half hour before we finish, the committee members from the productivity committee who are on the next round of elements would be called. So they would have time to get here and they wouldn't have to spend the entire 10-hour day waiting for that portion to come up. So I'll -- I don't know how you want to work this out. Mike Sheffield I think is the staff liaison with the county manager's office. If he's intending to be here, he might be a good person to ask to see if Page 5 November 16,2006 he can make the phone calls. But I do want to the make sure that happens between the elements so that they can be in attendance with their issues, because they have a real in-depth look at some of the factions of the AUIR. Other than that, I think that takes care of it. Oh, the arrangements for seating on Monday, how have you guys -- has anybody set that up? Because we can't all sit up here in each other's laps, so that's not going to work. MR. BELLOWS: I haven't seen the floor plan yet, but I'll see if I can get you a copy. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Would it be more or less a table down front? MR. BELLOWS: I would think so. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. I think that the largest quantity of productivity committee members on anyone segment is four. So if you have enough for all of us plus at least four, or whatever it is convenient above that number at the table, that would be assurance then that everybody involved in that segment of the AUIR then could be seated at the table. MR. BELLOWS: I'll pass that along. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you, sir. The voting. We will vote as the planning commission members to take a -- as a consensus for recommendation to go forward. And from what I understood yesterday, each individual committee member that is present from the productivity committee will join with us in that recommendation, either for or against or whatever is decided, with stipulations or without. And then -- yes? MS. STUDENT-STIRLING: There's an issue about whether they have enough people to vote on something as a committee. Because it's my understanding they did not. And the county attorney and I had spoken about this, and we can revisit it, but the idea was that they would -- sub-committee for each Page 6 November 16,2006 element would take it back to their committee as a whole at their next meeting and vote on the recommendation. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah, I was getting there. MS. STUDENT-STIRLING: I'm sorry, I didn't-- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's where I was trying to get to. MS. STUDENT-STIRLING: I beg your pardon. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. Anyway, after the vote here, as Margie has said, each committee then will go back and the productivity committee will weigh in as a group to the BCC as well. So that's how it's supposed to come out, and I don't see why it shouldn't work that way just fine. With that, any questions? (No response.) Item #8A PETITION: PUDA-2006-AR-9466 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: If not, we'll move on to the advertised public hearings, the first one of which is Petition PUDA-2006-AR-9466, Robert Reed of Reed Development Corporation for the Calusa Island Village PUD. Would those wishing to speak on this matter please rise to be sworn in by the court reporter. (All speakers were duly sworn.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Are there any disclosures on the part of the planning commission? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Hearing none, we'll move forward with the applicant's presentation. MR. DUANE: Good morning. For the record my name is Robert Duane from Hole-Montes and Associates, representing the Page 7 November 16, 2006 petitioner here. This project is located in Goodland, Florida. It comprises 6.2 acres. It was rezoned several years ago for a planned unit development, and this petition is before you for a mixed use planned unit development. Our request is essentially to reduce the number of dwelling units on the project from 50 to 46. And most of the -- amendment is directed towards the mixed use area, which I'll point out to you on the aerial photo. The development has been largely completed in the past year. There are a variety of mostly duplex residences. I think there's a single-family residence permitted at the end of the canal. The mixed use area is this little corner of the property. It's on Sunset and Goodland Drive. It comprises of .45 acres, a small area. The -- COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: Mr. Chairman, isn't that upside down, that exhibit? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, let's see. He's an engineer, works for an engineering firm, I don't know. MR. HERMANSON: North is down. We'll make north up. COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: That's right, north is up that way. MR. DUANE: Yeah, it's this little .45-acre area here. It was originally approved for multi-family dwelling units and a 1300-foot commercial structure. We are changing the master plan to replace it with the multi-family structure with a single-family house. Here is the canal. There is the single-family lot. We're relocating the commercial structure somewhat more closer to Sunset drive, located in this area here. And the maximum square footage is 1300 square feet. It provides for very limited retail uses. There's several minor deviations that we're requesting. We're using a modified Type B buffer next to the recreation area on the Page 8 November 16,2006 adjacent lot, the single-family. We're using our modified Type B buffer, rather than placing that buffer on the property line, we're placing that on the commercial tract. We have a modified 10-foot buffer adjacent to a residential home adjacent to the commercial structure. And we're now providing for a 10-foot buffer adjacent to the canal where no buffer was previously required in the last PUD. And that's a deviation to the B-type buffer. And that constitutes our proposal. It's fairly straightforward. The PUD calls for old Florida or Florida -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You need to get closer to the speaker. MR. DUANE: The PUD calls for Florida or Key West style type architecture. And that's what we presume will be built. I can't tell you whether the single-family home will be one or two stories at the present time. The lot will be for sale in the foreseeable future. And that will be up to the developer of the single-family lot to choose whether it will be one or two stories or just how large the structure will be. We placed a limitation on the master plan of 6200 square feet for the footprint. That coincided with the multi-family footprint that was previously permitted that allowed for two stories in height. So we think this is an overall reduction in density, and we think it fits in with the community. We had a community meeting that was not particularly well attended. The first time that was our advertised meeting. At the behest of the Goodland Civic Association, I came back a second time, and that meeting was attended by 20 people or so. And that concludes my presentation, unless you have any questions to ask me. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Just before we go into questions, do you have a copy of the old site plan, the one that current PUD would fall under? Because it wasn't in my package, at least. I only have the new one. Page 9 November 16, 2006 MR. DUANE: Old family building along the canal. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You'll need the speaker, Bob. MR. DUANE: Multi-family building along the canal, 1,300 square foot structure. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Where's Sunset Drive on that plan, just so I got my bearings? MR. DUANE: Goodland Drive, Sunset Drive, Angler Drive. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Could you put the original master plan back up. Okay, now. Okay, so on that plan -- MR. HERMANSON: Sunset Drive is right on-- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's what I'm trying to get at. That plan you have the parking up against Sunset Drive. MR. DUANE: That is correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Then multi-family about where the single- family is going now. And you're taking the commercial facility and moving it closer to the south -- MR. DUANE: That is correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- of that parcel piece. MR. DUANE: That is correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ray, is that original master plan part of the PUD? Because we had a strikethrough version of the PUD, but I did not find a copy of the original master plan in the PUD strikethrough version. MS. VALERA: Carolina Valera, principal planner with zoning and land development review. Yes, the master plan will be part of the PUD. And I apologize, it should have been part of your package. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The one you just said will be. I know the new master plan will be, but the old one I assume was part of the PUD? MS. VALERA: Oh, was part -- yes, of course, yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: It didn't make it in my package, I don't Page 10 November 16, 2006 know if anybody else had gotten it but -- COMMISSIONER MURRAY: No. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- it does provide a relevance as to the orientation of the buildings and the impacts they may have, in addition to what your presentation is, so -- okay, are there any questions of the applicant before we go into staff? Mr. Schiffer? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Bob, what is the ground coverage of the existing PUD as it's built out now? MR. DUANE: You mean open space? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: The open space, yeah. MR. DUANE: The open space that's permitted is 30 percent. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Do you know what it is? I mean, the residential buildings all but these have been built, correct? MR. DUANE: Right, they were approved pursuant to approval of the site plan, the -- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Do you have any data as to what it's going to look like when it's going to be built at build-out? MR. DUANE: Well, the -- the project is essentially built out. These are the duplex structures and this is the .45-acre remaining area that we're directing our amendment towards. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Thanks. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, Bob -- Mr. Murray. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Just so I have it clear in my mind. I notice that there are strike-outs in these and there are underscores, so that means there were modifications, but by and large, this is the original documents? MR. DUANE: That's correct. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Okay. So a lot of the questions that I might have had were really from the past so I won't ask them. But I do have a question with regard to the buffer. When is a buffer a buffer is my note. I note that the -- on Page 12 of your Page 11 November 16, 2006 document, a landscape feature, at the very top, F, it speaks to project's western property boundary landscape feature shall include the required landscape buffer areas, and may contain project signage and a decorative architectural element. Did you install that? Is that in place? MR. DUANE: There is a sign. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: And it's within the buffer? MR. DUANE: It's at the entrance of the development. The sign is right -- COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Okay. MR. HERMANSON: It's in the roadway. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Sort of like diagonal with the roadway, isn't it? MR. HERMANSON: I believe it's in the roadway, it's approximately where the old entrance sign used to be. George Hermanson, Hole-Montes. The Calusa Island marina had a sign previously in the roadway. And that's approximately where the sign is. It's a combined sign now for the marina and the village. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: And that's as private road, is it? MR. HERMANSON: Yes, it is. It's shared by the two users. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: So that's what that reference is within private -- this road is not intended to be conveyed to the county? MR. HERMANSON: Actually, the roadway is in the City of Marco. Marco Island city limits are on the border between the road and Goodland -- and Calusa Village. So the marina as well as the road is actually in the City of Marco. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Is the sign within the city? MR. HERMANSON: Pardon me? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Is the sign within the city? MR. HERMANSON: Yes, sir. Page 12 November 16, 2006 COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Okay. All right. I had a question about the buffer. You wish to move the buffer into the commercial area away from the residential. I have a concern on many cases, or in many cases, whoever looks at commercial and sees that buffers over the time they die and they're not maintained. Well, I have a concern for that. What arrangements are within your provisions to make certain that it is maintained? MR. DUANE: That property is within the homeowners association, so it will be maintained -- COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Okay, that's part of the -- okay, that's good. Okay, it's pretty straightforward. There are a number of things that probably should have been struck out relative to what you're intending to change that to me don't appear to be applicable. But that's okay. I'm finished, thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Bob, on the site plan you had up on the viewer before this aerial was put on -- not that one. The new one. It's on the viewer. It's sitting over -- there it is. It came back. You didn't have to do anything, Kady must have done it, but it's back. Square foot maximum building footprint. Does that -- it's a little blurry on mine. Does that say 6629? MR. DUANE: 6251. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I didn't ask that. The one on the viewer. The one on the viewer, does that say 6629? You were looking at the one on the wall. MR. HERMANSON: Yes, sir, it does. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, which one are you trying to use here today? MR. DUANE: I'm using the one that -- I'm using the one on the . VIewer. Page 13 November 16,2006 CHAIRMAN STRAIN : You're using the one on the viewer? Then your PUD is in error. MR. DUANE: Well, I just took this off of the ordinance that I provided county staff. And it says 6629. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But the one that we received in our packet, which must have not come from county staff, then, is 6251. MR. DUANE: I didn't prepare the county staffpacket. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, well, it's one of your documents. It's on your company's banner. I don't know if staff can change those things. Someone put one through for 6251 square feet maximum building footprint. Maybe Carolina you can explain to us how we have a different one than what's being presented. MS. VALERA: Commissioner, I cannot explain it. We cannot change the numbers on the -- I'm sorry, we cannot change the numbers on their master plan. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Carolina, do you know if the square footage is an issue within the context of the PUD? I just can't remember offhand. I'm sure I'll get to it. MS. VALERA: It will be if it's more. I'm not sure which number they're trying to go with. The one I have is the one you have in the packet, and that's what was proposed to be for the multi-family in the original PUD. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. And that's what the applicant said the other one was -- it was a duplicate of the original multi-family PUD. Now both of you are saying the same thing but with different numbers involved. I guess it will be up to us to decide which one's the right number. MS. VALERA: I would like to go with the number that it was originally approved with the original PUD. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, which number is that? MS. VALERA: I'm not sure. To tell you the truth, I'm not sure. Page 14 November 16, 2006 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You're leading us down the path that-- MS. VALERA: I was relying on the number to be the same as the original PUD. MR. DUANE: The lesser number is fine. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The lesser number is fine. The lesser number is in the PUD as we've got it presented today, so that would simplify the whole process. MS. VALERA: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Good. Thank you. MR. DUANE: Actually, the square footage is not called out in the PUD, we just added it to the master plan. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ms. Caron. COMMISSIONER CARON: Yes, just a note here on numbers not being the same. You said this morning that you were going from 50 to 46 units in the PUD. In everything we have, it says 47 units. MR. DUANE: I'm sorry, I'll correct it. COMMISSIONER CARON: So it should be 47? MR. DUANE: Yes, we're reducing the four-unit multi-family building to single-family so it's reducing by three, from 50 to 47. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Schiffer. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Yes, Bob, the box you show for the commercial is 1,300 square feet, is that scale about 1,300 square feet? MR. DUANE: Yes, sir. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: If you want 6,000 square feet for the house, it's going to essentially fill up what's available in that lot area, correct? MR. DUANE: Correct. It's a relatively -- the lot has about 80 feet of frontage on the canal, it's a little less than 10,000 square feet in total area. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: That would mean if you extend the road, which you have to, because that's the entrance to the project, Page 15 November 16, 2006 right? MR. DUANE: Correct. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: You're not going to have that much square footage of ground cover available, are you? And if you do, you're going to totally fill that in. MR. DUANE: It's no greater than the structure that we're replacing there. I don't have an end user for the single-family lot. I can't tell you whether it will be one story or two stories or whether it will be 4,000 square feet -- it should mirror the prior footprint. (Commissioner Midney enters the boardroom.) COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: But your request for the footprint for that amount of square footage, which is a lot, is totally going to overcome -- I don't think you can actually, looking at the size of the building, and just a quick judgment, you won't be able to fill that up and get that amount anyway, so you're essentially going to be having the ability to totally cover that site that's remaining with building; is that right? MR. DUANE: That is correct. It's -- a representative. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Any other questions? Bob, I have a couple more. Comment you just made that it's going from 47 to 44; is that-- MR. DUANE: No, it's going from 50 to 47. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Your letter that you sent to county staff said you were going from 47 to 44. The letter was dated March 7th, 2006. I just wondering why you would have said that in your letter if it's different now. MR. DUANE: No, it's going from 50 to 47 units. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: On Page 26 of the PUD, I'm not sure who's responsible for this, it's deviation Section 5.8, my copy has all kinds of handwritten comments on it. Is that consistent with everybody else's copy? Page 16 November 16, 2006 COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: Yes. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. I'm not sure if someone was trying to send us a message, like a note in a bottle or something like that, but I think that for recordation purposes this is going to be BCC, you would want a clean copy. I also want to verify that Page 26, 5.8, deviations, is the last text entry of this PUD. MR. DUANE: My last page -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You've got to use the speaker, Bob. MR. DUANE: The last page of my document is Page 25. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Oh, that's good. We have an extra page. You know, this appeared to be a fairly simple PUD change. I think the errors and omissions are making it very complicated. You have one page less than we have. Does anybody have an explanation as to what page we're missing or that he's missing that we're being asked to approve that they may now not want? MS. VALERA: Commissioner, you do have all the deviations in your packet, right? COMMISSIONER CARON: We think. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I'm trying to -- you're asking me a question I'm trying to get you to answer. MS. VALERA: Okay. You do have all the underlined deviations. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I don't know if I do, that's my question MR. BELLOWS: For the record, let me step in for a second. The petition application that you have has a PUD document submitted with it dated revision five. Is that the latest copy? Then you do have the latest version. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And the revision five is up on the top right-hand corner? Page 1 7 November 16, 2006 MR. BELLOWS: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes. Mine says revision five. Mine is 26 pages long with a graphic at the end. Actually, two graphics at the end. Is that what everybody else is reading from here today? COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: That's what I have. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: That's what I have. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I know the planning commission has probably got it because we all got copied off the same package. But I don't know what staff and the applicant are using. MS. VALERA: You do have 25 pages plus the graphic, right? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No, I have 26 pages plus two graphics. Guys, if you want, we can take a five minute break, I'll give you my packet, you can check it out and come back with an explanation. Is that going to work? Actually, let's just take ten minutes right now. So at 9:10 we'll be back here. (A break was taken.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Citizens are here, let's move forward. Carolina, now do you want to tell us what document we're going to be using here for this review. MS. VALERA: Carolina Valera, principal planner with zoning and land development review. Commissioner, you do have the right packet. You do have the right number of pages, the right number of graphics. So -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, now-- MS. VALERA: Except for you do have the benefit of my notes, and those notes won't be part of the record. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I would say that would have been a good thing, except your handwriting is worse than mine. I wasn't able to utilize it. I don't know if any of us could make them out. Page 18 November 16, 2006 I assume that this document is going to get cleaned up in regards to those notes. MS. VALERA: Absolutely. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And the document's consistent then in the fact that we're asking for 6251 square feet maximum building footprint. MS. VALERA: Yes. Wait a second. I don't remember for sure the on the number -- MR. BELLOWS: That's it. MS. VALERA: Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's the one in the PUD that contradicts the applicant's presentation. MS. VALERA: Correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Mr. Kolflat, do you have any questions? COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: Yes, I did, primarily for the petitioner, if I could, please. The report that I have from the staff indicates that the Calusa Island Village tract could be developed by itself without the requested amendments. Is that correct? MR. DUANE: No. Well, that is correct. We could put a four unit multi-family building and we could put a 1,300 square foot commercial structure, as I indicated on the prior plan to you. But by reducing the multi-family unit and developing the single-family lot, it required some minor deviations to the buffers to maximize the utility of the lot, which is only 80 feet in width. COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: So the amendment change would not be necessary? MR. DUANE: Well, if we didn't amend the PUD, it wouldn't be necessary . COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: Well, let me ask you another Page 19 November 16,2006 question, if I might. The proposed deviation from the landscape section of the LDC will reduce the width of the overall landscape area of the FPUD; is that correct? MR. DUANE: It will reduce it, as I indicated on the master plan. We are -- rather than having a 10- foot -- or a 15- foot B buffer here, we're having a 10- foot modified B buffer on the recreational tract. We're having a 10- foot modified B buffer on the commercial tract in lieu of having a 15- foot wide buffer here. And we are replacing a B buffer with an A buffer on the water at this location right here. There previously was a zero setback allowed from the water, but we're increasing that from zero to accommodate the minimum of the 10- foot buffer width along the canal. COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: Go ahead. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You have to identify yourself. MR. HERMANSON: I'm George Hermanson. I just wanted to mention one thing, I just want to keep it in perspective. We are not amending any external buffers. These are just internal buffers between internal buildings. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: The report I have also says there are no substantial reasons why the property cannot be used in accordance with the existing zoning. Do you agree with that? MR. DUANE: Yes, we can construct a four-unit multi-family building, but our proposal is to replace it with a single-family house. COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: Now, along the canal you had a buffer -- you have a buffer and you reduced that buffer from a Category B to a Category A. That in essences widens up the trees and eliminates a hedge. MR. DUANE: Right. A six-foot hedge along the canal would obscure the view of the water. Previously there was not buffers required along the water, but we had the last PUD change made. Page 20 November 16, 2006 In fact, there is a provision in the landscape code that allows you to take the trees along the water and to re-situate those around your building. And that's part of your code today. But providing a six-foot hedge along the water, I don't think really has a legitimate purpose, and I think the code even recognizes that you can relocate those trees. COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: But that buffer is visible from the property owners to the east. I mean, that buffer separates your project from the property owners to the east. They look at that over the canal. MR. DUANE: Yes. We are at the end of the canal. We are right here. And we are requesting a 10- foot A buffer be placed along it as an alternative providing a six-foot hedge along the canal. You'll see most of the existing houses that were developed along Sunset Road, I mean, they have sporadic landscaping, but they don't have Type B buffers along the water and six-foot hedges. We just didn't think that accomplished -- COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: This change from Type B to Type A goes the entire length of the canal, does it not? MR. DUANE: No. It -- going from the -- yes, there's approximately 80 feet of frontage along the canal. Previously we were permitted a zero setback. We're increasing that to 10 feet and we're reducing the B buffer to an A buffer. COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: In your report, you indicate that the landscape buffers will be placed prior to preliminary subdivision plan and site development plan submittal. Why is that? Why would that appear on the site plan? MR. HERMANSON: Could you repeat the question? COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: Well, it's on Page 11 of your report. MR. DUANE: Are you talking about -- COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: Item C. Page 21 November 16,2006 MR. DUANE: Are you talking about the PUD document? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Bob, you'll need to use the microphone when you speak. MR. DUANE: Well, I think that that provision says what it says, that landscape buffers could be constructed along the perimeter prior to preliminary plat approval. This development is primarily developed right now. It really doesn't -- I don't think it's -- it's an option for us to construct the landscaping if we so desire prior to, you know, site development plan approval. MR. HERMANSON: I think it just means that they can put the buffer up before anything else. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's George Hermanson, for the record. You guys, we can't tag team this, you're going to have to identify yourself and speak one at a time at the podium. Thank you. COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: On Page 12 in Item C also on the same report, you indicate that the commercial building shall have a maximum height of 35 feet, residential building shall be a maximum of 35 feet in height above minimum flood elevation requirements. Why the difference there? One is above the flood requirements and one is not. MR. DUANE: Commercial building shall have a maximum height of 35 feet, residential building shall be a maximum of 35 feet above the flood elevation. MR. HERMANSON: George Hermanson. That's really the normal way of defining a building height. You define it by the number of stories in the building, but you also place a maximum height to make sure that the height -- that the building is not too tall. The normal method of defining a building height is to define it either above grade or above flood elevation. In this particular case, Page 22 November 16, 2006 Goodland is in a flood prone zone. The grades of the ground are below flood elevation, so normally the way is to say here is your grade at flood elevation, you can go above that. It's a very fixed number then, it's not relative to how high the ground is. COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: But the commercial is 35 feet above grade and the residential is 35 feet above the minimum flood level. Doesn't that give you two different heights? MR. HERMANSON: I believe the reason for the difference in the commercial is to allow it to build below flood elevation with the appropriate flood proofing. You can build below flood elevation with flood proofing. But the residential buildings are not to be built with any living level below flood elevation. COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: So what would be the tallest height of the two structures then? MR. HERMANSON : Well, the residential building could be 35 feet above flood elevation. The commercial building could be 35 feet above grade, I would imagine that's what that says. COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: That's what it says, but I'm trying to get what is the total elevation difference between the two? MR. HERMANSON: I don't recall offhand what the flood elevation is there. The existing ground is about five to a six. The flood elevation is somewhat above that. I'm going to say it's an eight or a nine, but I can't remember exactly what it is. COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: So that would make 43 and 35 feet as being the two heights of the buildings. MR. HERMANSON: If those were the numbers, yes. COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: Those were the only questions I had, Mark. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. Any other questions of the applicant? Mr. Murray. Page 23 November 16, 2006 COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I just want to talk more about the landscaping. There are two things that come to my mind. Number one, an A buffer is next to nothing in terms of being a buffer. The other question that comes to my mind regarding that is that if it's prone to flooding and you put some really nice landscaping in there, saltwater will kill it all, or at least certainly injure it. So I'm just wondering, could you point out for me where again, where that one specific buffer is that we're talking about that we want to go to A that you referenced earlier. MR. DUANE: This is the A buffer along the canal right here. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Okay. And you want visualization into the -- what -- show me on that other picture if you would, please, where that is. MR. DUANE: This is where the lot is right here. This is the length of the canal. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: And you want the buffer to be along what portion of that L, please. Use that is picture. Not that, there. MR. DUANE: Right here. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: So you're concerned with visualization into the backyards of the canal of those other folks? You want to eliminate the buffer because people will have a nice view. MR. DUANE: We didn't see any benefit to putting a six-foot-tall hedge and screening the canal, you know, the house from the canal. That's why people buy waterfront property. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Okay, I can appreciate that. MR. DUANE: There's a provision, as I said, in your code that allows you to relocate those trees from the water and cluster them around the structure. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I have no fixed notions about it, I'm trying to understand where the benefits would be realized. Page 24 November 16,2006 In terms of the other deviations, why does it -- why is it necessary to have these deviations now when in fact we didn't have them earlier? What is it that we're going to gain by allowing for less? MR. DUANE: The width of the lot is 80 feet. We could have placed a 15-foot buffer on either side of the single-family lot and reduce the usable area from 80 feet to 50 feet. That just -- it seemed that accommodating the B buffers on the recreational tract and on the commercial tract accomplished the same thing. This is a very limited commercial structure, it's only 1,300 square feet in area. And the uses are somewhat limited also in nature. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Okay, if I -- go ahead, sir. MR. HERMANSON: George Hermanson. I don't agree that there's less. The old building that's right here does not have a buffer separating it from the commercial, it does not have a buffer separating it from the recreational areas. Weare reducing it to a single-family and putting a buffer between the two where there was previously was none required. So I believe we're adding, we're not subtracting. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: That's a way of going about it, surely. I'm just trying to understand what the people who will live there, what they'll gain or lose and what the overall view -- I mean, it's sufficiently far down that I think that the folks in Goodland proper probably won't visualize this stuff; am I correct? MR. DUANE: That would be my opinion. If you look at the aerial photo in there, there's no landscape buffers along any of the developed lots on this canal. We retained a mangrove fringe along the existing duplex development to the extent that existed. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Okay, those are my questions. Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Bob, one question. The residential Page 25 November 16,2006 house to the south of the commercial structure where it's being moved, have you had any discussion with that neighbor? MR. DUANE: That property owner has discussed plans with my client and had no objections. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. I'd like to have staffreport now. MS. VALERA: Carolina Valera, principal planner with zoning and land development review. Staff has analyzed this project and there are no changes in uses, so still -- the PUD still remains consistent with the Growth Management Plan. We have analyzed the new deviations and we have no objections to the deviations that are being proposed. As noted in the staff report, we believe that the scale of the deviations and the context of the PUD, and since these are internal buffers, we believe that it's -- they're agreeable. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Are there any questions of staff? MS. VALERA: You have any questions? Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Schiffer, Mr. Kolflat, Mr. Murray. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Carolina, I'm a little confused as to why we're requiring -- this is a PUD, the perimeter requires buffers. These internal buffers, where are they coming from in the code? MS. VALERA: The code requires -- yeah, they're from the landscape code. And it's -- the buffer between the residential and commercial, it's in the table. It's, you know, between single-family use and commercial. So that is a Type B buffer that's required. That's 15-foot wide. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: But in our mixed use, whenever we're mixing uses, now, we're going to be sticking buffers between each use? For example, like they pointed out, the last design, the commercial building was alongside the residential building. What would be different from that and this, other than they Page 26 November 16,2006 pulled the buildings apart? Is the intent to provide a property line and subdivided these as different lots? MS. VALERA: You have one point that we analyze, too. This is a mixed use project, so we believe that the reduction in the buffers, it's -- you know, will help with the mixed use. It's just separated the uses within the PUD. Now, we have to go by the rules of the land -- the development code, and we don't have exemptions so far for mixed use projects. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: So in other words, when we do a mixed use development, if we put two uses together, we can't do that. We really have to pull them apart because there's landscaping. So you'll never be able to have a building with mixed use? MS. VALERA: Unless we change the code to have specific rules for mixed use or you do, just like now, have deviations in your PUD. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. The advantage for this to be a mixed use is it goes from a 30 percent -- or a 60 percent open space requirement to a 30 percent. Is there any minimum as to how much commercial -- the reward for that is rather large. The commercial on this site is rather small. Isn't there -- in other words, could I put a phone booth on the corner and get that 30 percent? MS. VALERA: The term mixed use in regards to Land Development Code doesn't truly talk about the mixed use as we see it from the smart growth perspective. The mixed use in our Land Development Code is just a mix of uses, industrial with commercial, residential with industrial, et cetera, et cetera. But it's not -- and correct me if I'm reading you wrong, but it's not about the growth -- the smart growth principles. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: No, I know that. What I'm saying is the advantage to this little bit of commercial is it allowed them to go from 60 percent residential requirement to 30 percent. And there's hardly any commercial on this property. Page 27 November 16,2006 I know we did that before, the number's the same, but wouldn't it be best to kind of boost up what that intent is, is to keep both these sites commercial? MS. VALERA: I'll just say that in our code and in our Growth Management Plan, we don't have a minimum percentage for either use to make them -- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: So the joke of the phone booth on the corner, there is nothing in the Growth Management Plan that would not allow me to call that residential project mixed use. MS. VALERA: We do have, like in the Bayshore overlay, there's, I think there's 60/40. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: That's different. MS. VALERA: Correct. MR. BELLOWS: For the record, Ray Bellows. On a mixed use project, there is no set minimum on what constitutes the smallest portion of a commercial project, other than we have minimum floor standards for commercial. And I think this is consistent with like a standard commercial zoning district, minimum floor area. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. The old site plan they had, why couldn't they do this under that? The site plans have these caveats on it that this is conceptual, can be changed, I mean, you know -- so the point is why are they doing this? MS . VALERA: I believe the petitioner mentioned before, they can develop the land as it was previously approved. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: But they could always develop less units without coming before this board. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The development standards -- I mean, the development description I believe said multi-family. MS. VALERA: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: They're trying to put a single-family in and that wasn't one of the principal uses listed in there. MS. VALERA: Correct. Page 28 November 16, 2006 COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: But, in other words, we specified that had to be a multi-family unit. MS. VALERA: Correct. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And that's what we've been trying to -- MS. VALERA: Yes. In the district portion of the PUD, it did call for multi-family, not single-family. So we wouldn't allow them to come for a site development plan and, you know, allow them to build a single-family with the current PUD. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: All right, thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Kolflat. COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: Yeah, the request for deviation bothered me, all four of these requests for deviation, because the response to that could be about the same for any developer that comes . In. Why do we have these in the code to begin with if we're not going follow them? Either we should change the code and leave it up to negotiation between the staff and the petitioner on each issue, or we should follow the codes as is written. MS . VALERA: I believe the code allows these deviations because every PUD is unique and will have different circumstances, different uses, different -- and so that is why. It's a way to allow for, as the code calls, creativity in each type of development. I will have to add that in along the canal, the buffer that exists between the built single families are mangroves. So they qualify for a Type -- COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: That's a unique situation then? MS. VALERA: Correct. COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: Nothing else. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Murray, then Ms. Caron. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Did you attend the last neighborhood information meeting -- Page 29 November 16, 2006 MS. VALERA: I had -- COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I'm sorry. MS. VALERA: I'm sorry, I didn't mean to interrupt you. I attended the neighborhood information meeting that the code requires. I didn't know that he was going to have another meeting. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: So there were no minutes. You don't know anything about minutes and you don't know who all attended and what the tenor and tone was? MS. VALERA: No, except for the one that I stated in my staff report. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Okay. Then we'll have to hear -- if there are any speakers, we'll have to hear from the representatives of the community and we can look for notes or something from the petitioner. That was my only question, thank you. MS . VALERA: I would like to correct one thing that was stated by the petitioner. I think he -- at one point, he said that a Type A buffer -- he was just changing the amount of trees and the hedge. But along the south he's also changing the width. So it's going from 15 to 10. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ms. Caron? COMMISSIONER CARON: Just a quick question. It shows an interconnect here to what will become the single-family home. Is that interconnect required between the commercial and the -- MS. VALERA: We didn't require that, but it's shown on the plan, and that's just -- the chairman stated, they can change. I mean, these plans are just conceptual. COMMISSIONER CARON: So in other words the commercial portion of this property can become an isolated commercial property not interconnected to any of the rest of the PUD other than in name only? MS. VALERA: You are correct. Page 30 November 16, 2006 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, Ray, do we have any public speakers? MR. BELLOWS: Yes, we have two registered speakers. The first is Debbie Pappy, to be followed by Connie Fulmer. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I'd like to ask that you try to keep your comments to about five minutes. Thank you. MS. PAPPY: I'll try. Good morning. Debbie Pappy, 583 Coconut, in Goodland. First of all, I'd like to thank you all for doing your homework. You've done a good job from my perspective. I think you're keeping a good watch. I'd like to also start by asking a question of the staff. From the recommendations, it seems -- it's a little confusing to me if this person has gone down to Goodland and has looked at the site. Their recommendation, I think, if they're based on this report, they would have noticed right away that on this report it says that there are 450 feet of dock. Well, it's over 1,500 feet of dock now, not 450. They also would have known that the mangroves are not intact as they were originally, because there's been code violations on that from the original property. The last time I came to speak with you was about a fence and being a good neighbor. And for me, still a good neighbor is one who communicates openly from the beginning. This is a piece of property that has been represented from the beginning, including on the landscape plan, that it was one building, not two buildings separated. It was one building. To this -- all of a sudden we get this package, we find out that it's two buildings with a buffer. So I agree with Mr. Schiffer, 1,300 square feet and you got six -- went from 60 percent open space down to 30 in a little tiny community village. It doesn't seem right. Page 31 November 16, 2006 The other thing that's very concerning to me is that this is a 6251 square- foot footprint. That means it can be doubled over parking. So we're talking 18,000-plus square feet of space. There isn't even a restaurant in Goodland that's that large, much less a house. This is a neighborhood that even their dual condo units aren't even that big. This is a neighborhood that you can see -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ma'am, you'll have to take the speaker with you. There's a portable one there if you're going to talk. MS. PAPPY: Right there. And those are all single-family mobile homes and single-family dwellings. And they, I promise you, are not even 1,000 square feet. So this will loom. Since this project has started, we have listened to four years of hammering, grinding, before hours, after hours. We've told there's been hardships. Our community has suffered a hardship, and we have tried to work with Mr. Reed and his representatives at Hole-Montes. And we have found it very difficult to work with them. Every time we have to come -- we're not paid to do this, we do this because we love our community. And we want to be a good neighbor, and we're not saying they shouldn't be there. I love it that people love the water. But not to invade our community with these albatrosses. And we do care about buffers. We do care about what's going on. What's happened now is that because of this project, it has increased the property values, which is great if you can sell your property. There is so much property on the market in Goodland, and nobody wants to buy it. So I think that for speculation on a 6200 square foot -- the other thing is that this developer was asked to, from the beginning, and it was in his package on page -- it's about massing. And it was on Page 13, four. And it says buildings shall be arranged on the site so that all buildings are not constructed along the same building line. And if you look at that property line, you will see that every single one of them was constructed. We didn't say a word. We just let Page 32 November 16, 2006 it go. This is a person who, unless you are babysitting them time after time after time, you give them an inch, and they're going to take another acre. I didn't realize that you could go from commercial to multi-family then down to single-family and still call it mixed use. I'm having a huge problem with the petitioner coming back in and asking all the time for these kind of changes. So I would ask personally that you keep it a PUD, not an MPUD. It may qualify, but there's really not that much language change. Number two is that when we came to see you back in 2004 and we talked about fences and walls and landscape, that you would go back and you would keep those exemptions still there and that you would look at why this petitioner is going from -- to three less units. This is not an altruistic developer. This does not happen. There is something going on, and I would love to know what it is. And I think we have a right in Goodland to know what it is. Our community -- that would be six or seven homes minimum for the size of this one lot. I thank you so much for your prudence, I thank you for listening, and I hope you make good choices. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Just a minute. Mr. Murray. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Hi. Did you attend the last meeting that -- MS. PAPPY: No. We live out of town, and I did get a notice in July from Mr. Duane, and I called him and he told me that he was having a meeting on August the 8th. And I said who gave you permission, and he told me. And I said well, they're just a member. They don't even have a key to the building. So he said can we meet in the parking lot. And I said sure, I can't stop you. So your staff was there, and 25 people did go. I just got down Page 33 November 16, 2006 here a week ago, because and I do a mission trip and my mission trip was not over until the 6th of November. So, no, I wasn't there but I'm very familiar with the property. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ma'am, you said staff was there, you meant staff was at the first one but not the second one. MS. PAPPY: From what I understand, and I was at neither meeting, but I was told staff was at the one on August the 8th but was not there on the one on the 17th of October. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you very much. Next speaker, please. MR. BELLOWS: Connie Fulmer. MS. FULMER: Good morning, Commissioners. Connie Fulmer, or Connie Stagall-Fulmer for the record, 584 Coconut Avenue, Goodland. I'm here today as president of the Goodland Preservation Coalition representing a membership of 130 people, made up of Goodlanders and folks that are concerned about the preservation of Goodland. It is in the Goodland Preservation Coalition's charter to address developers and development issues on the political agenda. Some of the things I first want to talk about are in your -- the staffs report. The -- Debbie Pappy has talked about a lot of the individual issues. I guess I would really like to first take you to Page 3 of the staff report, and to the lower portion where it begins to talk about the petition incorporates the strikethrough and so on. And we're talking about changing from PUD to MPUD. MPUD is something new since we were up here last time talking about this. So MPUD, mixed use development, is something I want to focus on. The next page, Page 4, is a color piece, and the -- Page 4 shows the section that is being revised, and that's outlined in yellow, and it's Page 34 November 16, 2006 called MPUD. The rest or the balance of the original PUD is still being called PUD. And I was wondering, why the separation? Why is the original part still where it's all single-family residential called PUD and the front portion MPUD. When this was originally developed, the 1300 square-foot commercial allowed them to reduce their open space from 60 to 30, so we know all about that. But now by moving the commercial or separating it from the footprint here, moving it over here as a separate building, they're separating, now this area, I'm calling it an MPUD, where all the rest of this down along the line is a PUD. The question is, why would that be necessary? It is our opinion that we do know that their plan is to sell the single- family residential unit. But that single-family is mixed in with the commercial. It's our opinion that their intent is to sell off the MPUD to a new developer, and that is indicated based upon the -- back to the staff report, when you look at Page 7, beginning on Page 7, in deviation. Let's go to deviation number three, where it says the petitioner seeks relief from section so on and so on, which regulates landscape buffers that are required between developments. So what we're looking at is a developer here, Mr. Reed, who's wanting to sell off part of his original PUD and have that portion sold off as an MPUD. The new buyer or developer, which is why they want the buffer in between, will retain that 1,300 square feet so they can still get the benefit of the reduction of open space, whereas Mr. Reed has already used that reduction of open space in his original PUD. So they're trying to get two bangs for one buck out of this commercial space. In our opinion, because of the footprint of the size of the single- family residential unit, that there is a -- an opportunity for a buyer, a developer, a real estate developer, to use this large footprint of a home as a model display home for selling homes in the area and Page 35 November 16, 2006 using the commercial area as their commercial business area until which time they no longer need the model home. And then they can sell that commercial space off eventually. And the reason that finding kind of comes down to that is because of these deviations. Why -- you've all asked why deviations? It's to create a buffer between the original PUD and this MPUD, this new thing that they want to sell off. Getting back to the meetings, the original meeting that was an informational meeting that the staff attended was August the 8th. Seven members of the community, the remaining people that attended that were staff and the representatives from Mr. Reed. It was indicated through conversation with the president of the Goodland Civic Association that that meeting would not happen, and that word was sent out via e-mail to individuals in the community because we had told Mr. Reed, it's not a good time, nobody's in town, nobody will be here to listen and respond to it. It was our opinion, most of us that got the e-mails, there will not be a meeting August 8th, so there was very little attendance. October 17th, the attendance was pretty good. Still a lot of people out of town. But we did inquire at that meeting of Mr. Duane about the footprint. Why such a big footprint? Can we put a limitation on what the size of the actual structure will be? And he said well, our intent is to sell. We really can't put a limitation on that, that would be up to the new buyer. Our concern is the intended use for this MPUD and the benefit that would be gained by the new buyer for the open space element, or the reduction of having to provide open space, and what the impact to Goodland will be having a very, very large home, as Debbie Pappy had mentioned. We recommend denial of this. There's no reason that we can't stay -- that the current owner shouldn't stay with the contract that was made in 2004 after much controversial concern. We reduced in that Page 36 November 16, 2006 amendment, we did not want to lose our commercial square footage up front. But the -- Mr. Reed deemed that it was not a viable economic use for him, so he came forward and asked you all to support changing it from commercial to multi-family. He wanted five units. He would drop the height from 45 down to 35 height. So Goodlanders said, okay, we can support that. We don't want to lose our commercial, but we would like the height to come down. We don't want five, we'll settle for four, and that's what was agreed upon. No fencing, no walls around the perimeter. Those were things that were agreed upon. Now he's coming back after the market went south and he's wanting to change that and he sees an opportunity to sell this MPUD off to somebody else, a separate developer, and let them deal with the market and use it for a display model home and commercial. There's a lot more to that. At first blush it looks kind of cool, reduction from four units down to one, but there's still two footprints, a commercial and a single-family residential that's very big. So there's a whole lot more behind the scenes on this than they want to show you. We're not in favor of the change. We cannot support a change. We would ask you to deny the applicant's application. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you very much. Ma'am. Next speaker, Ray? MR. BELLOWS: No other speakers have registered. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Midney, did you have a question? COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: I have a question of the speaker. Were you at the October meeting? MS. FULMER: I was. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Because we never got a synopsis of what happened in that meeting. MS. FULMER: Mr. Duane was there, and he did bring some Page 37 November 16, 2006 drawings, they were up on the front table. We really didn't have -- as people arrived, the meeting started, didn't have much time to look at any of those drawings, and then he left after the meeting. He was responsive to our questions, did indicate there were questions about what is the buffering, what is a Type A buffer, Type B buffer, because that was talked about. We didn't know what the difference was. He did explain that. Many of the issues and concerns were about open space, the percentages. Is this MPUD still going to get the same allowance. And the other question was is there a limitation on the size of the building? This is way uncharacteristic for Goodland. And -- so there were a lot of questions. And Mr. Duane did follow-up on those questions that he didn't have answers to, so I do thank him for that. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Do you think that a 6,000-foot house is out of character with Goodland? MS. FULMER: Well, the largest square footage house in Goodland now, which would be an older one, is approximately 3200 square feet. And that's a two-story over one, very, very big, takes up pretty much the footprint. Our lots are 60 by 90, maximum. The larger lots are 90 by 90. Some of them are 40 by 90. Very, very uncharacteristic. One more thing I want to point out about this original PUD is it came about because of our overlay back in 2000, 2001. It was because the developer had the opportunity to build a certain number of units down that tract of land. Part of it was, the portion down by Calusa Marina was zoned single-family and the portion up closer to the commercial is zoned village residential, which is multi-family. And the front portion along Goodland Drive is commercial. They wanted -- the original owner wanted, so they didn't lose units, they asked if they could create a PUD so they could spread their density all the way down the lane toward the marina. Page 38 November 16,2006 That was immensely controversial, the original PUD, immensely. But it finally went through because we felt that it would be better to spread the density than to have large massive buildings in that village residential section of Goodland. So there's a long history behind this whole PUD that I think the current presentation by the representatives of the owner tried to gloss over. It's very uncharacteristic for Goodland, and that's why we see this as, in our opinion, this is a viable way for a real estate developer to have a model home, a commercial area, to have homes to display for future development of Goodland with large residences. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Kolflat, did you have a question? COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: I don't have a question, after you close the public hearings I'd like to make -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Yes, sir, Mr. Schiffer. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I have a question of staff before CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you, Ms. Fulmer, appreciate it. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Carolina, we're back to something I discussed a little earlier. So you consider between these two buildings that they have to meet the code requirements that's required between developments? MS. VALERA: Developments as uses. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I didn't say uses, I said development. We have landscape buffer requirements that are between developments. MR. BELLOWS: For the record, Ray Bellows. Landscape staff has traditionally determined the wording in the LDC to be uses. The difference between a commercial use and a residential use within the same PUD to require that buffer. That's the purpose they're asking for the deviations today. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: So if this is approved today, Page 39 November 16, 2006 they can separate it, like the citizen pointed out, and consider that these are reduced buffers because these are multiple developments. MS. VALERA: In order to separate the two, they would have to come for another PUD amendment and create different PUD. The reason -- and I want to clarify that the reason it says MPUD in the staff report for that area is because the PUD, the original PUD has two districts, the residential and the mixed use. In the original PUD. Now, and just for clarification, when you come for amendment of an old PUD, and that old PUD happens to be a mixed use, and again it could have been commercial with industrial, we had that case with the site where Wal-Mart is. They did an amendment, it's industrial and commercial. And they had to change the document to be called MPUD. And I can see the confusion, because there is a district, there's an area on the original PUD that is called mixed use. And it remains being called mixed use in this amendment. But that's different from the fact that staff has to require the applicant to call it now an MPUD for the whole document. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: The chart that was shown coloring in just that one area as the mixed use area, essentially the whole PUD becomes an MPUD, not just that area? MS. VALERA: That is correct. But that portion within the MPUD, if it's approved, that portion it still remains to be the mixed use portion of the MPUD, if I explain myself. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. I mean, why would you -- why is that important anyway? Essentially this is one house. All the other houses are duplexes, so why would you just stop the coloring there, why wouldn't you -- I mean, the whole thing has to be a mixed use to get the ground coverage. MS. VALERA: Correct. It's just the difference in the master plan. Page 40 November 16,2006 COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Any other questions of staff? MS. FULMER: Rebuttal? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The applicant gets to do the rebuttal. MS. FULMER: The public can't? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You already had almost five -- ten minutes now. We're going to have to let the applicant have their say and we'll move forward. MR. DUANE: Robert Duane again for the record. Carolina made the correct distinction as to why we went from a PUD to an MPUD. We merely changed the terminology in the code. My client is merely going to sell the, single-family lot to a willing buyer. We don't have any grandiose scheme to commercialize this property. It is what it is. We're replacing a multi-family building with a single-family lot. The existing multi-family building had a footprint of 6200 square feet. We just merely carried that over on the master plan. I have no idea how large the size of the single-family home may be. But I thought it was at least equal to or likely going to be less than was previously permitted by the PUD. And also, I'd like to add that my client has worked very closely with the people from Goodland. At one time he constructed a wall that he had over $70,000 in. They didn't like it and he took the wall down. That's just an example of a number of things that he is trying to do to be a good neighbor. We didn't think that our proposal would be viewed as inflammatory. But anyway, everyone's entitled to their point of view, and I appreciate your attention this morning. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. Mr. Schiffer. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Bob, just a question. You brought this up. The other duplexes on there, are they subdivided fee simple lots? MR. DUANE: No, it's a condo. Page 41 November 16, 2006 COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And then would this be the same as that? Because you say you going to sell off the lot. You mean you're going to sell off the rights to build on a portion of the PUD? MR. DUANE: Yes, that somewhat less than 10,000 square-foot lot is going to be replaced by a single-family -- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: But you're not subdividing, cutting it off. MR. DUANE: I don't believe we're going to subdivide. MR. HERMANSON: George Hermanson. No, but the entire property is intended to be a condominium with common property and so forth, just as it started out to be. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. Carolina, you have something you want to finish up with? MS. VALERA: Yes, thank you, Commissioner. The petitioner has said that he's not intending to put any walls. Now, the code will require him at the time of site development plan to place a wall between the commercial portion and the VR to the south. He can request an administrative deviation through the site development plan, but I just want to put in the record that he will be required to put a wall in that south portion of the property. He didn't ask for a deviation through this amendment. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Carolina, the way I look at it, if there's not a deviation there, the code stands. MS. VALERA: Correct. Oh, yes, absolutely. That's why I wanted to bring it up to you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Any other comments from planning commission? MR. DUANE: I think I've got to correct that. We're talking about -- yes, a deviation needed to allow to modified Type B buffer in lieu of a wall for screening between the commercial and the single- family use, which constitutes a deviation to Section Page 42 November 16,2006 5.03.02.E.2. Justification for this deviation is the residents of Goodland have expressed a strong preference not to have walls in their community. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I think, though, the area she was talking about was not between the commercial use and the residential on the site but the commercial and the residential to the south. That's what I heard her say at least. And I don't believe you've applied for a deviation on that. MR. DUANE: We had discussed that issue with the staff prior to the hearing. I had some extensive conversations with landscaping staff, and we determined that a wall under the circumstances, you know, would not be required in this particular location, because of the street separating it and the vacant use of the property across the street. And I think it's -- the people from Goodland have always been clear that they did not want to have walls. And that was certainly our intent not to construct any walls within this development. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, that's something that can be worked out at the time of SDP, if it even gets that far, and it could be worked out in stipulation from this committee as well. I think we heard enough on that matter. Hearing no other comments, we will close the public hearing and entertain a motion. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I would make a motion -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Kolflat had asked to bespeak as soon as the meeting was cleared. Go ahead, Mr. Kolflat. COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: Well, I see no need for this rezoning at all, nor to some of these deviations, so I make a motion that we recommend denial to the Board of County Commissioners of Petition PUDA-2006-AR-9466. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Is there -- Margie, before -- you want to talk before the second or after the second? MS. STUDENT-STIRLING: I think before.A Page 43 November 16, 2006 I just want to draw the -- remind the commission that we need to state a reason that's set forth in the land code, and that -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Margie, we always do that during sti pulati ons. MS. STUDENT-STIRLING: Okay. But I wanted -- the motion maker had not set forth the reasons. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. And usually we go into discussion, stipulations, and they accept the stipulations which include those comments. At least that's how we've done it for four years. There's been a motion for recommendation of denial. Is there a second? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I second that motion. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Murray seconded it, Mr. Kolflat made the motion. Now for discussion. Mr. Schiffer, Mr. Midney. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Yeah, I'm going to support the motion. For one thing, I kind of agree with the citizens on some of their concerns. And also, I honestly think when we were convinced last time to reduce the commercial, the ability to have the four units is important. So to me this is a vote between the ability to provide four units, wouldn't it be nice if they were affordable units, and a mega home. So I'm going to support the four units as is. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Midney. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: I'm also in favor of the motion because Goodland is not Naples. Goodland had its own character and it's characterized by smaller homes, and I don't think that this is -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Murray. COMMISSIONER MURRAY : Yes, the lot size, which would then eventuate into a fairly large structure, would be completely out of character in Goodland. It's a village. Folks have worked hard to retain that as a village. Page 44 November 16, 2006 And I'm concerned, I echo the comments of my other commissioners who have spoken. I too was aware of this, participated in the last activity, I believe, on this one, and I think it was a nice presentation the last time, and that should stand. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. And for my part, I'm going to support the motion. This is a, basically in my opinion, a Trojan horse. It is inconsistent with the GMP based on FLUE Section 5.4, and I find it inconsistent with the Land Development Code based on Section 4.07.02, 83, sub-D, sub-F, sub-G. And Ms. Student? MS. STUDENT-STIRLING: Yes. I understand the one reason as being inconsistent with the compo plan. But there are the findings that are found in Exhibit A in your staff report that are the criteria to grant or deny a rezone petition. And just for clarification purposes, I wonder if there's item two, the existing land use pattern, that seems to be what Mr. Schiffer and Mr. Midney were talking about. But if they could put, for the record, state that that's their reason, and if Mr. Kolflat could clarify, based on these criteria, it would -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, before we go into that, Ms. Student, in the past we've been asked to site sections from the code and the GMP for inconsistencies. Now you are referring us to rezone findings. Just so you know, the inconsistencies I'm talking about, 5.4 of the FLUE, is for compatibility. Under 4.07.02.D, residential density in PUDs, the inconsistencies I'm referring to are in conflict with the intent of the provisions of the GMP, which would be the FLUE. Under F, would be incompatible or inconsistent with surrounding neighborhoods or areas, which I believe it is. And the other one, G, which would be otherwise inappropriate. And it's inappropriate because I believe it's going to be used for a larger structure in the end than what they're going to build there. Page 45 November 16, 2006 MS. STUDENT-STIRLING: Understood. What I was reading-- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Is that not sufficient enough to meet-- MS. STUDENT-STIRLING: What I was reading from are the criteria that are found in the land code, but I believe they're in Section 10, so that's only -- that's why I wanted a clarification. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I understand where you -- I just wanted to make sure if we had to go through that, I guess we could go through each one of those one at a time. Rezone finding, Petition PUDA-2006-AR-9466, the first one is whether the proposed change would be inconsistent -- will be consistent with the goals, objectives and policies of the FLUE and the elements of the GMP. I think I've already said I don't believe it is. And we will, after we get done with these, we'll ask the motion maker if he accepts these positions, and we can ask the second as well. So number one would then be -- would not be the intentions of number one. Number two is the existing land use pattern. Again, 4.07.02 addresses that, it would not meet the intent of the existing land use pattern. Number three, the possible creation of an isolated district unrelated to adjacent and nearby districts, that would again be an incompatibility issue. I believe number three would not apply. Number four -- number five, whether change or changed conditions make the past or the proposed amendment necessary. I see nothing that makes it necessary. Number six, whether the proposed change will adversely influence living conditions in the neighborhood. Based on how it's built out and the limited restrictions that are being proposed here, I believe it easily could negatively affect those living conditions. COMMISSIONER CARON: Eleven. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Number 11, whether the proposed change will be a deterrent to the improvement or development of Page 46 November 16, 2006 adjacent property in accordance with existing regulations. I don't know -- that one I don't think applies. COMMISSIONER CARON: Thirteen. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Number 13, whether there are substantial reasons why the property cannot be used in accordance with existing zoning. I t can be used with existing zoning. Testimony has stated that. Number 14, whether the change suggested is out of scale with the needs of the neighborhood or the county based on compatibility. That was one of the reasons for denial. Number 15 -- well, number 15 I don't really think is applicable in the PUD, but others might. Findings for the PUD. Number one, the suitability of the area for the type and pattern of the development proposed. Again, I don't believe the compatibility is met, so therefore number one would not carry . Number three is the conformity of the proposed PUD to the goals and objectives of the GMP. Again, I don't believe it's consistent with FLUE 5.4. Number five, the internal and external compatibility of the proposed uses I don't believe has been met. Number -- I'm sorry, that was number four. Number five, the adequacy of the usable open space areas in existence. There's so little open space, by building a footprint of this size and being able to go up 35 feet with that footprint is certainly going to have an impact on open space. Those are all the issues that I believe on the rezone findings and from the findings for the PUD that are inconsistent with the provisions in the GMP and the LDC that were previously cited. Any other comments from the planning commission? If not, does the motion maker accept those conditions and stipulations? Page 47 November 16,2006 COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: Yes, I do. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Does the second? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Wholly agree. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ms. Student, is that sufficient? MS. STUDENT -STIRLING: Thank you very much, yes, it is. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. All those in favor of the motion, signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: Aye. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Aye. COMMISSIONER CARON: Aye. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Aye. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Aye. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Aye. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Aye. COMMISSIONER TUFF: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye. Is anybody opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion carries to recommend denial 9-0. Now, we're going to get into a very lengthy part of our meeting today. And before we -- I know we had a 10-minute break a little while ago, but I think we probably need a 15-minute break right now. We'll come back at 10: 15 to start with the balance of the EAR amendments. Thank you. (A break was taken.) Item #8B CONTINUATION OF EAR-BASED GROWTH MANAGEMENT PLAN ELEMENT AMENDMENTS Page 48 November 16, 2006 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. We're going to begin the second part our meeting today, which is a, hopefully, finalization of the EAR-based Growth Amendment Plan amendments. (Mr. Adelstein is not present in the boardroom.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I know staff is anxiously waiting to get through this, as we are. And Bill, I know you're going to start. But I know David's here and Randy. There are a lot of issues on this EAR that we have not finished discussing. I know we've had discussions on it, and staff has left with some direction. We're going to review the results of that today. But there are still other issues lingering. And I notice Mr. Wiley is here, so the drainage will be an issue. CIE elements will be an issue. And the population statistics and how we arrive at them and where we're going to go with those will certainly be an issue today. So just as a heads-up. I'll try -- I know Mr. Scott's here and he'd love to address this today, so we'll try to find something for him too. Okay, Mr. Lorenz, I guess we should start then with -- now, this is the issue on Section 24 in the North Belle Meade; is that correct? MR. LORENZ: Yes. For the record, Bill Lorenz, environmental services director. The presentation I just developed was in response to the planning commission's request for staff to look at some additional options and some -- and together with some issues. One issue was would there be any other land use designation options other than what staff proposed as the sending lands options. Another question was concerning A TV impacts. And another issue was information concerning TDRs. Probably easier item to address is simply the TDR status information that I provided there for you. There are a number of TDRs that have been severed in the rural fringe mixed use district. Page 49 November 16, 2006 The numbers there are roughly the numbers as of about a week ago, translating to about 1700 acres of conservation easements that are placed on property from the result of TDRs being stripped off. And the key issue was what was the sale price of the TDRs. And staff has -- the range is between $25,000 and $29,000 per TDR. The most recent transaction, I believe, is $25,000. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Wasn't 25 the base minimum set by the BCC? MR. LORENZ: That's correct. A little bit more difficult information to present to you from a standpoint of your request for additional information was to look at maybe perhaps some additional land use designations. And for purposes of presentation, let me just cover a little bit of material just to go back so that we are all talk -- recall the same information. The stat current condition is the neutral lands designation, one unit per five acres. It has a 70 percent vegetation retention requirement. Of course as a neutral land use designation, it would not generate any TDRs. There was a request by the commission, and I believe Commissioner Schiffer made some suggestion, possibly looking at some type of required clustering requirement along the lines with the neutral land use designation. Of course neutral land uses would be one unit per five acres. I've set up this particular option with a 70 percent vegetation retention requirement. There was some discussion about either 80 or 90 percent. I'll show you what the effect of that would be. But I just kept it at 70 percent, and I'll work through those numbers with you as we get to another slide. Of course the proposal that you have in your packet from the staff proposal is the sending lands proposal that I can detail a little bit further here. The proposed designation for sending would be all the -- if you Page 50 November 16, 2006 will, the white area, the non-crosshatched area of roughly 350 acres. That would be the 80 percent vegetation retention requirement, which is the requirement for sending lands. Of course the density would be one unit per 40 acres, or -- for a smaller parcel that's already been subdivided. And again on this particular plat, you can see how the parcels -- those parcels are roughly, just to give you some size, roughly 16-acre parcels. And of course sending land designation would generate one TDR per five acres, together with any bonus TDR restoration and conveyance TDR as well. So this is the staff proposal and this was the option that we discussed last meeting. Now, what I'd just like to be able to do for you is just simply to go through your -- some analysis that I have put together, just to give a feel for some of the numbers. If we were to look at -- if we were to look at the amount of undeveloped area that's not in some type of conservation status, the numbers are roughly 270 acres. And this was kind of gutting this out just to be able to give you some sense of order of magnitude of what we would be looking at. If we had the vegetation retention requirement at 70 percent, and again, that's lower than the 90 percent that you're talking about, that would generate a preserve area of almost 190 acres that would then be set aside as a preserve area with a preserve management plan that the entity would -- whether it's the developer or the homeowners association would have to manage. And I lost my acres there. If using a, let's say, 40 percent of the developable area in terms of infrastructure, because now we're talking about clustering 54 units into a small area, and those -- 40 percent, and again, that's kind of a gross number, but it turns into a lot size of a little bit less than an acre. Now, that's one of the reasons -- if we went to, for instance, a 90 percent vegetation retention requirement, we could set aside 240-some Page 51 November 16,2006 acres as the preserve, but it would drop the lot size down to around .3 acres, three-tenths of an acre, close to a quarter of an acre. So just for purposes of this analysis, I kept it at the 70 percent retention requirement so that the lot size would be a little bit bigger in this particular scenario. Especially hearing one of the property owners in terms of what he saw as a vision for the way he would see some of this develop out. So I'm just using this as, again, an option for you to evaluate some of the numbers on. The other thing is, and when we were looking at it just from a staff perspective of supporting RCW s, the habitat requirements per -- now, this is RCW cluster, not to be confused with the residential cluster. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Can we force them to cluster by zoning standards? MR. LORENZ: I'll try to be careful as to which cluster I'm referring to. Seventy-five to 120 acres of habitat area are needed to support an RCW cluster. So the numbers that you see, that I've just generated here, again, to give you some ballpark understanding, would support let's say two to three clusters. Obviously the decimal points don't mean too much. But we'd be talking about two to three clusters. If we went to that 90 percent requirement, we may be in the -- possibly we could get up to a fourth cluster, but again, those are kind of -- some numbers that don't have a lot of degree of certainty with. So from a staff perspective, we simply said okay, if we're looking at some clustering requirement, a 70 percent vegetation retention requirement would seem to make some sense from a habitat protection standpoint, and also a lot size standpoint in terms of what it could potentially yield. Now, this is -- if you could take all of the undeveloped area, all of that acreage, and that's what we're talking about, and clustering it in Page 52 November 16,2006 one place, we have the advantage of putting that kind of, let's say, residential subdivision into an area that generally would be near the disturbed areas. Again, I'm not talking about a lot of standards here, but just trying to conceptualize this option. And that's -- obviously that has some benefit, because we would try to keep as much of the habitat area as intact as possible. And again, we're talking about setting aside about 190 acres of preserve area. And that large preserve area would then have to be managed by the homeowners association. So on the one hand, having that large area as a preserve area has some advantages. We could, from a security standpoint, let's say for A TV s as we get into that issue a little bit later, that entity would be responsible for ensuring that the A TV s, whether it's fenced or some type of security for A TV s coming onto that large preserve area. The large preserve area in terms of management plan, we would specify that it be managed for RCW habitat. Because it would be managed within that preserve management plan requirement, there's opportunities here even to relocate RCW s, create some artificial cavity trees in this particular area, manage it and then try to relocate RCW s and actually grow some -- quote, grow some clusters in this particular preserve area. So to that degree there's some advantages. Obviously disadvantages, you're putting an awful lot of burden onto a homeowners association. This would be in terms of these numbers, we're looking at around 50, 55 families that would then have that responsibility for managing that preserve area. So that's -- that's probably a negative or disadvantage to the option. But one of the problems that we really have in terms of this option, and now some degree set up a little bit as a straw man alternative, is we really can't control the property ownership of all that acreage. I mean, if it was all under one property ownership now and it Page 53 November 16,2006 remains so, then you could require that clustering all in one location. But currently what exists is that those parcels are owned by several different entities, and unless we could force or require that properties -- those acreages to be aggregated, you're not going to get at this option. And to the degree that this option has some advantages, we can't get there. So what you're left with is you're left with a neutral designation and clustering and some vegetation retention requirement. If we can't aggregate the acreage, then we're into a situation where anyone could come in right now, let's say they have four of those parcels, they could require clustering, we'd require the clustering on four of those parcels, and we'd have a cluster development. At some point in that undeveloped area, some -- another property owner with three or four parcels comes in, we have another cluster in that area. So we're beginning to fragment that area again with regard to some smaller clustered subdivisions spread through this area. Now, the sending lands option would of course mean one residential unit per parcel. You could still have a residential -- one residential home on each of those parcels, and obviously you then have some residential land use within all of that area, but it would not be the number of units that would go into that area. The habitat percentage would be -- could be close to the same in terms of preserving habitat. So those are the comparisons, if you will, to make in items of these potential land use designations. So I kind of covered this, you know, the considerations can we create mechanisms to cluster in one location and create one single large preserve area? Right now it doesn't seem that, at least from discussing with other staff such as David, that we don't have a regulatory mechanism to do that. One idea could be that -- and again, this is -- I'm trying to think Page 54 November 16, 2006 out of the box here, and it starts to get perhaps too complicated. But one mechanism could be that you simply establish it as sending lands designation, with the alternative that if somebody can come to you with a fairly large amount of acreage, like 250 acres, the aggregate, then that would -- then we would allow them to have one unit per five acres clustered on that large acreage, that provides some incentive. But the incentive there is going from one land use designation to another land use designation. So that could be an answer to the one question I have on the screen there. Again, it would take a lot further and additional work than what we have done so far. Can the large preserve area be better managed than the sending lands alternatives? And I think that there's opportunity there that it can be. But the burden then is placed on some fairly small homeowners associations, ultimately. And our experience, quite frankly is the homeowners associations who are tasked presently with some even smaller preserves are not seeing those preserves as being managed for habitat and ecological reasons. A lot of times there's some conflicts with regard to aesthetics versus ecological reasons. So you would be putting that kind of burden onto this smaller homeowners association. And quite frankly, the burden placed here with regard to listed species management would be even greater. So there's opportunity for better management in a clustered situation where they specify preserve area, but I'm not sure that it can actually be accomplished very easily from a -- the human element point of view. Can multiple development clusters, and I'm tacking about the residential clusters, meet the RCW protection objectives? Possibly. It would depend upon -- a little bit upon where they would be located. Could we force the location of those multiple clusters in areas that are going to be more habitat sensitive? The problem is, is that we don't -- control the aggregation of the Page 55 November 16, 2006 property, the property ownership in the future. So that just simply leaves that uncertainty out there for us. And then the other question is how would this, a different set of alternatives or a different set of land use designation options set precedent for the other areas within either the North Belle Meade or the other sending lands designation? Because now we're working outside of the current land use designations, we're crafting something very specifically for this particular area. Does that set a precedent for other areas and how would we deal with those other areas? So that causes staff, you know, some pause there, and certainly that's a consideration that -- I think needs to be looked at. The last issue in terms of the A TV s, unless Mac has received some recent information from last night, we tried to contact some of the -- some RCW experts but weren't very successful. However, U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service guidelines for RCW protection, I believe, it's in the recovery plan, does recognize that either existing roads or, either approved or unapproved, usually do not adversely affect RCWs. Now, we're talking about roads, we're not talking necessarily about A TV s. But we do know in terms of evaluating, and Mac Hatcher, my staff member, just inspecting the aerials and seeing where the trails are in the North Belle Meade, that there are a number of dirt roads and trails all throughout the North Belle Meade, and they do come close to several of the active clusters in North Belle Meade. We don't have any data to say that they're adversely impacting or having an impact at all on those clusters, we just don't have that kind of information. We do note that of course A TV use is common in and around most conservation areas. I think it's somewhat pervasive. And really the question comes is, does that -- should we be evaluating this alternative based on A TV use. Because if we reject this alternative because of A TV use, it brings in the question, quite frankly, then why Page 56 November 16,2006 would we not have preservation in any of the areas if we can't control ATV use. And we just don't see that as, the ATV use, as being a reason to reject the sending lands designation in terms of any adverse impact. I think the A TV use, quite frankly, is more of a problem with regard to trespassing and -- and doing something to somebody else's property, more so than what we would be concerned here with RCWs. So that's fairly -- that's staffs consensus. Staff is still comfortable with -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Basically then ATV use is acceptable to these woodpeckers, but residential homes are not? So that means they can put up with these noisy A TV s racing around, doing whatever they do, chasing down whatever they want to chase town, knocking over vegetation, destroying property, but a house they can't stand. Interesting. MR. LORENZ: Well, I think what the difference is, these particular trails that are established, these trails are not just taking down vegetation. There's a distinction. Let's make the distinction between removing vegetation, removing foraging habitat and directly impacting the birds. I'm speaking on -- at the moment I'm speaking on removing vegetation. The trails are not removing vegetation. But a single- family home would be removing vegetation. The trails currently exist. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Have you been out to this site? I mean, I can take you to A TV sites. Would you like to some weekend, join me, I'll show you where they all are. All the vegetation is now gone. That statement just baffles me, Bill. MR. LORENZ: I think it's simply a matter -- from staffs perspective, it's simply an order of magnitude. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Sorry to interrupt you, I'm just surprised. Page 57 November 16,2006 MR. LORENZ: I don't want to say that ATVs have no adverse impact. We can't demonstrate it -- as I said, two weeks Mac is trying to get some additional experts to weigh in on it. We haven't gotten that information. What we do have is the Fish & Wildlife Service guidelines regarding roads and constructions of roads within -- within these areas. But certainly we don't want to have A TV use to come in and destroy the habitat. So the bottom line for staff is we're still comfortable with the sending lands proposal. The neutral designation with the clustering has some advantages, but it becomes difficult as to how we're going to craft those implementation mechanisms, and we don't have a really good feel for that. So the charge that you will -- that the planning commission gave staff was to come back and try to discuss some of these alternatives and some of these issues. And this was the best information we were able to come back with within the two weeks that you have given us. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you, Bill. Are there questions from the planning commission? Mr. Schiffer? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And just to understand that if we keep it at no change, somebody, the people that own this property as a neutral land, they would be able to -- wait a minute, they have no TDRs. That means that they're -- they can't do anything with that land? MR. LORENZ: If we kept it the neutral designation, they can develop their land at one unit per five acres. They would have to preserve 70 percent of the vegetation. They would not be able to participate in the TDR program to either generate TDRs or utilize TD Rs on their property. Page 58 November 16, 2006 COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: But they would then have to put in roads and stuff, essentially gridding up that whole parcel, right? MR. LORENZ: Certainly if -- I kind of look to David for some assistance here. They could come in with a fairly diverse pattern of one unit per five acres, not to come in and create -- David, would they have to create a -- would they be responsible for subdivision regulations? MR. WEEKS : Well, that -- for the record, David Weeks, comprehensive planning. Whether they trigger a formal subdivision or not, I think Commissioner Schiffer, your point is would they have to put in roads, would they put in a network of roads, whether it's formally a subdivision by definition or not. And the answer would be yes. They're going to have access to each of these individual 16-acre tracts of land. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Before you go too far on that yes answer, they could have access or driveways. And there's a huge difference in transportation between driveways and roads. MR. WEEKS: Yes, I agree. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Because roads in county standards have gutters, sidewalks, streetlights, all kinds of things. Driveways, on the other hand, are just a path. Can be dirt, can be asphalt, but it doesn't have all the other elements that cause a road to be a road. MR. WEEKS: Agreed, a very important distinction. I'd also point out, that our discussion is about residential development. But neutral lands allow a lot of other land uses, mostly by conditional use. But the neutral designation is very similar to the pre-rural fringe designation, agricultural rural designation and agricultural zoning district: Churches, child care centers, social and fraternal organizations, et cetera. Many institutional type uses would be allowed subject to conditional use approval. Page 59 November 16, 2006 And then the wild card for all of this, whether we change the designation from neutral to sending or not, is that agricultural uses are allowed. The distinction is that in the sending lands, the only agricultural uses allowed are those that are consistent with the Right to Farm Act. Whereas in the neutral designation, that limitation does not occur, so there's a broader array of agricultural uses that can be allowed. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: In the study you did on the infrastructure stuff, somebody did a much more -- there's more efficient plans probably that could be done than that. How did you come up with the infrastructure? MR. LORENZ: This is discussion with staff in terms of the general 40 percent of the developable area would be roughly the number, 30 to 40 percent. And that was simply trying to establish what area you'd have left over in terms of yield of the lot sizes. But some -- I mean, those are just some placeholder numbers. You could play around with the numbers, you -- maybe 10 percent either way is not going to change it too much. But that's a fairly good number just to give you some sense of the proportions. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: All right, thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ms. Caron. COMMISSIONER CARON: Isn't it sort of a misnomer to say that with the sending lands we'll only get one unit per 40 acres when this is already broken up into 16 acres lots. MR. LORENZ: Yes, that's what I said, one unit -- the sending land designation is one unit -- COMMISSIONER CARON: Per parcel. MR. LORENZ: -- for 40 acres or per parcel. And these-- COMMISSIONER CARON: So they're at least 18. MR. LORENZ: I believe all of these parcels are less than 40 acres. So I mean, if you go back to that map and you see each of Page 60 ---~._...,,"- -",-.... -. November 16, 2006 those parcels could -- COMMISSIONER CARON: Now, are those actual parcels, so they're 18 -- MR. LORENZ: Those are actual parcels. COMMISSIONER CARON: The potential for 18 homes there. MR. LORENZ: Yes. I think that's counted on. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: David, you had issued an e-mail correcting a statement you had made at the previous meeting on this issue. I had asked how many preservation acreages there was set aside in the rural fringe, or supposedly could be set aside in the rural fringe. And you said 20, and your e-mail corrected that, it was over 40. MR. WEEKS: Yes, correct. I essentially had the numbers backwards. The sending lands in the rural fringe, there's roughly 41,000 acres rounded off. And for receiving lands, it's about half that, roughly 20,000. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: This particular property is surrounded on three sides by Golden Gate Estates. It is that correct, too? MR. WEEKS: Correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Do you know what the soil types are on this property, generally? Let's say the majority of the property, is it non-hydric soil? MR. LORENZ: Mac, do you know? No, we don't know. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: It's uplands. Is the majority of it uplands since the woodpecker habitat needs to be uplands. Do we know that? MR. LORENZ: Let me have Mac Hatcher speak to that. MR. HATCHER: It would certainly be classified as jurisdictional uplands these days. They do require pine forest, but it could be hydric pine. But in this instance, Section 24 would be upland. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: It would be upland. So is it most likely it's non-hydric soils? MR. HATCHER: Most likely. Page 61 November 16,2006 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Are you familiar with the stewardship area out by Ave Maria? MR. HATCHER: Somewhat. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Do you know there's a hierarchy of soil types that lend to more value land to be set aside in that area. The lowest value of land in that area for preservation is the non-hydric soils, which this most likely is. MR. HATCHER: That's correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yet in the rural fringe we're saying those now are becoming more valuable for sending lands. It seems like we have a discrepancy ih the way our two codes are being looked at. Because to establish credits in the stewardship area, you're giving less for setting this aside and more for setting other lands aside. Yet in the rural fringe we're now trying to take land that was previously designated as neutral and convert it to sending. I'm trying to understand the value of doing that when we already have 40,000 acres plus of sending in the rural fringe to begin with, and this is surrounded on three sides by Golden Gate Estates. MR. HATCHER: Well, upland soils is one factor for consideration, and upland soils generally support upland forest, and upland forests are very valuable for wildlife habitat. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I don't disagree with you, Mac, I'm just trying to show the difference in the sending -- the stewardship areas in the -- out further out do not provide any value to non-hydric soils. In fact, I brought the chart with me. It's harder to read, but it's zero point zero. So I'm telling you, if you want to get credits for that, you're not going to have much. MR. LORENZ: If I might add, the other -- remember, we're coming back to the Growth Management Plan for the North Belle Meade. You wanted to look at Section 24 with regard to its value for Page 62 November 16, 2006 RCWs. And it's the RCWs that have been set aside as one of the basis for the sending land designation, especially this valuation for Section 24. So in and of itself, that's the value that's being placed on it through the past Growth Management Plan -- COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: That's what I wanted to say. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I'm sorry? COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: That's what I wanted to say. Basically that, you know, hydric is important, but it's not the only value. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I wasn't trying to say it wasn't. What I'm trying to show is the discrepancies between the two different areas and the way we set those lands aside. And it just seemed kind of surprising we're going to such a battle over this area when there is already so much of the rural fringe set aside. Any other comments from the planning commission? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Any public speakers? MR. WEEKS: Yes, Mr. Chairman. We have one, Brad Cornell. And the other is Rich Y ovanovich. But his slip is does not specify whether it's North Belle Meade area or not. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, there certainly is a contrast to those two speakers. MR. YOV ANOVICH: He's better looking. MR. CORNELL: Good morning, commissioners. I'm Brad Cornell. I'm here on behalf of Collier County Audubon Society and Audubon of Florida. And I had a couple of comments that I wanted to make on Section 24 as an EAR amendment. We do support the staff recommendation for designating large portions of Section 24 as sending. However, we differ with staff in that we believe that the foraging habitat that you see on the western Page 63 November 16, 2006 side of Section 24, save for the couple of parcels that are white, one with a structure on it, these tan parcels should be sending as well. They are not predominantly developed and function as good habitat for red-cockaded woodpeckers. We also believe that the balance of Section 24 that staff has recommended to be neutral, we agree with, except that we recommend that you retain the current 70 percent native vegetation retention standard. That's the way it is now, it's neutral with 70 percent native vegetation retention. And we recommend that that stay that way, not go to 60 percent, which is the staff recommendation. That's the -- that's my main recommendation to you all. I would like to say that I'm intrigued by Bill Lorenz's analysis of this idea of requiring clustering with the neutral designation rather than sending. I think the only way that that would work is if it were specified in the plan as a secondary alternative. In other words, you designate the sending lands as is recommended, as we're recommending, but you offer an alternative. If landowners can come up with a unified development proposal that would cluster their one unit per five-acre development potential on smaller, much smaller, less than one acre parcel size, in a logical place of North -- of Section 24, that southeast corner where the development pattern already exists, and you incentivize them to do that with TDR credits, and that would be a sort of a compromise or a hybrid, if you will, of policies for this area, since it's neutral, then you could accomplish a large -- and put a standard -- they have to -- it has to be a sufficient number of private landowners to result in, let's say, at least 200 to 250 acres of preserve resulting from that clustering. And then incentivize them further to deed that preserve so that you don't have the management problems with the homeowners association, deed it over to Conservation Collier, to the county. Because Conservation Collier is already managing 65 acres adjacent to that preserve. Page 64 November 16,2006 I think that would make a lot of sense. It would be a preserve amenity to those homeowners that may now have clustered their development at one unit per acre density rates in the southeast corner. I think that there's a lot of potential in that. How you would actually word that, you'd probably have to give direction to staff to come up with something and not do that right now. But I don't see it as being quite as unfeasible as Bill said if you can use incentives to get your clustered minimum of 200 acres, 250 acres of preserve and incentivize them to deed that preserve over to Conservation Collier to achieve your management goals. So that's something to consider. Thanks. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I have a question. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Murray. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Brad, I fully recognize that we want to protect the red-cockaded woodpecker. But we had a gentleman here who apparently owns a fairly large number of those tracts, or a great deal of acreage anyway, and he has not given permission for the folks to go on and verify. Representing Audubon, can you help me to understand with more clarity how, with any anecdotal evidence, anything that can help me to appreciate that in the absence of actual visualization, or any way of verifying that the area is suited? Is it because it's uplands, is it because it's pines? Is it because of what? Can you help me? MR. CORNELL: It's because it is pine. It is because it is foraging habitat. It is because there are birds in this vicinity, so we can make the very logical assumption that they are using these pines as foraging habitat. And it is also because there's great potential for restoration of birds and clusters throughout this area. They have -- the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service and other biologists have techniques now that are effective in reintroducing birds using cavity inserts and other means to Page 65 November 16, 2006 grow more red-cockaded woodpeckers. And if you'll recall that the objective here is not necessarily to know that there are birds there, although we know that there are, staff have heard them and sighted one, the objective is to preserve the habitat. Because that is the potential that's going to give you birds in the future. And what we're trying to do is maintain the opportunity to have a viable population ofred-cockaded woodpeckers in North Belle Meade. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Okay, and further, you indicated something that was interesting about Conservation Collier. Conservation Collier, is their charge to provide public access and passive use? Would that comport with what your recommendation is, or would they have to modify that ordinance or whatever? MR. CORNELL: I don't see that there would be any conflict as long as it was compatible passive uses, bird watching and hiking, and, you even heard Bill say that the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service may be of the opinion, we've got to find more out about that, that A TV trails that exist may not even be that much in conflict. I don't know about that issue. I share a great deal of scepticism for the appropriateness of A TV s in habitat areas, depending on what the . speCIes are. But I think there are definitely an array of passive uses that are very compatible. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I guess it's unfair to you -- the gentleman that was here the last time said at some future point he would like to develop within that core area there. I'm not really clear, the that area he's chosen. But he wants to do that. We're you relating the Conservation Collier, recognizing that he may want to develop that and you would -- you would have it as an overlay as it were, or were you thinking that no developable area and just have it deeded over to -- or I guess eased over to Conservation Page 66 November 16, 2006 Collier? MR. CORNELL: Well, my suggestion was that I liked Bill's thinking in terms of looking at the whole landscape there, including this gentleman's land. And I've heard him speak as well, and I know generally what his desire is, but I don't know his specific parcels. But that he and his neighbors would get together, incentivized by TDRs or whatever incentives might be appropriate to cluster all of their units at one unit per five acres rate in one place away from Conservation Collier, away from the bulk of the habitat, so that you have contiguous unfragmented habitat that could be burned and managed more appropriately and more easily. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Seems like a good idea, interesting idea. MR. CORNELL: It does seem like an interesting idea. That's-- when I heard of it, I'm attracted to it. I can see some hurdles in the language and the consistency of the policies, but our goal is how can we preserve the most habitat and not harm property rights. And I think either through sending lands or through this required clustering on neutral lands where you have a minimum preserve result could accomplish that goal either way. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Schiffer? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Brad, one quick thing. So you think people could live in that area if it's properly designed and not disturbed, the woodpeckers? MR. CORNELL: You mean if they were clustered away from the habitat? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Through the proper design, there's no reason they can't live in that area and -- MR. CORNELL: I think it would be harmful, it would be a hurdle for managing the habitat to fragment it with houses at one unit per five acres throughout the private lands. I think that would be a problem.e Page 67 November 16, 2006 COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And then the TDRs would really be available. There's one for the clean up and stewardship. And so that if they did that they would get that. And then the other one is the actual donation TDR. MR. CORNELL: So either way, you would have a mechanism to, if they wanted to avail themselves of it, deed the land over to Conservation Collier so that someone else would be managing it. At that point they would have four TDRs. You saw the price, 25 to $29,000 a TDR. For five acres, that's -- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And then they would actually be able to use it for walking trails and things like that. What limits would be on the residents? MR. CORNELL: If they deed it over, it would be open to them just like any other member of the public. If they did not deed it over, then, yes, they would still be able to use their land without building on it, sure. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And then that stewardship, there's one TDR that's for the maintenance and cleaning up of it, correct? MR. CORNELL: If it was sending, yes. But with stewardship, what -- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I mean, there's four TDRs. I mean, one you send it, one's a bonus, one you donate it, the other one . IS -- MR. CORNELL: Maintenance and management, correct. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: So wouldn't they be entitled to that one too? MR. CORNELL: If they manage it, sure. If they did enough of the management plan and paid for the management, which would be whatever was appropriate for the land. Some land is more economically and effectively managed than others, some is a big challenge for various reasons, hydrologic or exotics or fire or Page 68 November 16,2006 whatever it is. But yeah, if they did that then they would get another TDR. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And then the management essentially could be funded by the TDR sale. MR. CORNELL: Correct. And whatever was left over was profit to them. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Next speaker, please. MR. YOV ANOVICH: Good morning. Rich Y ovanovich, on behalf of Mo Kant and Hideout Golf Club. I think there's one of Bill's alternatives, which I had thought of and had mentioned long ago was neutral with cluster. Now, I think -- with the 70 percent preservation requirement -- think that's a win/win. You effectively get 70 percent of the land put into preservation at no cost to the county. It's enough of an incentive for the property owner to want to put that 70 percent preserve area into preserve area. More incentive than the TDR program. My clients don't have a lot of faith in that program adequately compensating them for the loss of the use of their land. I think we're forgetting that, you know, kind of going on a parallel track is this RCW compliance plan, I think that's what it's called, that county staff is proposing and winding its way through the process. In order to develop this property, we would have to do both a nesting and foraging study on the property to find out if the birds are using it for either of those two purposes. So we would have to do that anyway, and you would find out if there are actually RCW s out there and if they're using them. And if there are, there is going to be a compliance plan that addresses how you can go about developing. So there is already that safeguard there, even if you leave it as neutral with a 70 percent native vegetation requirement. And that's Page 69 November 16, 2006 what we would like you to do. There was a comment about setting a precedent by treating Section 24 differently than you treat other neutral land designations. Well, that precedent was set when staff negotiated a deal for the North Belle Meade overlay in the first place. I mean, they already decided there would be some areas where sending lands -- or receiving lands would be treated differently in this area than they're treated somewhere else in Collier County. So that precedent was already there. And a good precedent. And I think you could do the same precedent for Section 24, neutral lands. I believe you already allow clustering under the LDC in neutral lands and there is already development standards in place. Now, keeping in mind, I'll just use 100 acres because I can do that in my head, there would be 30 acres that you can develop of that 100. Seventy of it would have to be put in preserve. And we all know that that means the largest, most contiguous area. So we know how that's going to play out when you come in with your subdivision. And then the 30 percent, the 30 acres you can develop will include the roads that you were taking about, Mr. Schiffer. You couldn't be going off all these areas, it would be a compact area. So even if you had multiple small developments out there, you're still going to have large areas preserved. And as we know, picking preserve areas, if there are other preserve areas in the area, your staff is going to ask you to line up with your neighbor. So if your neighbor's got a preserve area, if there's already a preserve area out there for Conservation Collier, that's going to take care of itself, even if you have multiple smaller projects going. So there's no requirement or reason to force, because you'll never get it to happen, all these various property owners in one section to try to come together to come up with this minimum 2-acre number. I don't think it's going to happen. Keeping in mind that sending lands still do allow farming to Page 70 November 16, 2006 occur, that could occur. That might be more profitable than anything in the interim to do that, farm it, clear it. Then you have nothing. What I suggest is there's an incentive, if you leave neutral the way it is, at the 70 percent with the clustering, you'll -- it's already a higher preservation standard than normal neutral. Normal neutral is 60. You're at 70. Sending would be 80. So you're splitting the difference between the two and you're allowing some development rights. If you require clustering, I think you've gotten there in getting large chunks in place, keeping in mind you've already got other regulations going through the process of an RCW compliance plan that will address the issues if there is actually birds out there, either nesting or foraging, because they will have to do a study, a more detailed study than your staff did in making the recommendations. We'll have to do that if we develop. So we're requesting the leave it like it is and go ahead and add the clustering. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Murray. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: You made a statement about farming might be more lucrative in the interim. They still couldn't clearcut to farm if there are red-cockaded -- MR. YOV ANOVICH: We'd have to go through that process. And if there are no RCW s -- I get the impression, I don't want to use a pun, I'll leave that for Bruce, Bruce Anderson is great at that, but, you know, the movie Field of Dreams has been replaying a lot on TV. Instead they built the field and they came. Now you're saying if you don't do anything, they will come. They're not there now. There's no evidence that they will come. An RCW study, a detailed study will find that out. That's not been done. So we're suggesting if there are RCW s there, you're right, there we will be regulations that are already in place to preserve areas for foraging. And we're saying there's already -- there's already enough Page 71 November 16, 2006 regulation in place to address it, why are you throwing another level of regulation on here on this particular piece of property? And the board directed that a study be done to see if it made sense to change this to sending. I don't think we're there yet, and I think the compromise of clustering makes sense. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Any other questions of the planning commission? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: David, this is -- there's a lot of elements to this plan, a lot of issues. Would it be better if we handled each one independently and got done with them, voted on them separately, or how would you proceed on that to go forward? MR. WEEKS: Separately. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So this issue itself should be voted on, I would think? MR. WEEKS: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. With that in mind, and we've heard all the public testimony, is there any comments from them? Mr. Schiffer? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I was going to make a motion, not a comment. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Fine, go ahead. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Do you have a comment? COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: Go ahead. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I'd like to make a motion to approve the alternate methods, which would be the neutral requiring clustering, and I'd like to add to that the addition that there's two TDRs available for -- I call it stewardship, but the best management of the property or the donation of the preserve areas. And then the other alternate would be -- it could be sending lands. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Wait a minute now, you can't have both. Page 72 November 16, 2006 It's either one or the other. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Why? Why can't you have either/or? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, if you have one property owner in the middle deciding he wants to make his sending and the rest of the property owners decide neutral, what good is that sending to the red-cockaded woodpecker? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Then that's an area that won't be touched and the people around it, will -- that will always be a preserve there. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, it's your motion. Is there a second to the motion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion dies for lack ofa second. Is there another motion? Do you want to the try cleaning it up. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Well, I mean, what was the problem with that? Let me ask Bill. Bill, if the guy in the middle and the guy on the edge said give me the TDRs, I'm out of here, what would be the problem to the other landowners? Wouldn't that be what we want? I mean, wouldn't-- MR. LORENZ: Well, I guess what you're saying is that if you have, let's say you have a sending land designation over everything but then require the neutral for -- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Well, I guess the confusion is you can't have two -- okay. Then drop the sending land, just go with the neutral clustering and the additional TDRs are available. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Could you restate your motion and focus on just what you're trying to say. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Motion is that this area be neutral requiring clustering, that it would be the one unit per five acres, 70 percent vegetation, and the availability of two TDRs, one being the best management and the other one being the donation. Page 73 November 16, 2006 COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I would second that. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Also. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, we'll do the second, but there certainly needs to -- I don't have any idea what you're trying to do. So I need to understand it. There is a motion made by Commissioner Schiffer, seconded by Commissioner Murray. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I'd like to ask a question relative to the area that you're referring to. Is it the 350 acres, is that -- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: The area shown -- COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Area shown but not including the area that Brad brought out on the brown. Just the green; is that correct? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Just the green. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So now Brad, you're trying to say that they would get the right to build a home site on a one to five-acre density . COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Using the methods of clustering. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: On a per ownership parcel basis, or on the entire 350 acres collectively in one spot? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I wish it was one owner. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, no, I have to know what you're trying to -- I need to know what your motion means. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: How is the ownership, Bill, in that area? How many owners are there? Are they able to do multiple developments without -- MR. LORENZ: We can say that there's at least three owners within all of that green area. Each of those parcels, like I said, that size is around 16 acres is the number we've been throwing out. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: But there's nothing to prevent 16 -- you know, the guy could sell it today to 16 different people. Page 74 November 16, 2006 Wouldn't they have to get together then to build this development, just like every other development? Or what are you driving at, Mark, you want to have a minimum acreage? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No. First of all, I want to get to something that's functionally workable. And I'm worried that if you don't define the clustering, that someone could interpret it that all 350 acres have to agree on the point where they're going to cluster before anybody can see the benefit of their property. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I didn't say that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I know, and that's what I'm trying to get you to refine, is -- if the guy in the middle owns one square with 40 acres in it, and he has a right to build, let's say, based on your proposition as one to five. He can put eight units there. Are you saying those eight units need to be clustered on that 40 acres? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. That's what I'm trying to-- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Anybody developing in that zone just like any other zoning has to meet this requirement. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But the whole area as a whole is now what you're aiming at. Bill earlier said that would be nearly impossible to get to. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: That's kind of why I wanted the sending so some people could decide to go this way or go the other way. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So you're requiring clustering, one to five density at 70 percent preservation. That's the first part. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Then the part with the TDR bonuses, or TDRs, how does that come into play in a neutral area? Because neutrals, I didn't think -- I thought I heard someone say didn't have TDRs.o Page 75 November 16, 2006 MR. LORENZ: That's correct, neutral does not generate TDRs. And may I also add that in the neutral designation, when you're responsible to create that preserve area, that entity is responsible for managing that preserve area as well. So in this particular situation, you're granting some additional reward, if you will, for somebody what they already have to do now. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Then let's drop it to one, which would just be the donate TDR. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, now, wait a minute, we're back to what a neutral area can and can't do. If they can't generate TDRs, how does that fit in? MR. WEEKS : We're going to have to change that part of the regulations. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: This is going to the people that make the laws of the county. So they could add -- you know, we could rename this neutral stewardship or something that would allow CHAIRMAN STRAIN: There might be a simpler way, that's kind of where I'm trying to get to, Brad. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Go there, go there. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ifwe just simply designated this as neutral with a density of one to five, and clustering is allowed, and I know Richard says 70 percent is needed but we always know Richard is negotiating. So we go -- and we heard one landowner come in and say he wants 90 percent, he'd give up 90 percent preservation. But 90 percent requires small lots which might be real difficult. Why don't we look at a neutral instead of -- with an 80 percent preservation standard at a one to five density. No TDR issues, it falls under the neutral category. The only really difference is you're encouraging clustering, clustering would be allowed, no other uses but residential, and 80 percent preservation. MR. WEEKS: Point of clarification, Mr. Chairman. Clustering Page 76 November 16, 2006 is allowed right now in neutral designation, but you have to have a minimum of 40 acres. Would you be proposing to change that standard? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I don't think we would need to for the size property owners that are in here. MR. WEEKS : Well, for individual owners of these tracks, if they only own 16 acres, then they could not have -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Oh, okay. Well, then -- COMMISSIONER CARON: But we have said that there are only three real owners in here, so that is not the case. Forty acres can hold in here, probably without any issue. MR. WEEKS : Well, that would be a matter of -- unless we mandated it, a matter of choice for the property owner. Do they want to aggregate their properties, their tracts, and cluster, or would they prefer to simply develop one per five -- COMMISSIONER CARON: To get them to do that. MR. WEEKS: That's one of the points staff is making here, one of our concerns about retaining the property as neutral with some clustering requirement. Can we actually require it? Can we force a property owner to aggregate their own properties? And an even bigger issue is can we force multiple property owners to aggregate properties together? And we just don't believe we can do that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's not where I was going with this. What I was thinking, if a guy comes in and he does own 40 acres and he wants to cluster in his 40 acres, he would be allowed to do that. If he owns 16 acres and he wants to cluster on his 16 acres, he would be allowed to do that. He'd put up 80 percent preservation, and his density would be one to five, and a restricted residential use only. Is any of that prohibited by -- impossible from staffs perspective? MR. WEEKS: No, sir. But I think the impact, we're back to the Page 77 November 16, 2006 potential of checkerboard pattern of one unit per five acres throughout this development area, this entire -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. We just heard statements by staff that -- and by Fish & Wildlife that these woodpeckers can live with improved and unimproved roads, which driveways and roads then would be acceptable. They can live with ATVs. That means they surely can live with some nice homes in there at 80 percent preservation. I mean, if you're telling us, and I'm shocked, that you're telling us these animals survive with all that noise from A TV s and they don't offer any problem for them, then don't tell me that houses cause a problem, because they can't. MR. LORENZ: It's a matter of degree. We don't know the degree. We were presenting the information as we have it for A TV use. Obviously there's going to be some threshold that there would be an impact. We just don't have that information to able to present to you. But getting back to the idea of clustering, is there a way of requiring the clustering, because it's the requirement of clustering, not just allowing it, but the requirement requiring the clustering that sets aside the habitat in the largest area possible, that that's the benefit. Because that's how you can better manage it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I mean, you're asking us for an answer that legal staff and you would have to provide us, not us tell you how to do it. And on the other side of the coin, I don't see a necessity for it myself, but I'm just one person here. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Mark? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes, sir, Paul Midney. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Maybe we could move forward by presenting something totally different, which would be to support the staff recommendation to move this to sending area. And if there's Page 78 November 16, 2006 enough of us who are in favor of that, then we sort of get out of this whole mess. Or we might have to go back to it but maybe there's enough -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Midney, you should have made that motion then because we have a motion on the table we're still trying to get through. I understand where you're coming from, but that's not the motion that we have on the table that's been seconded. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Well, actually, let's take Paul's advice, but let's do it the other way. I'm going to make a motion that there's a -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You already made a motion, so -- are you amending your motion? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I'll amend my motion -- okay, second's withdrawn. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You withdraw your motion? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Well, I'd actually like to amend it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: To be -- and let's see if this is going to fly. And if it doesn't we'll walk up the ladder. That there is a no change, the motion for no change, keeping the land neutral as it is, people can get 40 acres, and cluster it, do whatever they want. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Is there a second to that motion? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I'll second it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Now a motion has been made just basically to leave the land as it is right now today. And there's been a second to that motion. Is there any discussion on that motion? Mr. Midney. COMMISSIONER TUFF: I have a question. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Go ahead, Mr-- COMMISSIONER TUFF: On the topic of the last time, what are Page 79 November 16, 2006 the consequences if we do that, just leave it? I missed that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: It's neutral right now, with 60 percent preservation. COMMISSIONER TUFF: Seventy, isn't it? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No, I think -- what is it, 60 or 70 right now, David? MR. WEEKS: Presently it's 70 percent. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So it's neutral at 70 right now. Mr. Midney, did you have a -- COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Yes, you mentioned the word clustering, so would you require it and how? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: No, remember, we're going to back into that. And I'm not going to vote for this. But it's available if you had 40 acres, you could go in there and cluster it. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Voluntarily. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Right. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. There's a motion. Mr. Tuff? COMMISSIONER TUFF: Just that landowner that was here, and I can hear his conversation, how would that affect him? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: This would be what he's expecting. What he bought into, let's put it that way. Okay, there's a motion, discussion needs to be finalized. The motion is to basically leave the land as it is right now. All in favor of the motion, signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: Aye. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Aye. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Aye. COMMISSIONER TUFF: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye. All opposed to the motion, signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Aye. Page 80 November 16, 2006 COMMISSIONER CARON: Aye. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So that means it's three against and six for -- oh, five for. Let's do it again. All in favor of the motion raise your hands. COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: (Raises hand.) COMMISSIONER MURRAY: (Raises hand.) COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: (Raises hand.) COMMISSIONER TUFF: (Raises hand.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: (Raises hand.) Two, four, five. Five in favor. All against the motion? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: (Raises hand.) COMMISSIONER CARON: (Raises hand.) COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: (Raises hand.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Same three. Okay, motion carries five to three, leave it alone. Thank you. Now, the next item I'd like to take, and I notice that Phil has been in the audience patiently waiting. Where did he go? MR. YOV ANOVICH: To use the facilities. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, Phil, if you're hearing this within any range, I was trying to accommodate you after seeing you there this morning. Ah, there he is. I know you're here because of the utility issue. And I know we can move through that rapidly, so I'd just as soon address it right now and get that one as well past us. MR. GRAMA TGES: Phil Gramatges, public utilities engineering. And I appreciate the kindness. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Phil, I don't know if you want to make any statements or just entertain any concerns or questions we may have. MR. GRAMATGES: The issues that we're discussing are really Page 81 November 16, 2006 very simple and straightforward. I would rather entertain questions if you have any, sir. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Any questions from the members of the commission? I have a few, if you want me to proceed. Phil, and I notice in Policy 2.1 under facility service areas and level of service standards, you have a north sewer service area, and then you go to a south sewer service area. And the copy we have in yellow struck the GPCD from that. Is there going to be no gallons -- how does that -- MR. GRAMATGES: Hundred -- it should be 100 gallons per day. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, the hundred is dropped but it's put back in, David? MR. WEEKS: That's correct. That's part of the confusion of attempting to show the changes using -- short answer, it's double underlined, so it's back in. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Go ahead, Ms. Caron. COMMISSIONER CARON: Wait just a minute. It's double underlined and so it's back in. What's double underlined is 120? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No, 100. COMMISSIONER CARON: I see. Okay. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I have a question. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes, sir, Mr. Murray. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Under where you speak of potable water sub-element, when you discuss it under Figures PW one, decimal one, et cetera, revise these two new figures to delete the east central sewer service area. That seemed a little odd to me. If you're going to do potable water, why are we referencing sewer; is that a fairly standard statement? MR. WEEKS: Mr. Chairman, that's a goof on my part. That should say potable water. We have separate figures in both the water Page 82 November 16, 2006 sub-element and the sewer sub-element, and since we're under the potable water sub-element, that should be say east central potable water. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Okay, so I wasn't crazy, all right. MR. WEEKS: Thank you for that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And Phil, I'm just going to read you something, because it's too hard to try to track and explain to you where we are in this book. Under objection two for potable water, I read something in one of your responses that was dated June of 2006 under wellfield planning and acquisition. And it says -- I'm going to read you a couple of sentences. The first one says the number of spare replacement well sites to be acquired has not yet been defined. And another paragraph in the second sentence it says a ten-year supply of sites would be ten spare well sites. And the reason I'm asking you this, is because as you know, and I know you and I have been trying to get together and we haven't had time yet, and I'm looking forward to that, we keep getting requests for wellfield easement sites from your department. And the concern from the planning commission has been expressed many times, how is this tied in in a master plan? And I'm wondering if what I'm reading here, by the fact that the replacement well sites that need to be required have not yet been defined, that you only need ten of them. Is that going to factor in to this issue of the wellfield easement sites that you ask for constantly on PUDs and rezones when they come forward? MR. GRAMA TGES: Yes, it will factor in, definitely . We do know that we have wells that we are using, and those wells fail on a regular basis, and we know that we have to replace those wells. Furthermore, we know that due to the expansion that we're experiencing we need more and more wells every day. And that's the reason why whenever we have an opportunity, we request wells. Page 83 November 16, 2006 We have an estimated number of wells that's more than doubled of what we have right now for the period of the master plan. Now, the master plan does not address wells directly. The master plan is not doing that. The master plan is addressing facilities and it's addressing infrastructure. But at this point in time it's not addressing wells directly. We expect that we will in the future. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Because I certainly would like the opportunity to understand how this fits in at some point in the future with you, so when these come through -- MR. GRAM A TGES: I would be delighted to discuss that with . you, SIr. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. You had provided some tables and data for the first time that were missing from the first review that we had. And I want to ask you something about Exhibit A. It's cost and revenues by facility type. And I don't know if you have a copy of that. It would have been a very first page of the tables that you recently provided to us, I think it was two meetings ago. MR. GRAMA TGES: Are you referring to the CIE table? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes, I am, thank you. Okay, are you there? MR. GRAMATGES: I'm there. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Your numbers that you utilized in here, the potable water projects showing a revenue stream of 348 million and sewer projects of 301 million, is that -- that is consistent with the AUIR that you just issued to us, or your department was part of last week? I looked at the numbers in the 2006 AUIR. MR. GRAMATGES: It certainly should be. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And those two numbers match. MR. GRAMATGES: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I want to tell you something, and I want to thank you, because you're the only department in this county that matched your numbers to the AUIR, which is going to be a bone of Page 84 November 16, 2006 contention before we're over here today with the rest of the departments that did not. But I was surprised to see that. I pulled up the new 2006 and your numbers were coordinated and matched, which was a good thing. Nobody else's were. So hopefully before the day's out somebody will understand how that needs to be addressed. MR. COHEN: Mr. Chairman, if I may step in at this point in time, the rationale for the discrepancy in the numbers that you probably see between the CIE tables and this particular EAR-based amendments is they are based off the 2005 AUIR numbers. The 2006 AUIR numbers should differentiate from the CIE numbers because it's for the following -- the next -- it takes into account another fiscal year. So those numbers should be different, actually. CHAIRMAN STRAIN : Well, you know, it's interesting. I did bring the 2005 and we will talk about that, too. But now what you're doing is you're telling me you're right and he's wrong. MR. GRAMATGES: We used the 2006 numbers-- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I know you did. MR. GRAMA TGES: -- to calculate that, yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. And you're saying now that the 2006 numbers are the wrong numbers to use? Did you tell the utility department that that was a concern, or did anybody check it before they issued the documents that we're looking at today? MR. COHEN: I don't think it's problematic for public utilities to update their CIE at this point in time and make it consistent with the numbers that came out of the water-sewer master plan. If you recall, we had no numbers previously when this document came to you, and as a result of them doing that, that's why they're different than the other departments, and that's the rationale behind Page 85 November 16,2006 that. MR. GRAMATGES: If I may, Mr. Chairman, you will recall that when we talked about the AUIR the last time, we did not have the CIE tables in there. The reason for that was that we were working for the master plan at that point in time and we were generating this table. We felt that to provide a preliminary table at that time would have been inconsistent. It certainly wouldn't meet concurrency as far as we were concerned. So the CIE table you see here is the one that was generated as part of the master plan. And obviously when we generated the new AUIR we already have this table here, so we can certainly match it. We can make sure that they're concurrent, and that's what we did. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Is that -- Margie, I have a question for you. I don't know if you're the right person to ask this of. This CIE is going to be part -- is in the EAR, which is going to be, I assume, part of the GMP. These numbers that are on Exhibit A, if they're not -- are they to be consistent with the A UIR? And if they are, what year AUIR should they be consistent with? MS. STUDENT-STIRLING: This is my opinion. We haven't adopted the new AUIR yet, so therefore I'm kind of at a loss of why those numbers would be used, because at this juncture they are just a staff recommendation that would be coming to you and the Board of County Commissioners for approval to set our new CIE. Please jump in, Mr. Cohen, if I'm incorrect. MR. COHEN: I think the county attorney's correct in the assumption that we should be relying on the 2005 AUIR numbers for all the other elements. The differentiation point here with public utilities was no numbers with respect to finance were provided. And as a result we're using the best available data at this point in time to fill in the blanks. And that's why it's done that way. Otherwise we would have those asterisks there that we had before and we wouldn't be able to provide DCA with adequate data Page 86 November 16, 2006 analysis. And the water and sewer master plan was adopted by the Board of County Commissioners I believe in July of last year. MR. GRAMATGES: June 6th of2006. MR. COHEN: So we do have adequate numbers that actually form the basis of providing those numbers for this document. That's why we're relying on those at this point in time. And that's the differentiation point. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ms. Caron? COMMISSIONER CARON: No, I was just going to agree with Randy, where we had asterisks before, now we have numbers. The fact that they happen to relate to what we will also get for future numbers is irrelevant. These are the most current numbers that we have for this element. And they're the ones that we should be using. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Schiffer? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And the ORC objection was the fact that they didn't agree with the projection numbers. What do they mean when they refer to the next planning time frame? What is the-- what does that mean? MR. COHEN: I think the ORC objection was twofold. One was that we didn't provide them with financially feasible capital improvements element with respect to any of the public facilities, that being potable water, sanitary sewer and solid waste. And the other thing was because of the next planning time frame that was two, the first five years and a 10-year planning period as well. And we've done that with the changes to this particular CIE. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: When they say the next, I mean, the next five -- MR. COHEN: Year six through ten. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And the next five years after that. MR. COHEN: Yes, sir. Page 87 November 16, 2006 CHAIRMAN STRAIN : Well, Phil, I still appreciate your coordinating the numbers, because those are things that I look for, so thank you for that. I have one other question under your potable water projects. You have a northeast regional water treatment plant, an 18.75 mgd plant that's going to go in around 2010. Where is that, just out of curiosity? Where is that, the northeast regional water treatment plant? MR. GRAMATGES: That is just to the west of the Naples fairgrounds -- of the Collier County fairgrounds, I'm sorry. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Is that the one that -- that's Orangetree, that's the one we approved at Orangetree. MR. GRAMATGES: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. That's what I was trying -- thank you. And I don't have any other questions of utilities that I can recall from this package today. Does anybody else, while utilities is here? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, thank you very much for your time. Appreciate it. David, where would you like to go next? MR. WEEKS: I'd like you to please take a vote on these two sub-elements, potable water and sanitary sewer. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Is there a motion to recommend approval of the potable water and sanitary sewer as presented here today? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: So moved. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion made by Mr. Murray, seconded by -- COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: (Raises hand.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- Mr. Vigliotti. Any discussion? Page 88 November 16, 2006 All in favor, signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: Aye. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Aye. COMMISSIONER CARON: Aye. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Aye. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Aye. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Aye. COMMISSIONER TUFF: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye. Any opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion carries. Thank you. David, we're going to be taking a break for lunch in 15 minutes. I have the 2005 AUIR with me, as well as the 2003, 2004 and 2006. And Mr. Cohen, your statement about these being consistent with the 2005, would you during the lunch break be able to break it down for transportation and parks and recs and stormwater and show me how they are? Because I have the numbers, and the books don't seem to jive. If they are, that means I'm probably missing something or they have not included everything. That will give you some time to work on it. Because I'd certainly like to see, now that we know they have to be, why they aren't. MR. COHEN: If I can, Commissioner Strain, during the break if we could talk about certain things for a minute, I'd like that opportunity to do that with you and it will give you an understanding of what transpired with various departments and why. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. MR. COHEN: I'd appreciate that opportunity. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: As long as we meet Margie's legal sufficiency. With that, David, what's the next section you'd like to move into Page 89 November 16, 2006 for today? We're going to get through them all eventually, so -- COMMISSIONER CARON: I don't know why we're not having that discussion right now as to why -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: With the CIE? COMMISSIONER CARON: -- for why things don't match. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I was going to give them opportunity to research it. Now that they know it's going to be a focal point. COMMISSIONER CARON: Mr. Cohen doesn't think he needs the opportunity. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: He said he'd talk to me during the break. MR. COHEN: Actually, I would like the opportunity to discuss a few things with transportation and also with recreation as well, because there were some changes that were made, and there's a rationale for those. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And drainage. I have all the documents, if you need to see them. And I'd rather we get the answers short during a break -- I mean after the break rather than prolong the discussion, if that's okay with the rest of the commission at this point. David? MR. WEEKS: I think we have more staff here for the CCME, if you want to take that next. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes, let's go right into it. MR. WEEKS: That would be Page 5 of your November 2nd staff report addendum. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: CCME. And Tor, we have a handout that had some yellow highlighting on it. We'll be on Page 5 of that handout. That's the handout you referred to, David? MR. WEEKS: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And it's strictly Objective 2.1? Page 90 November 16,2006 MR. WEEKS: That's where it begins. Ends on Page 9, five through nine. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, we're on Page 5 of the highlight with the yellow -- I mean the handout with the yellow highlighting on it. Okay, the first item on that page is Objective 2.1 on Page 5. Are there any questions with the changes from the planning commission? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: David, I have one. We started using the word natural wetland flowways or sloughs. The word natural is a little bit concerning to me. And I'm just wondering why we used the word natural. Why do we have to have that in front of the word wetlands everywhere it appears? MR. WEEKS: I'm going to defer to Mr. Lorenz on that. I believe that came out of the EAC. MR. LORENZ: Yes. For the record, Bill Lorenz, environmental services director. I'm trying to recall the discussion specifically. It dealt with -- there was concerns that a canal, for instance, could -- a canal could be considered a flowway. So they were looking more for natural systems, as opposed to canals or drainage ditches. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: My concern there is, and I think they're right in that regard, but another example that would seem equally concerning is if you've got, as we've had in Golden Gate Estates where there has been a lot of flooding, we have had sheet flow waters pushed in new areas that were once higher and not necessarily low. And now those new areas have become flowways or wetlands, more or less. How are we making sure that those aren't omitted by the word natural in front of the words that you have here? MR. LORENZ: I think I would use the term natural in that particular situation to determine that is not a man-made type of structure, canal structure. And again, I'm coming back to the Page 91 November 16, 2006 discussion with the EAC. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Could you possibly, instead of using the words natural wetland flowways or sloughs, just put natural wetlands, flowways? That way natural -- any flowways would be considered and protected. And the only reason I'm concerned there is the more we try to strangle these flowways in their diameters and their widths and sizes, the worse the flooding's going to get. And I just thought maybe it might help to solve that. Would that have a negative impact on this language? MR. LORENZ: The comma between wetlands and flowways then would not necessarily make that a wetland flowway, but it would make a natural flowway. So that should work. David's a good grammarian here. MR. WEEKS: Well-- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, it's just a suggestion I had. If you could take a look at it. My only concern is that sometimes natural wetland flowways are not the only thing remaining out there. And waters have been pushed to the other areas that are flowways now that I hate to see choked by more construction. MR. LORENZ: Right. The point here is we don't want to make it a wetland flowway and exclude a flowway that's not technically a wetland but it's still part of the natural system. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So maybe you do refer to it as some kind of other than man-made or something like that. I'm just suggesting we wouldn't want to take out those alternative flowways that have been developed as a result of intrusion by development out in the rural areas. So -- Mr. Murray -- oh, Ms. Caron, I'm sorry, then Mr. Murray. COMMISSIONER CARON: So potentially you would want to say natural wetland flowways, natural flowways, and/or sloughs. Is that what you're saying? Page 92 November 16, 2006 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No, no, the natural part keeps worrying me in the sense that flowways that are out there right now where water's been diverted to because homes have been built maybe where natural flowways were in the past, they aren't natural in the sense they weren't formed by nature, they were formed by water being pushed there by development. But yet they're vital to the flow of water out in the Estates and other rural areas of the county, so that we don't have backups like we had recently. I just want to make sure those areas are somehow addressed and protected. MR. LORENZ: At the moment I don't have a good answer for you right now. But-- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Was that enough information for you to try to come up with something between now and the time this gets to the BCC? MR. LORENZ: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I'd feel comfortable with that. Okay. The next page is page -- COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I have one. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Oh, Mr. Murray, I'm sorry. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: That's all right. Under Objective 2.1, you have, the second sentence, I believe it is, the process shall consist of an evaluation of areas for which watershed management plans are not necessary, based on current or past watershed management planning effort. I just wondered why would you begin an evaluation on something that you already concluded that wasn't subject, shouldn't be subject to an evaluation inasmuch as you concluded it wasn't applicable? I'm sure there's a good reason, I'm not trying to -- MR. LORENZ: I think there was a concern back when we -- when this went through transmittal of the timing that it was going to Page 93 November 16, 2006 take to pull the information together, and there did not want to be a waste of effort later on in the process of doing some work on areas that we already have information on. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Okay. Well, I'm not going to second-guess you, but if you're concerned with time and you're trying to catch up to a pre-designated time that was past, how much of an evaluation will you give something that you already know isn't applicable? And I'm not playing with you, but I really sincerely mean that I wondered about that sentence being beneficial to you. If there is an idea that you're trying to promulgate there, I would suggest that maybe a modification of that language could be in order because it called out to me and said we're going to spend some time looking at stuff that we don't think we should have looked at or bothered to look at and then we're going start the things we should do. MR. LORENZ: I'm not trying to throwaway your question, but quite frankly, some of this language was drafted and redrafted from a variety of different committees. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: And I appreciate that. And please accept the fact that I'm not trying to -- MR. LORENZ: Right. But I think there was some understanding that there wanted to be an efficient way of looking at the data and the information and not to try to reinvent the wheel. I think that was the intent for that language. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Okay. If that will get you what you want. I was just concerned that somebody might poke that question who -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ms. Caron? COMMISSIONER CARON: Yeah, it simply means that if we've already got the data available, we don't have to reevaluate it. We can use the data we already have. So that was the purpose of that. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I guess. An evaluation of -- not Page 94 November 16, 2006 necessarily based on the current -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Murray, she's trying to record when you're reading to yourself. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I'm sorry, I was mumbling. Could you put mumbling. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Page 6. Anybody have any comments on Page 6? Ms. Caron? COMMISSIONER CARON: Just at the bottom of Objective 3.1, the very last line, upon the detection of any groundwater degradation determined through the monitoring process, the county will notify the appropriate regulatory agencies. And I think we should add and correct the problem. If there's a problem that needs to be corrected. Not just we need to notify somebody and we're off the hook. MR. SMITH: Ray Smith, director of pollution control, for the record. We could attempt to inform the regulatory agency of what they -- what we believe the regulations are, and to move in that direction. But we have no control over their final determination of their review of the regulations and how they applied it. That's why that is not there. COMMISSIONER CARON: Gee, that's why we should be taking control of these things ourselves. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I'm not sure that they can do what agencies dictate in regards to what the agency itself has to do. DEP has some strict guidelines for removal of hazardous material. I know that they have to handle them and they do handle separately from the county. I think that's maybe what the county is relying upon. COMMISSIONER CARON: And that's fine, as long as they then deal with the issue. And in the case you just cited, there would be no question, they would deal with the issue. MR. SMITH: And I'm not saying that they will not deal with the Page 95 November 16, 2006 issue. Their interpretation of the regulations and how they're applying may be different than the way we interpret those. And they are the rules and regulations for their interpretation. COMMISSIONER CARON: Okay. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: On that page, Page 6. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes, sir. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I may not be looking at the most current page because I see my notes are here. I know you said something, and I printed it, and I can't find it here. Nevertheless, Policy 2.2.5, my note said by December 31, 2008, and no less than every three year thereafter. Does the new document or the revised document contain that information? MR. WEEKS: No, sir, we don't have the word "and". COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Okay. Well, my interpolation was by December 31,2008, comma, and no less than every three years thereafter, comma, all existing. And I think you had concurred that that was a suitable statement. So I don't know -- so okay. You might want to take that under consideration. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: David, on that same line, why don't you strike the words existing and future. I mean, everything is existing and future, so therefore all. MR. WEEKS: I'd agree with that, certainly. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Any other issues on Page 6? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Questions on Page 7? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: On Policy 6.1.1 under A, you added the word rarity. Is that somehow -- how do you know what rarity is? MR. WEEKS: Glad to see Mr. Lorenz walk back in. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, he almost had Rich Yovanovich come up and answer an environmental question. That would have Page 96 November 16, 2006 been dangerous. B ill, I think we -- COMMISSIONER CARON: He doesn't know that he's wanted. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- you're wanted up here. That's -- Bill, on Page 7, 6.1.1 (A), is says the amount, type and added the word rarity and quality of native vegetation on-site. How do you define rarity, or how do we know if something is considered rarity by that sentence? MR. LORENZ: Xeric scrub is a rare, unique and endangered community of habitat. Coastal dune as well. Those are the habitats that have been established as having a very small amount of existing vegetation in the county. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So someone would know that by rarity you mean those kind of places? MR. LORENZ: Correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: There's some way to find that out? MR. LORENZ: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That was my concern. Any other questions on Page 7? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Page 8? Randy, this one had the correction up on the top of Page 8 where the 70 percent was supposed to be 60 percent; is that correct? I think we were told that at a prior meeting. David Weeks? He missed, now, see, his calling and he was gone. It's hard to keep track of them here today. MR. WEEKS: Yes. Both on the -- starting on Page 7 and carrying over to Page 8, both letters Band C, all of the highlighted language should have been deleted. That was not a staff recommendation. However, based upon your earlier action today, you would like to keep that language in. Your direction was to maintain 70 percent for Page 97 November 16, 2006 the neutral -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Keep it as it is today. That was our motion that succeeded. So whatever that takes to make this language correspond to that, that was our motion. MR. WEEKS: We would not need to delete the highlighted language under C because your recommendation is that we not change Section 24 to sending. So that would make no sense to be there. And Section B, we would simply remove the highlighting and leave that language that says 70 percent applies. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Correct. Well, we're now on Page 8. Does anybody have any questions on Page 8? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Yeah, if I may. Maybe I'm not reading this correctly. Referencing Page 7. C where it speaks to calculated to higher value of 80 percent, so when I went to Page 8 where it starts out overlay a minimum of 70 percent, I thought that that should have been a carryover. But obviously not. Would you help clear up my confusion for me, please? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's the language I think they just said we're striking because it's -- COMMISSIONER MURRAY: All of that is being struck? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: All ofC-- COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Never mind. Never mind. Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Under Policy 12.1.4, the second line, David. It has the word or existing mobile home parks or subdivisions in the process of expanding which contain 26 units or more. You're going to require them to have shelter space. Did you intend that for the existing ones? Because that shelter space requirement is real heavy duty? I don't have a problem with it, but I want to make sure staffs intention was that it was to apply for existing as well. Page 98 November 16, 2006 MR. WEEKS: I believe that came from emergency management services staff. But as you can see, it's if they're expanding. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, but if they have -- for example, I'm thinking of Holiday Manor, that's a -- it floods just about every storm. If that particular facility came in and took one of their recreation areas and put a couple more lots in there, then they would be required to put on a shelter? MR. WEEKS: That's the way it reads, yes, sir. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Only reason is that shelters are pretty heavy duty. They have a lot of special requirements as dictated by the state. That would probably prohibit people from making such changes, so -- MR. WEEKS: It might be such a deterrent. And because we're dealing with properties that are -- we're dealing with a type of structure that doesn't fare well generally in these storms -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Like I said, I don't have a problem with it. MR. WEEKS: -- we don't think it's a bad thing. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I just wanted to make sure that was the intent. Any other questions on Page 8? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, then we'll finish up on Page 9 and down to the drainage -- not to the drainage, just to the top part of Page 9. Any other questions? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Good. Hearing none, we'll-- Mr. Yovanovich is a speaker on this one, huh? Okay. MR. YOV ANOVICH: A few back. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: A few back, okay. David, did you have something to say? Page 99 November 16, 2006 MR. WEEKS: If I could jump in quickly. Mr. Murray had asked about Policy 2.2.5 on Page 6 inserting the word and, and staff would concur with that, to add the word and after 2008, comma. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Mr. Yovanovich? You're eating into our lunch hour, but that's okay. MR. YOV ANOVICH: Sorry. For the record, Rich Yovanovich on behalf of Collier Enterprises. I don't know exactly where this fits into the discussion, but you blew right past Policy 6.1.1. And in talking to Bill, apparently what you're reading from is from some -- just continuing questions you may have from your last meeting. But I had a comment on 6.1.1, paragraph five, that deals with the allowable uses within preserves. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You need to hold up, because first of all, the 6.1.1 that we dealt with today, we didn't blow past it, we had a discussion on it. I don't have a paragraph five. MR. YOV ANOVICH: Apparently that may have been considered at your last meeting. Because Bill and I both have a paragraph five. And Bill and I talked about one of the changes -- I think he agrees with me, but I don't want to speak for him. And it's on -- the document I'm reading from has a date on the top right hand of 9/27/06, and it would be Page 7 of that document, which is what I have as the objections, recommendations and comments report from the county, the CCME. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: What page is it on that report? MR. YOV ANOVICH: It's on Page 7. If you have the same date, 9/27/06. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: On my Page 7 it's 11/2/06, the top right-hand comer. MR. YOV ANOVICH: I realize that. And Bill and I were comparing notes real quick. But I don't know -- there's a paragraph five. And I guess I can put it on the visualizer, if that works for Page 100 November 16, 2006 everybody. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That might be the way to do it. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: It's Page 34 of the full ORC resubmittal or response. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Thirty-four? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Which we went over. We had no problem with it in the prior. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. MR. YOV ANOVICH: What I'm focusing on is paragraph B. And my concern you can see -- in pen I struck some words. As you know, the Board of County Commissioners deferred any specific preserve, water and preserve standards from this LDC cycle. We currently allow water to go into preserve areas on a case-by-case basis when you work with staff. If you read that language literally, it would preclude any water from going into a preserve until we adopt LDC standards. And I don't think that was the intent. And speaking to Mr. Lorenz, that was not his intent, it was continue business as usual with the individual evaluation as to whether or not if you put water in this preserve area it will adversely impact the preserve. If you read it literally, it says you can only put water in preserves after we adopt LDC provisions. And I don't think that was the intent. And we'd like to have the portion that I struck after the word vegetation removed. And that would make it clear that you can put water in the preserves as long as it doesn't negatively impact them or adversely impact them. And you're not required to adopt LDC provisions before that can occur. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: What criteria then would be provided that allows that to happen? MR. YOV ANOVICH: It's happening now. It's going in -- if you read that literally, you can't even put it in wetlands. They're already Page 101 November 16,2006 putting it in wetlands on a limited basis. If you can show there's no adverse impact, they'll allow you to put water in uplands. So it's already happening. So I can see the reasoning to go ahead and put the first part of the sentence in there. But the second part of the sentence, we are working through, as you know, specific LDC provisions, hopefully in the next cycle, to get into much more detail, so it's no longer an ad hoc basis, it's better defined. But I don't think it was the intent to say you can no longer put water in a preserve area until we come up with those specific LDC . . prOVISIons. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I think we probably need to hear from Bill and see what he has to say on this one. By the way, for the members of the commission, I'd like to finish up with this CCME section, we're almost done with it, before lunch. Is that okay, everybody? Okay. Go ahead. MR. LORENZ: Yes. The language was drafted up in the anticipation we would have Land Development Code regulations that provided that criteria to make those determinations. But we -- obviously you were involved with reviewing stormwater Land Development Code amendments and we withdrew them. We couldn't get to a consensus. So we do not have criteria in the Land Development Code currently that allows us to apply the criteria. However, we have been reviewing on a case-by-case basis -- and this is what I had mentioned to the planning commission before, and I use the term ad hoc basis -- is we will get the applicant to provide us some information, do some modeling analysis, evaluate that analysis vis-a-vis the preserve vegetation and location, and we have been bringing that through and making recommendations and/or approvals for it in the absence of the criteria. Typically when the Growth Management Plan is adopted, you Page 102 November 16, 2006 may recall some places where we have some general policy statement and then land development regulations will be adopted within one year of the effective date of the policy. That probably would be better language at this particular point for this, because I think, as Rich has pointed out, the way you would read the language here, it looks as though that you could not apply treated stormwater into preserves until those regulations are adopted. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ms. Caron? COMMISSIONER CARON: Then shouldn't we be saying something like -- instead of just crossing it out completely, shouldn't we be saying as determined on a case-by-case basis and as will be further set forth in land development regulations? I mean, I think you have to cover the fact that you don't have these criteria set forth right now. But I think you also have to allow for the fact that we are trying to set up criteria and that those will then take place, those will take precedent once they're set up. So I think you need to craft some language as opposed to just, you know, taking it out and saying anything goes until, you know, until we change it all, which is, I know, what Mr. Y ovanovich would like. But I think if you say that you're doing it on a case-by-case basis until criteria are established in the Land Development Code may cover you. MR. LORENZ: Conceptually that seems to work for me. COMMISSIONER CARON: I mean that seems to be what you're doing so why not say it. MR. YOVANOVICH: Yeah, I like the until. I just was concerned that if you said that it will be put in the LDC, someone could interpret it to say until it's in the LDC you can't do it. Not there's -- we can't just do it because it says you can't adversely impact, so -- COMMISSIONER CARON: No, I think you have to say until Page 103 November 16, 2006 the criteria are established. You can't do it until the criteria are established. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Guys, one at a time. Mr. Schiffer? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And David, this is objection four in the ORC report, correct? I mean, aren't they looking for -- it states in the recommendation, remove the reference to the land development regulations and define all relevant terms in the plan. So the point is that what we're doing is going silent. I mean, first of all, we should never refer to the land development regulations as a solution to their objection anyway. And then now we're just going to go silent? MR. WEEKS: We don't have an objection to what we're proposing. We've already provided this document as was presented to you -- that we're looking at now, the one that was presented to you on October 11 tho That has been provided to DCA and also the DEP and Water Management District. We're continuing dialogue with them on these objections, and we're -- though we're getting close to finishing with this body, we are still in dialogue with DCA and other state agencies, and so far they have not objected to this language here. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So staff will craft some language in line with what Commissioner Caron just indicated. MR. WEEKS: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Any other questions on the CCME element of this plan? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, David, are we done with CCME? MR. WEEKS: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Then we'll take a -- is there a motion to recommend approval or denial of the CCME section? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: So moved. Page 104 November 16, 2006 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So moved what, to approve? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Approve. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Second. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Second by Mr. Vigliotti. Motion was made by Commissioner Murray. Discussion? All in favor -- oh, David? MR. WEEKS: Just for clarification, that was to reflect all the changes that were made today? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Absolutely. All in favor of the motion, signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: Aye. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Aye. COMMISSIONER CARON: Aye. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Aye. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Aye. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Aye. COMMISSIONER TUFF: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye. Anybody opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion carries 8-0. We will take a one hour break for lunch and be back here at 1 :00. (A lunch recess was taken.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, it's 1:00. We'll resume our meeting. We had just finished with the CCME recommendations. And David, I'd like to walk through all the elements that we need to vote on here today, with the exception of the population statistics. I want to save the worst for last. MR. WEEKS: Okay. Ifwe could go to drainage -- perhaps we could go to housing. I would like -- (Laughter. ) MR. WEEKS: -- Robert Wiley must be out in the hall or away Page 105 November 16, 2006 for a moment. I wanted him to be here for drainage, just in case we need him. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Why don't you give us a page from the yellow highlighted document. MR. WEEKS: Page 4 at the top is the housing element. The change here is that we had transmitted a target of 1500 workforce -- affordable workforce units per year. And after looking at more recent data, staff is recommending that we go back to the thousand -- I'm sorry, I misspoke. We transmitted 1,000. Staff had proposed at your October 11th hearing to increase it to 1,500. We've looked at more recent CO data for residential units and decided that we need to stick with 1,000 units. 1,500 as a percent of the total units that are CO'd is very high. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I think that's a smart move. The other issue that I had brought up, and I never really got an answer to, is that in the introduction that was added to this housing element, it says that the goal of the housing element of Collier County Growth Management Plan is to create an adequate supply of decent, safe, sanitary and affordable housing for all residents of Collier County . My comment was do we mean residents or citizens? And I was told that they meant residents. People didn't have to be citizens. That's a little concerning to me, especially when this is concerning government aid and assistance for the most part. I kind of wanted to see what the rest of the board members thought about it as a recommend -- Mr. Murray. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Yes, the -- I happened to tune in when the BCC was talking over this issue, and citizens were the ones that they wanted it to be related to. And then someone broached the question about permanent residents who are not citizens but could disclose a particular form of identification. And I'm sure Mr. Schmitt knows in more detail, but that was a very important issue for the BCC, Page 106 November 16, 2006 and I surmise for us as well. MR. SCHMITT: For the record, Joe Schmitt, your administrator for community development and environmental services. Yeah, there was quite a bit of debate. The bottom line on the issue is you do not have to be a citizen to be a legal resident of the United States. There are a lot of provisions. I don't have those in front of me, but they're acceptable proof of residency that is all that's required, and they are taxpaying residents, legal residents of the United States. They may not have citizenship for one reason or another, but they are legal in every form or fashion, and are due protection of the laws as such. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Just out of curiosity, by legal residents then, say we were to use the word legal in front of the word residents, then we're talking about legal residents. MR. SCHMITT: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Does that, though, mean they are -- you said they're taxpayers. MR. SCHMITT: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Are they voters? MR. SCHMITT: No, you have to be a citizen to be a voter. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Do they serve in the military? MR. SCHMITT: Yes, you can serve in the military as a legal resident. You do not have to be a citizen to serve in the military. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: If someone serves in the military in this country, my God, they should have every benefit we can provide, because they're defending this country, whether they're a citizen or not. So that's an issue I would not want to see us remove -- I don't like the word residents left as it is. I'm just wondering -- MR. SCHMITT: I think the qualifier legal resident would meet -- it's the same criteria that we have in regards to any of the assistance programs or other things that was debated pretty specifically by the Board of County Commissioners. Page 107 November 16, 2006 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Midney. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: I think that you can look at people as kind of on a continuum. You start off having permission to work, and then after a certain number of years you move to permanent legal residency, which people call the green card. And then after another five years you're eligible to become a citizen. I think it's probably more useful to think that most of these people are on the road to becoming a citizen. It's not that they want to stay in this gray category, you know, indefinitely. So I think it's more productive to say people who are legal residents. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Any other comments from the board? Does that word legal residents seem to work for everybody? Okay, that's a recommendation then. David, is there any other issues to the housing element? MR. WEEKS: No, sir. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I have a question on it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes, sir. Mr. Schiffer, then Mr. Midney. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And this is for objection number two. Do you think you really answered that? What they're looking for is meaningful and predictable planning initiatives, ways to monitor, tracking guidelines. Essentially what you've done is said we have a housing development corporation. MR. WEEKS: Based upon the most recent communication from DCA, which was about two days ago, no, it does not adequately address their objection. They would like more information. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: So then why do we -- COMMISSIONER MURRAY: You going to tell us about that? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Then, yeah, I've got a problem with the process now. How come we're not keeping up to date on that? What are we doing here today then, just spending time with Page 108 November 16,2006 ourselves? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I just enjoy the company of you all. MR. WEEKS: Something I said earlier in the meeting, that we were in continuous dialogue with DCA and some other state agencies, but mostly DCA, the Department of Community Affairs. And some of that dialogue is going to result in the county providing additional data and analysis, more information to substantiate our amendments, or perhaps lack of an amendment. The other may necessitate some changes to the text. Now there's two ways to approach this. One is that we keep delaying -- or having you continue your hearings until we get to a point of finality with DCA, as final as we can get without actually adopting language and sending it to them. Or we can do what we're proposing to do now and that is that this is the latest and the greatest, the best we have available, get your vote on it. And then, understanding that it is possible that by the time it gets to the board there may be some revisions to this language. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, before we go off on too strong of a tangent on this, Margie, if I'm not mistaken, we are the LP A for Collier County. MS. STUDENT-STIRLING: That's correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: This is being done under the auspices of our designation of the LP A. MS. STUDENT -STIRLING: That's correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Based on the fact we are, these have to be forwarded to -- would have to go through us to get forward anywhere. We are the required agency to review this. If you are changing language after they leave here that we have not read or commented on, how is it then that any recommendation from us has any substance to it to go to the board without us knowing about it? MS. STUDENT-STIRLING: Well, my recommendation would Page 109 November 16, 2006 be, and I had talked earlier this morning to staff about this, my recommendation would be that where there are changes, that you could vote on it now with some caveats that if there's changes, they be brought back to you before the board takes final action. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You're missing my point. The changes that he's proposing, he hasn't figured out what they're going to be yet. He just said that DCA doesn't like this, thanks to Mr. Schiffer's concerns here. And they've got to come up with a whole new way to answer it. So it's not that we're suggesting language that they're going to rewrite and try to modify it close to what we're suggesting. Nobody's got any idea what they're going to suggest. MS. STUDENT-STIRLING: And what I'm saying is that that should be brought back to the planning commission before the board acts on it. I'm saying you could vote on it now with the caveat that they bring back the language changes to you before taking it to the board. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: David, how many sections are going to have that happen to them? Because we might was well not be wasting our time here today with things you're going to rewrite. MR. COHEN: Let me comment on what we're trying to do with DCA, to give you an understanding of where we're going. Rather than just provide them with a document that we think meets their needs, every time we've had changes that have been forthcoming from you or changes in the staff report, what we've done is we've forwarded them to DCA for their review and comment to see if they suffice or met their needs. In a couple of areas they've come back and they've said we would like to see more data analysis, or we would like for you to change that language. And when David says we've had an ongoing conversation and dialogue with them, they've been really good at affording us that Page 110 November 16,2006 dialogue, which they normally don't have to do, but they've chosen to do so. We're going to be discussing further down the road an item that you have an issue with, which is population. We've had a lot of ongoing dialogue with them and waiting for a response back, well, what do you really want. Almost all the issues that we've dealt with, pretty much they've given us an answer as to what they want. They've given us the language of what's okay and what's not. There's a few areas where they're not really sure exactly. They want to maybe resolve something still with the Water Management District and Big Cypress. One of the issues was with population. Water Management District finally was okay with that and signed off on it. So DCA was okay with it. So we've had some ongoing things that we're trying to resolve, not only with DCA but with the other agencies. I think from our perspective, we don't think there's going to be that many items where they say come on back and change this. I think the county attorney's suggestion that, you know, we approve -- you take action on. If there's anything of substance that's changed, that we bring it back to you. We'd be more than happy to do that, maybe continue it to a meeting where we could bring back all substantive changes to you for your final review before going to the Board of County Commissioners, because it doesn't go to the board until January 25th. That way you'll have another bite of the apple and that way you'll see everything that's changed beyond that. And there's not going to be that many things. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: We have to do that -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I was just going to make another clarification. It's not that you're offering to bring it back to us. I believe the way the law's written, you have to. And we're not approving anything today except the very specific recommendations Page 111 November 16,2006 we've made. And if we've not reviewed something and made a recommendation, it should not be going forward. Ms. Student. MS. STUDENT-STIRLING: I'd be happy to quote from that statute for you, if you'd like. It says specifically the LP A shall be the agency responsible for the preparation of the compo plan or plan amendment and shall make recommendations to the governing body regarding adoption or amendment of such plan. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And shall means mandatory, right? MS. STUDENT-STIRLING: That's correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So that means if you don't bring it before us, it doesn't go forward then. I don't know what you were going to do with this housing element had Mr. Schiffer not brought this up. But I don't think it's going forward if you're changing it. MR. WEEKS: Mr. chairman, I'd like to make a suggestion, and Margie, if I'm correct on this, if a continuance -- let me back up. Ifwe go beyond five weeks from today's hearing without you taking action to actually continue this meeting, my understanding is we will be required to readvertise. MS. STUDENT-STIRLING: That's correct. MR. WEEKS: The advertisements are very expensive. As you know, I think you know, we do full page legal ads in the Naples Daily News. To avoid that expense, because we do anticipate we're going to have to make some changes, it might be a comma, it might be more substantial, who knows. But we're going to have to make more changes, or I believe we are, to the policies, to the actual text that's being adopted. We would request then that you continue this meeting after we conclude today to a future date certain within five weeks time period. Staff will come to you at that time with any revisions since today's Page 112 November 16, 2006 hearing, and if we're at a point of everything's settled, then that will be it, you take the final action. If there's still some issues that are in flux, we would ask you again to continue to another hearing. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's exactly I think the direction we're trying to give you. MR. COHEN: Let me take that a step further. Because I anticipate later in the meeting that, based on some of the conversations that we've had that there may be a recommendation pertaining to population methodology. And if there's a differentiation in that methodology coming from this body, what it's going to do is going to affect everything that's in the CIE. If that happens, we're going to have to modify every one of the CIE charts, and actually come back to you with those. And we recognize that potentially may happen. So we understood that and we're ready to address that as well, too. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You said the CIE. Now, the CIE charts that we talked about this morning were based on the AUIR from 2005. MR. COHEN: Which is based on the population methodology that's currently in the GMP. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Correct. But you're not going to go back and change the 2005 AUIR. MR. COHEN: No, sir, but-- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Then isn't the CIE supposed to be consistent with that A UIR? MR. COHEN: It would be consistent from the perspective, except we've got a comment objection from DCA that basically says that your population methodology is unacceptable. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: For the upcoming AUIR or the past AUIR? MR. COHEN: For this particular CIE that you're reviewing right now. Page 113 November 16, 2006 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Margie, that does put a twist on it. MS. STUDENT-STIRLING: My mother used to say facts alter cases. We have an unusual circumstance here where we have to do a CIE between two AUIRs. And what I had stated this morning was correct in the usual scenario where the CIE is based on the A UIR. And we have a situation where we're between both of them and we have to transmit an amendment. So based on what Mr. Cohen is going to put on the record and what he explained to me during the lunch hour, I'm comfortable that we did what you might want to call an interpolation between the '05 AUIR and the '06 AUIR to get this CIE, to make it financially feasible and have something that can be transmitted to DCA and meet their requirements. Because our AUIR is a local requirement. It's not in 9.1.5 or in state law anywhere. And I think it's been more of less a policy, I'm not sure it's written anywhere. I think it's been a policy of course that the CIE makes sense, you know, be based on the AUIR for that year. But we have an unusual circumstance here. So I'm comfortable with doing this if you want to call it an interpolation. However, if the population methodology changes to avoid any situation that DCA meant to have with us on our population methodology, I am in favor, depending on what the planning commission wants to do, of doing what we have to do to make those changes to satisfy DCA. Otherwise, we'll be going to administrative hearing and arguing over population methodologies, which, from what I understand from staff, we have the opportunity to fix at this level and avoid -- hopefully avoid any administrative proceeding with DCA. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Monday we have the 2006 AUIR coming up for discussion. That is based on what population statistic that has been approved by DCA, any? MR. COHEN: It's based on the 2003 methodology that was Page 114 November 16, 2006 approved by DCA, which DCA now has an objection to. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, so let me restate that. The AUIR that we're going to review on Monday does not have a population statistics that it's based upon that is currently approved by DCA; is that correct? MR. COHEN: It has a methodology that is currently approved by DCA and that's legally in effect in this county. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: How do you say that when the ORC report was rejected for population, and David just told us he's still wrangling over a population statistic to use? MR. COHEN: Our GMP has not been legally changed. It's still in full force and effect. And the population methodology that's there, which was adopted by the board, is still in effect until the BCC changes that methodology based on the recommendation that comes from this body. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: If DCA does not accept David's professional judgment in regards to the population statistic that he's now working with DCA on, will that change the AUIR for 2006? MR. COHEN: If you're asking me if the methodology that's being proffered back to us from DCA which we've gotten from them, which David and I have discussed with them whether or not we agree with them, we don't have a problem with the methodology that they've proffered to us. Will it affect the AUIR for 2006? The answer would be yes. Would it affect this -- and obviously you need to review that. And as a body, the board would actually have to approve the methodology. If so, then what we would have to do is go back, if this body recommends that and the BCC concurs, is to modify the A UIR to be consistent with that methodology. And we know that we have to do that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But that methodology could radically affect -- you see, everything generates from population statistics. All Page 115 November 16,2006 your levels of service, your demands, your capital improvements, the budget that will be imposed upon the taxpayers of this county all falls back to this document right here and the population statistic approved by DCA. MR. COHEN: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So since you don't have a population statistic that you know for sure is going to be acceptable, what are we doing Monday? MR. COHEN: We actually do have a recommendation from DCA, but it's not approved by the Board of County Commissioners. So what we've been in the position that we've had to do in formulating the AUIR is go forward with the methodology that was approved by the board, which is the methodology that's in Policy 4.8, and move forward with that until, you know, that policy changes otherwise. We fully recognize as part of the EAR amendment process that more than likely that that methodology is going to change based on your recommendation, which is going to obviously modify, you know, the population methodology policy and at the same time result in a change in the CIE with respect to capital improvements. And then we're going to have to make similar changes to the 2006 AUIR if the board concurs with that methodology change as well, too. So it's another timing issue with respect to the AUIR flowing from the CIE. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And I'm wondering, we're going to be sitting here going through massive numbers starting Monday, numbers that have huge impacts on the population of this county because they drive our budget and our future ad valorem taxes. Every one of those numbers is based on this population statistic that we're now talking about. Why are we doing it on Monday? Why are we not postponing Page 116 November 16, 2006 this until you get this thing resolved so we haven't got to do it twice? MR. COHEN: And that is an option that's available to you. What flows from you this afternoon, if your recommendation is to change the methodology, what we would propose is to actually bring it forward to the board prior to the EAR, probably at their next regularly scheduled meeting that we can provide them with an executive summary pertaining to population, which would be December 12th, and ask them by separate motion to approve that methodology and then come back to you with a document that reflects those changes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I'm not sure what direction the board will go with this. I do know that the board is heavily lobbied by staff on their preferences, and that has a big influence on the outcome of what we recommend. So even if we were to recommend a different approach than what you're proposing, I'm not sure that would warrant a change in the AUIR and warrant a postponement of the Monday meeting. I am more concerned about what you are trying to put through to DCA as being consistent with the way the A UIR that we're going to review Monday is what you're -- is in fact built upon. If what you already are thinking you're doing with DCA, if you're already at a point with DCA that says what the AUIR for 2006 was based upon is not the one that they're really going to use, then we factually know Monday is probably going to be a waste of time. I don't want to see us waste that time, especially with another II-member panel. That's 20 people that you're going to have up here voluntarily wasting days. I want to make sure that time isn't wasted. MR. COHEN: And I agree with you, Commissioner. And based on -- obviously we prepared the AUIR based on the previous methodology starting back in, I believe, July getting input based on the accepted methodology by the Board of County Commissioners, not knowing what DCA would do with population, trying to work Page 11 7 November 16, 2006 through an issue. We thought at one point in time that the methodology that we had in conversation with them was going to be acceptable, and David and I had numerous conversations with them. And then finally was it sometime last week they decided that it wouldn't be acceptable. And obviously your AUIR, we're completely done. So our response back to them was what is acceptable. And they've come forward with a methodology that they deem acceptable. And we'll discuss that with you later on this afternoon when we get to the population. MR. SCHMITT: I think it's worth probably discussing now-- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah, because-- MR. SCHMITT: -- we've opened the door. And the bottom line here, we've been using a methodology that's been approved, David, what, almost eight years now by the board? MR. WEEKS: At least since 19 -- well, prior to 1989. MR. SCHMITT: And it's never been opposed by the DCA until this year they questioned. And fundamentally what they're looking for us is to be on the same methodology with other agencies that do the estimate. Bottom line is the methodology they're asking us to use actually will increase our estimates across the board. And we're -- what Mr. Cohen basically said is factual. We started this AUIR -- normally we do it and we bring it to the board in December. But because of scheduling requirements we had to wait to get -- January before we get to the board. We would have had -- just because of scheduling and commitments, it won't be till the end of January. But it's a timing problem. We have a document that is essentially completed. Now DCA is saying now they think they really know what color rock they wanted, after we brought them 15 rocks and they say yeah, that's the rock I really like. That's where we're at right now Page 118 November 16, 2006 with DCA as far as the methodology. And we basically have one of two choices. We continue at this current path and present the A UIR as it's prepared based on the methodology that has been approved by the Board of County Commissioners and that we've been using. And in the interim period, between the planning commission and the board, we will have to make a decision. If in fact the board approves the change in methodology, we will have to amend the AUIR prior to the board. So then that may necessitate having -- bringing it back to you all for another look. It's -- I don't know how any -- unless we just do not do an AUIR. But by January I'm already starting the process for the 2007 AUIR. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: See, you just said that most likely -- or the numbers that DCA is throwing out are going to have a greater impact, not a lesser impact, or could result in a bigger problem as far as financial impacts. MR. SCHMITT: From what -- and we will explain that basically, yes, it looks like -- fundamentally, and I'll have to turn to David, because he's going to have to explain it. But the bottom line is what they're telling us to do now is use medium BBR with the full estimate of the seasonal population, which will increase our overall estimate. David, I don't know if you want to -- we've opened this chapter and we kicked the door open, so we might as well start covering it now. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No, let's get into it. Y .? es, SIr. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: We were on housing. COMMISSIONER CARON: I know, but -- let's go back to that COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Are we going to drop that or -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, first of all, housing won't be able Page 119 November 16, 2006 to be finished by us today because they've just said that based on their response to Brad Schiffer, that they have not completed the response to housing so it has to come back to us to review. So we can't do that now because they haven't given us the new language because it hasn't been written yet. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: It will be back. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So housing has got to come back. And then what's now evolved out of this whole conversation is that the very basics that are used to calculate next week's meeting and parts of this meeting are now in jeopardy with having a no agreement with DCA on the issue. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: So let's go straight to population. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Let's jump right into the population and get it resolved. Ms. Student? MS. STUDENT-STIRLING: Can I just say something? I hope I'm not going to start coughing again. But as Mr. Schmitt said, it's a timing issue. We have in our compo plan now presently as it exists a methodology that, as was stated, was accepted by DCA. And our AUIR is based on that existing -- the proposed one that's coming up on Monday is based on what is now the law. What you're looking at today is changing that law. But because of the timing of it, the change will not become legally effective till gosh, sometime in the spring, probably, or -- yeah, would probably be spring. And our AUIR we need to get done now. So there's the timing dilemma. But I would say that if you base your AUIR on what's in the plan now, which is what staff has done, that's legally defensible, because that's what the law now is. And we don't know whether DCA is going to approve what they are proposing to us they would approve, we won't know that till the spring. So the only -- there's an option I see that you could look at the Page 120 November 16, 2006 AUIR as staff has prepared it and when those adjustments have been made, you know, have like an alternative motion that you set this AUIR but if this -- the compo plan amendment becomes legally effective then these changes might have to be made to it. I don't know what else to do because it is a timing problem. I don't know if I've explained it adequately for you. MR. SCHMITT: We are going to the board this December to explain this to the board to have the board basically vote to direct staff to change the methodology so that we can continue with the revised methodology as we go into the CIE for next year. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And if the board, when you go to them fairly shortly here, approves this new methodology, will that change the AUIR that we will be looking at on Monday? I'm going back to my original concern -- MR. COHEN: We would still-- county attorney can correct me if I'm wrong, but legally and officially, even though the board would say yes to changing the methodology, DCA still would not have approved it, it would not have been vetted publicly, it would not have gone through the administrative hearing process that potentially could exist or the appeal process, so it would not -- even though the board says yes, use that methodology, it would not be in full legal force and effect. And Margie, correct me if I'm wrong. MS. STUDENT-STIRLING: It wouldn't be legally effective because the plan is not legally effective until DCA finds it in compliance and the appeal period has run. So we wouldn't have our new population regulations in the compo plan to be legally effective until sometime in the spring. That's what I'm saying, it's a timing problem. And if for some reason DCA didn't approve it or they approved it and it was a challenge, then we have what's in the compo plan right now, which the AUIR you're going to see on Monday is based on. Page 121 November 16, 2006 That's what I'm trying to explain, it's a timing dilemma. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I understand, Margie, and I'm just trying to make sure that the AUIR that we review is the AUIR that goes to the board so that our comments are relevant to the numbers that are in the AUIR that we review. Those numbers are what drive the budget. And if we're commenting on this document to have an influence on the budget, we need to make sure the numbers are the ones that they're going to go end up using. That's the only concern that this conversation started with. MR. SCHMITT: I know, Commissioner, your concern is that you're looking at a document that serves as a foundation. And it does serve as a foundation, especially when we're talking about the CIE, the capital improvement element, and looking at the forecasted needs for future growth and development. When we really do a sensitivity analysis, we're not talking -- we're not that far off the mark between the two estimates. We have the numbers and it starts off somewhat rather dramatic but falls off fairly significantly. And we're only eight to 10 percent. I think in most cases -- I don't have those numbers, we're just doing a quick calculation. David has them. We could throw those up on the visualizer. But it does -- we're in the middle of a change. And unfortunately, DCA, even though they brought this up in the ORC report, never -- I guess what it is, they never told us what they wanted until we kept on asking them what it is you want and we kept on sending them things. Oh, that's -- now we know what we really want now that we've seen it. And we just got that word last week. I don't -- I think the sense of you wasting your time Monday is really you're not. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Good. That's the only thing I'm trying to get to, Joe, is I don't want to have a document reviewed that's going Page 122 November 16, 2006 to change dramatically right after we review it. That's all I was trying to say. MR. SCHMITT: You want -- throw the numbers up here, David. If you want -- I know we don't have the -- and David can go through it, we don't have the -- zero it in there -- you're looking at the first two columns, the weighted average, existing methodology and the red is what they're directing us as countywide -- that's the peak seasonal population using the medium BBR. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Can you explain how you get to that, David. MR. WEEKS: The first row is the existing county methodology. That's using the weighted average. And that is comprised of two-thirds of the BBR high range permanent population but one-third of the peak season population. Simplistically, that comes out to about 11 percent higher than the permanent population. The second methodology in red is the one recommended by BBR -- excuse me by DCA. That is to use the BBR medium range, not high range, medium range permanent population and then add -- then add 100 percent of the peak season population. That is, the second row is simply the peak season population, which is approximately 33 percent over the permanent population. So again, in simple terms, the first row, current methodology represents about 11 percent over permanent population. The second row in red represents about 33 percent over the permanent population. The difference between the medium range and the high range is far less than the difference between the 11 percent and 33 percent of the peak season population. That's why the result is the medium range with full peak season population comes out higher than the weighted average that the county currently uses. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, does BBR then have both the medium range and a peak season range and a high range? How many ranges do they use? Page 123 November 16, 2006 MR. WEEKS: BBR provides three ranges: low, medium and high. And those are permanent population projections only. Collier County determines what that peak season population is. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So the 422 that they bumped up from the medium BBR, that reflects an input of the seasonal population, where did DCA get the seasonal numbers from to have the 422? MR. WEEKS: DCA is using Collier County's methodology for peak season. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Good. Now we're back to where we need to go. How did we get to that methodology? MR. WEEKS: And that's a good question. And I think it's on target to where we need to go. Historically, peak season population is 33 percent higher than the October 1 permanent population. That's based on two different methodologies of gathering peak season data and then averaging the two together to come out with the 33 percent. One methodology looks at hotel, motel occupancy by month throughout the year, and it looks at the number of vacant housing units per the most recent census, and I believe it's the percent of vacant units that are held or seasonal or occasional use. So it's a lot of census type data plus hotel, motel occupancy data. And that results in one percentage figure, which historically has been about 39 percent. And then the second methodology looks at traffic count data, selected retail sales items, again, on a monthly basis throughout the year. And I say selected retail sales. For example, we would exclude your white goods, like appliances, perhaps automobiles, things that you would expect to go -- to distinguish between items that would be purchased by a visitor versus those that are here year-round. You're here year-round, you might be more inclined to buy a new appliance, whereas seasonally you might not, especially of course if you're renting a place or staying in a hotel. And then third is looking at gas tax sales -- excuse me, gas tax Page 124 November 16, 2006 revenues as well. Using that set of data, we come up with another percentage. We add those two together and that's where we come up with the 33 percent. I suspect, I cannot tell you factually, but I suspect that we need to make some adjustment to our peak season population figures. The reason I can't give a factual answer is because we don't have all the data we need. We don't have traffic count data. I can tell you that looking at the 1990 census data versus the 2000, we know there's been some changes. The number of -- percent of vacant dwelling units is lower in 2000 than it was in 1990. The percent of the vacant units that are in that cat -- subcategory of health or seasonal or occasional use, what we would say is your seasonal units, that has increased since 1990. So we know there's been some changes in numbers, but we don't have everything we need to do a full reevaluation to see if that 33 percent should be adjusted perhaps lower. Could be higher, I don't think so. But we simply don't have the factual basis to say let's change that 33 percent to some other figure. So ultimately the position that we're in and our discussions with DCA is agreeing to their methodology but taking a closer look at the peak season methodology once we get all the available data, once it is available, and at the very next available amendment cycle, if appropriate, come back and say let's change the methodology. Excuse me, that's not quite right. We would not need to do a plan amendment. The language that is proposed by DCA would have us using BBR medium range population as seasonally adjusted. And then they leave that seasonal adjustment up to Collier County. Thankfully they're not taking a very harsh position of explicitly stating what that methodology is. DCA is accepting that we do experience a seasonal influx. They're leaving it up to us to determine just what that is. Page 125 November 16, 2006 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Have you got -- oh, go ahead, Mr. Murray. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: There's so many questions that are possible, but I'm just thinking about, I remember Jim DeLony being very concerned with his use of the high BBR and so forth and how he modulated that. And I've got to believe that that's going to put a heck of a whack his -- that's one. Parks and recreation, their outplanning was way out. And the numbers are going to be extraordinary. You said about eight percent, or somebody did, say eight percent. Is that eight percent as a composite number or is that eight percent representative of -- MR. SCHMITT: Look across the board. But the real issue is, you remember last year there was some concern based on the estimates that we were overestimating. And as you can see by the method now they're telling us to use, that even increases the estimate. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, no, Joe, before we go there. They're not telling us how to calculate our seasonal increase. MR. SCHMITT: That's correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So they are not the ones that are driving the population statistic higher, we are. MR. SCHMITT: We are in the seasonal population. They are asking us to use medium BBR. That's why for years we felt that our methodology gave us the snapshot that we thought we needed to do adequate forecasting and planning for future growth and development. And then frankly, David, I think the point is over the years how close have we been? We've normally pretty much underestimated except for the recent years. MR. WEEKS: Historically the high range was on the mark. We did go through a slowdown in the Nineties which ultimately led us to amending our methodology. I believe it was in the late -- I believe it was in the late Nineties, sometime in the late Nineties anyway, we Page 126 November 16,2006 amended our methodology to drop down to I think it was high range for the first five years and then an average of high and medium range for subsequent years. And even though we knew that the high range was too high for the first five years, that gave us a security blanket. Just that. It was to be safe then sorry. What if we experience a rapid increase in population if we're using figures that are too low. And then in 2003 our most recent methodology change, we still used the high range for the first five years and then 95 percent of high range for all subsequent years. And that, as Randy had mentioned, was found in compliance by DCA in 2003. And that is our current methodology. In looking at the most recent projections of population from BEBR, the high range is exorbitant. It is showing between now and 2010 an average of 20,000 percent increase annually. Whereas from 2000 to 2005 our annual increase was approximately 13,000. So there's a significant disparity. On top of that, we know from CO data that our rate is slowing down, our growth is slowing down, at present. Probably will take up again, but presently it's slowing down. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The chart that you have here, could you back it up so we could see to the left of the chart. There you go. And right now we're using the top line. What -- and as far as the red lines go, how accurate in 2004 is that red line? Did we have 422,016 people here in 2004? MR. WEEKS: Commissioners, I don't know. Because that's the peak season population, and I failed to bring those figures with me. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, the reason I'm asking, you can very easy easily see if DCA is on the right track or not or if your seasonal bump to DCA is on the right track or not by understanding what the real population was that existed in the years prior to now that we have records for. November 16, 2006 MR. WEEKS: If I could use the math for a moment, come up with a rough number. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I'm not sure what you need and I probably don't have it. MR. SCHMITT: I've got most of the stuff in my computer, David. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Murray, did you have any other question you want to get at? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: No, thank you. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I have a question. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Schiffer. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And I'm still a little bit confused as to what it is. We were using the high, BEBR high, and we were essentially saying that's our population for two-thirds of the year. We were adding a third of that for the other third of the year and then weighting that average. Why would the weighted average using the high be four people off from the weighted average using the medium? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You're looking at 2004, right? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I'm not looking at the red, I'm only looking at the black. MR. SCHMITT: He's looking at the bottom one. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And we add to the weighted average. Just seems -- MR. WEEKS: I think that's because that's an estimate. So when we're looking back, we have this -- that's the actual number, as opposed to looking forward with projections, that's where you see the difference between a high range and a low range -- or a high and medium. For 2004 being an estimate, they both had the same figure. And it was not a projection to the future, so -- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: What you're saying is that the Page 128 November 16, 2006 BEBR looked back to 2004, knew exactly what we had. So what you're showing is that you were actually four people under for that year in your estimate? I'd be proud of that if that was -- COMMISSIONER MURRAY: You deserve a raise. MR. WEEKS: That actually was not a BEBR figure. It was a BEBR -- the 2004 figure being an estimate for both methodologies was using an actual figure of population. That's exactly what it was in 2004 converted to an October figure. Because I don't want to confuse things. BEBR estimates are the census year. They are as of April 1. Our fiscal year is October 1. So the first new projections by the April date, then we convert that to the October date, which is six months ago away. It's actually halfway between two given years. I'm not exactly sure why they're off by four, but that's a statistical-- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And other question is, back when the ORC letter came out July 28th, they really are telling us what to do there, saying use the medium projections. So for four months we resisted that? MR. WEEKS: We did not immediately start dialogue with DCA. But when we did, yes, we were resisting. We wanted to stick with an existing methodology. And the reason was, we've used it for -- the weighted average methodology, we've been using that since at least 1989 if not prior, and it's worked to our satisfaction. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: But aren't they stating, you know, chapters of state law telling you how to do it? MR. WEEKS: The statutory references -- they had two issues with population. One is the one that says as a starting point you should use BEBR medium. But it goes on to provide that you can use BEBR high or some other methodology, as long as it's professional acceptable. And that really became the crux of their position: Collier County, we do not Page 129 ^^--"~'-'-""-~"""'----""""-""'-"~""-""'~""'''~--''-'''- November 16, 2006 believe your methodology is professionally acceptable. Our position was yes, it is. We've been using it for however many years it's been. Again, the plan was adopted in '89 and used weighted average I believe, prior to that. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: What do you think they were really looking for for professionally acceptable, because that's part of their recommendation? What were they really looking for, a study, a what, a handbook reference -- MR. WEEKS: Certainly some supporting information, which we attempted to provide to them to substantiate our position. Part of DCA's position was listening to the Water Management District which is doing -- preparing population projections and water needs, water supply planning, all of the different water management districts, and water -- South Florida is doing the lower west coast water supply plan for all of the different counties they were dealing with. Apparently, except for us, they were -- those counties were using BEBR medium figures. Water Management District did not want that anomaly, they wanted us to use BEBR medium. I believe that the Water Management District was pushing the process to some extent. And DCA did concur with them. MR. SCHMITT: DCA was looking to have everybody on the same sheet of music. We were singing from a different sheet of music, and basically they were saying, okay, now we really do want you to do this method so everybody in South Florida, Southwest, Southeast Florida basically is on the same -- using the same methodology. And we're at that point now . We finally said okay we're there. Now, I think what David said in regards to the seasonal bump, we need more comfort in estimating the seasonal bump. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: So where we're going to stand Page 130 November 16, 2006 today and where you're going to propose in the future, and I guess you said we'd work it out, is that the only difference is going to be we're using the base number from BEBR medium, not BEBR high. MR. SCHMITT: That's correct. MR. WEEKS: That's not the only difference. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: There's a lot to go through there. MR. WEEKS: The second half of that equation is that we will use 100 percent of the peak season population, whereas the existing methodology would have us, in addition to using the high range projections, not medium, would have us using two-thirds of the permanent population and one-third of peak season. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. And one of the other things they're concerned about is we use different populations for calculating different things. And honestly, I think that makes sense. Are we not allowed to be able to do that anymore? MR. WEEKS: No, we're not. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: We have to come up with a population, so essentially we have to size it to the sewer system, because that's the thing we want to almost least fail. MR. WEEKS: Right. And public utilities is -- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: So maybe there's some beauty there, we size the county for the maximum, and during the rest of the peak season, two-thirds we can coast a little. Anyway, that's my question. MR. SCHMITT: Also, don't forget you have Category A and Category D. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Who do you think pays for that oversizing? MR. SCHMITT: Yes. That's the whole point as well. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: What is that, about $90 million estimate tacked onto this thing? MR. SCHMITT: I don't know -- Page 131 November 16, 2006 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Before we go too far, David, why do we need -- I think I know the answer, but I want to hear it from you. Why do we need to even define the seasonal increase in regards to these numbers? MR. WEEKS: Why do we need to define it? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Why do we need to include a seasonal bump in our population statistics that we use? MR. WEEKS: Otherwise it would be, based on the 33 percent increase that we historically used, we would be underplanning by one-third for the impact on our category of various public facilities. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Why? MR. COHEN: Let me help out a little bit here too. And the county attorney can correct me as well, too. If you look at 9.1.5, we have to one, have a professionally accepted population methodology. And in that language it says you have to address the permanent population and seasonal population. So it's mandated in the administrative code which implements Chapter 163. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: David, why do you include the seasonal population in the statistics besides the -- I don't care about the statute. I want to know the practical reason you include it. I think you were starting to tell me is so that we can utilize it in regards to the needs to supply services. Is that correct? MR. WEEKS: That's it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Where do the tourists stay when they come in this county? MR. WEEKS: Hotels, motels, units that are for rents or units that they own and just occupy seasonally. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Do they stay in any homeless facilities in the woods that aren't CO'd? MR. WEEKS: There may be a small fraction, but certainly not your typical snowbird. Page 132 November 16, 2006 (Laughter. ) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The count that you make, all these people are staying in facilities that have certificates of occupancy, that are CO'd that are on the books. To get on the books, they have met all the concurrency requirements of the county. That means they have sewer, water and all the other facilities. And if we didn't have room for them, they wouldn't come here. They haven't filled the hotels up. There's never been 100 percent in every hotel in this county that I know of. And every hotel in this county for its maximum 100 percent does have its capacity. So how is -- I'm trying to understand what good adding that seasonal population does on the generation of more services if those services are already included in the COs and calculations that are used to provide concurrency for the existing buildings. (S imultaneous discussion.) MR. SCHMITT: I hear what you're asking, but I don't have an answer for you. We would have to, frankly, get into that as we get into the AUIR. Because as was recognized, the most critical element is planning for public utilities: Water, sewer. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. And all the planning for the tourists that come here every year because they have to stay in a facility that's CO'd, is done. They're in. The facilities are working, the plants are in place. The next year that we want to predict the amount of the people coming, they'll only come with the amount of facilities that we have for them. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: You know, Mark, you make a really good point. Maybe it's not that one-third should be added, maybe it's one-third should be reduced from the permanent. MR. WEEKS: During the offseason? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: During the off season. Because essentially the person buys a house and goes away -- Page 133 November 16, 2006 MR. SCHMITT: If you recall last year-- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: You're right, the one-third is on the wrong side of the line. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's what I'm thinking. We're going to be in this continuous over-building mode to meet an issue that has already been met for the population that we think we're trying to meet it for. MR. SCHMITT: And I can't state that categorically it has been met, that's the problem. If you recall, last year what we did is we converted in utilities and begin to use the reliability, rather than peak capacity, because plants do not run in peak capacity. And we reduced the -- in order to account for that one or two or three systems offline for whatever repair, whether it's a well or some other functional aspect of the plant. And we had a reliability factor built into that. We're speaking -- I mean, I would need probably Jim DeLany or his team to come in here and to begin to explain from a standpoint of -- you are somehow indicating that we ought to just have permanent population, and I can't -- well, I can't answer that. I mean, I -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, the permanent population is what we have to take care of. And we do that -- when you issue a COA for a hotel, are you issuing it for 65 percent capacity for just six months of the year? No, you're issuing it for 100 percent capacity for 100 percent of the year. MR. SCHMITT: I'm issuing a COA based upon on what, depending on -- for traffic counts, it's on the traffic study. And on fixture counts. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Joe, traffic isn't part of this because they do it by levels of service, so -- they do it by traffic counts. They're out of the picture. Let's talk about utilities, which are huge issues. We build utilities based on the structures that are built. If you get COAs, you issue Page 134 November 16, 2006 COAs, you issue letters of acknowledgement that the capacity is there. Once the capacity is there, it's there. I don't understand how we're reusing it for peak season through these adjustments. It doesn't make any sense to keep going forward with that. David, you've been pondering this. Mr. Midney, you had a comment. Maybe someone can help, I don't know. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Well, I'm trying to understand where you're going, Mark, because we all know that we're not content with the road system as it is. Are you saying that we have over capacity on roads or -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Paul, roads have nothing to do with the population. This methodology has nothing to do with roads. Roads are based on levels of service by traffic counts. So this factor is what drives the budget for all the other issues that we're dealing with, the amount of water, sewer and plants, and things like that, parks and recreation. Roads are devised by a level of service demand. So that's not where this methodology factors in. I wasn't addressing roads. No, I'm not saying that roads are adequate. Roads are the worst thing in the world in this county. We have a good staff that's trying to fix them, I have no doubt about that, but -- MR. SCHMITT: I think David has an answer, I think -- MR. WEEKS: I'm still pondering, but I think this is the key. When we do our annual projections, estimates and projections of population, we rely on BEBR for the most recent estimate. And then for projections we -- depending on the methodology, present or the future, we either rely on BEBR as they provide the projections or we modify then somewhat. Again, right now after five years, we use 95 percent of the BEBR high range projections. To determine how that population -- I'm not sure if I've got it yet. Page 135 _.."__"".,.."~_,...;___...__,_.,..,...."_..,;.,,.~. "_..,___,_.,,._,.,__._.... ~."~."~_._._..w..,".,_, November 16, 2006 We look at only the occupied dwelling units. We don't look at the vacant units. We only look at the occupied ones and then what is the population per total dwelling unit within a given geography. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But see, that's even better. Because we're building our facilities on the vacant ones as well as the occupied once. And if you're only looking at the occupied ones, then we've got a facility built for what's not occupied. And that's what I'm trying to say is how are we looking at these -- these population statistics drive our numbers, but they seem to be driving it with -- I can't figure out how you're substantiating it. MR. COHEN: Let me try and help. Maybe I can explain this a little better. When we get the numbers from BEBR, and David, you can correct me if I'm wrong, okay, they'll provide us with a permanent population number. And as you'll see, say, it's 300,000 people. And it probably reflects about 70 percent of what's actually here during eight months of the year, maybe not, you know, the other four months of the year. When they do that, they're not taking into account the other 30 percent of the people that are here on a regular basis. So if we were to just use the permanent number of people that were here, which is the permanent number that was provided, which was 70 percent of the regular population, you would have a number there that would reflect only 70 percent of the impact on your capital facilities. What they've asked us to do is to factor in, what DCA is asking us to do, is to factor in that other 30 percent of the people that come on a regular basis and plan for your capital facilities. Otherwise if we were to use just the BEBR permanent number that's here and say we were planning for capital facilities in public, say facilities for potable water and sanitary sewer, all we would be planning for, based on the numbers they provide us, which is the permanent number, would be 70 percent of the people that are here for six, seven, eight months of the year. Page 136 November 16, 2006 Otherwise when those other 30 percent of the people showing up, we're not going to have that reserve capacity when they do show up. And I think that's what the differentiation is in the numbers. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Schiffer. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: How does BEBR come up with that number? Have you guys ever studied that? How do we know they're doing -- you're assuming that the BEBR number takes into account the seasonal population. MR. SCHMITT: No, it doesn't. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Well, then, Randy, you just said that it's 70 percent of the seasonal population. MR. COHEN: No, I said it's 70 percent of the population that would exist when we do have season. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: That's the same thing. MR. COHEN: Say we have 300,000 people here in this county, just as an example, and we're relying on the 30 percent factor, and BEBR would provide us with a number and they would say we'll, your population is 210,000. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Then they'd factor what I've said. I think the point -- you know, when I read the stuff on how you come up with the seasonal population, the gas tax, all the other things you use, I think Mark could be right. So you have a condo, it has so many units in it. You don't know whether they're vacant or not. You don't know if they're in their home, you don't where these people are. So you're counting that as full. That change in the taxes and the gas and all that, what it really is is during the year we're running the two-thirds of the year, and then that third comes back, so you don't really know whether that third is added on or that third reduced is our permanent population. You don't know that. And I don't think BEBR knows whether somebody's in a unit or not. I think step one is somebody, you know, should really call, you Page 137 November 16, 2006 know, the university and find out how they actually really do it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: We built everything in this county based on the vertical households in the county. They've been counted. They're in the system. And that may be more where we should be looking rather than how many houses are going to be built each year, because that's what ties into the system. And I'm really wondering if we've looked at this wrong. I'm not saying you've been wrong, David, you've worked on a certain methodology. But even DCA now is questioning how to look at it. How do the other counties look at it? How have the other tourist counties, like that county around Tampa or West Palm Beach, or places looked at it? MR. COHEN: We had a recent conversation with DCA late last week, and Lee County uses, for example, uses median BEBR numbers, and they use -- which are provided by the University of Florida. And then they have a percentage increase above that that they factor on in. I don't know exactly what that percentage is, but that's what they do. And what I've been told by Bernard Piawah, who handles Southwest Florida for DCA, that's the methodology that's traditionally used by other jurisdictions, too. And they validate what that seasonal population is and they add it onto the current population. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: How are their validations for the seasonal population done? Has anybody checked that? If theirs has been an acceptable practice, maybe we ought to look at it and that might help understand where DCA is coming from in regards to how peak season enters into this. I went through and had a lot of, whole stack of questions on population. But honestly, it's so much in flux, I'd be wasting everybody's time to move through all this right now until we got a better idea back from you all how this thing really needs to be calculated, and justification for what you've done versus what other Page 138 November 16, 2006 counties may have done. And I really would like to understand better the relationship between constructed homes, construction, hotels, motels, versus the population statistics. Because if those are all constructed and we complete our facilities based on the concurrency recommendations or approvals that we issue for COAs, then the system is already locked in to service what's there, not what the population increases by. Because that increase is already figured in the capacity that the services that we -- the buildings that we've built can hold. It's already there in the system. So I don't know. I just haven't felt comfortable with the population numbers, and that's my input on it. And I'm sure, I think any other comments we have -- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I really agree with you, Mark. I think the only way that they could be right is if everybody brought a trailer with them. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ms. Caron? COMMISSIONER CARON: Yeah, I really do think that we need to look at this. But also, didn't we take a look at some historical data last spring or something that compared what we had projected-- MR. SCHMITT: Previous estimates versus -- COMMISSIONER CARON: -- versus what the reality ended up being? And weren't your figures for population based on the way you were calculating them, almost dead on, as I recall? And I don't have the numbers in front of me. MR. WEEKS: I believe you're referring to some data that was in that ORC response document, if I recall correctly. The 2001 -- it's either one or two, 2001 or 2002 high range projection for BEBR for the year 2005 was a matter of just a few hundred off from what the 2005 estimate was that we received earlier this year. I believe that's what you're referring to. I made the comment earlier that the high range historically has Page 139 November 16,2006 been pretty accurate for Collier County. Even going back to the 2000 census figures, the BEBR high range was only in that case higher than the actual census estimate by about 5,000, whereas the median projection for 2000 was something like 17,000 lower than the census estimate. But it's a bit of a mixed back bag, because the high ranges work for us historically, but I certainly can't argue that, looking at the next five-year projections of 20,000 people per year is just unheard of. COMMISSIONER CARON: Right. And I think we need to address that. MR. SCHMITT: Also understand, when you're dealing with water, sewer, we're only dealing with a certain portion of the county that's in our water-sewer district. So look at the growth of the county, we're not -- you know, you're talking a considerable amount of the county now east of 951 that is either on septic or going to be on another system. COMMISSIONER CARON: And we adjust for that as well. MR. SCHMITT: Well, Mr. DeLony does in his projections, he adjusts for that. COMMISSIONER CARON: Yes, he does. MR. SCHMITT: He adjusts for that based on the water-sewer district or the service area. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You mean he doesn't use the population methodology? MR. SCHMITT: Yes. But it's based-- COMMISSIONER MURRAY: A smaller area. MR. SCHMITT: -- on his water-sewer district area. Now, he doesn't -- he's not building plants that service Ave Maria or the Estates or those kind of areas in the county. He's focused his -- the water-sewer district. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, is there-- COMMISSIONER MURRAY: But he did modify what is Page 140 November 16, 2006 presented by others, if I'm not mistaken, in order for him to get his 12-year projections. MR. SCHMITT: That's correct. Then he adjusted down. I'm speaking off the cuff, I can't remember how he did it. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Seven, eight years, and then he drops -- MR. SCHMITT: Yes, then he drops to medium, I believe. Of course what we're trying to do is prevent, certainly we don't want to see another consent order like we had here in, was it '99 or 2000, where -- we had a moratorium. We had nowhere near the capacity that we were permitting for. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I simply don't take any exception to anything in that regard. What my concern would be here is this translates into an enormous number of additional dollars as an investment that may be implausible. MR. SCHMITT: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Midney. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Yeah, are we trying to say that we're overestimating the population and therefore we've been over-building on our, for example, water and sewer? Does the evidence show that we have a lot of excess capacity in our water or in our sewer? MR. SCHMITT: No, it does not. In fact, in fact, it probably shows -- COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Because that would be kind of how you would really evaluate these things. That's what we're really trying to plan not to be short on. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Nobody's trying to be short, Paul. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Oh, I know. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The seasonal population increase that's shown in the red here I'm trying to say is already taken into consideration in the population based on the fact that the buildings the Page 141 November 16, 2006 population has to stay in if they come to visit are constructed and CO'd and acknowledged as being serviceable by the utilities in other issues that they utilize. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: That's not true in Immokalee, though, because people just sort of squeeze in. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Let's forget about Immokalee, Paul. I don't know how to judge something where people are squeezing in. I'm not sure if those squeezed-in people are even in David's estimates. But if we use a number to generate more facilities but that number already includes people staying in buildings that facilities have already been built for, we're double-dipping on the quantity of facilities that we generate in the future. That's where I'm coming from. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: I don't know. I would say that that's not true in Immokalee. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, this unfortunately is about the whole county. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Yeah, I know. MR. WEEKS: Mr. Chairman, I'll just make one more observation, and it takes off on what Mr. Midney was saying. We have some anecdotal evidence, and directly receive comments from school board staff, that there are circumstances where population growth based upon dwelling units, COs being issued, is faulty. And they use as the example Golden Gate City, which is relatively close to build-out. There's not a lot of dwelling units being CO'd there annually. And yet the school board data shows that the school-age population is increasing. And their explanation is simply more bodies are moving into an existing dwelling unit than have moved out. Now, I certainly wouldn't suggest that that's the key to why we're having this discussion on the discrepancy -- or disagreement over Page 142 November 16, 2006 population projections, but I do think that's a very real consideration that there's anomalies like that that we have to take into account. I don't think we're ever going to get to the point of trying to project exactly what the figures are going to be. If we're growing approximately at the medium growth rate, which we now appear to be, projections for the next five years show a growth of about 13,800 per year from BEBR medium range -- and again our last five years average annual was 13,200, very close -- but I would be leery of us saying let's just strictly stick with the medium projections, but what about those anomalies that we're not taking into account. We need some fudge factor. But should it be 33 percent or something far less, I think that's what we have to decide. COMMISSIONER CARON: You're not willing to go all the way to the 20,000 that DCA would like you to go to. MR. WEEKS: No, that was actually the position that staffwas taking, to stay with that 20,000. But we recognize that that is too high. DCA is telling us we should use the BEBR medium range and then whatever peak seasonal adjustment we think is appropriate. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: David, I think it would be more productive for this board, and especially since this isn't going to get resolved at today's meeting -- I know you're going to have more conversations with DCA. Could you possibly look at what some of the other municipalities that are tourist-driven like ours are using to generate their seasonal population and how those factor into their AUIRs? And what concerns me is I don't want us to is double dip on the expansion. That isn't necessary, if the facilities capabilities are already there because the COs have been issued on the buildings that the tourists must stay in when they're here, unless those homeless people that you -- and squeezed-in people that Paul find. I'm sure there can't be 100,000 of those. But I think that would be a helpful way to move forward. Page 143 November 16,2006 MR. COHEN: Commissioners, I'd also recommend one other thing as well, too. And I think that it would be incumbent on us to contact BEBR to validate their methodology with respect to how they calculate permanent population. That way we can afford you the rationale as to what they're coming up with and how they're maybe discounting it from our overall population, and come back and give you an answer with respect to that as well. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, I think that will help. Anybody else? Are we done with this one and move on to other parts of this document that we can? We can't finish housing; is that correct, David? MR. WEEKS: Correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: We can't finish population. Is there something -- Paul? COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: I just have a question about the population. They -- maybe this is getting to the AUIR. But there's a difference in how much money you have to spend based on whether you say the peak is four-months or six-months long. Do you want to explain that controversy or where the staff is coming down on that? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But if that's the issue for the AUIR on Monday, might it be better to explain when the other parties are here, too? COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Well, it just seemed as though it was part of population, and since we were already talking about that. MR. WEEKS: Just briefly, the board had directed us, staff, to look at the peak season to see if it was four months or if it was six months. I'll explain it this way: That staff goofed or was ignorant or however you want to phrase it. We should have at that point stepped to the podium and said it is six months. The 33 percent factor that we use, it has to do with the amount of population increase, not the Page 144 November 16,2006 number of months that we experienced that increase. And that was the misunderstanding. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Ah, good point. MR. WEEKS: Thirty-three percent being four months of the year. And so it was thought that that represented a four-month peak season. That's not the case. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Numbers, not time. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Yes, numbers, not time. MR. COHEN: And what you'll see as a recommendation as part of the AUIR is to go with the four-month as a result of that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Does that get you there, Paul? Okay. David, pick another place to go to that we can try to finish up. MR. WEEKS: I believe that that would leave us with the last item, and that is the drainage sub-element. This was the one at your October 11 th hearing -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Before you say last item. I don't believe we recommended anything but those items that we did today. The others -- we didn't actually come to votes on the others, did we? COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Yeah, we did. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Oh, we did? MR. WEEKS: You voted on water and sewer sub-element -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Oh, no, I mean today. Other than today, we haven't voted on any elements. MR. COHEN: No, sir, you have not taken formal action on any of the elements -- MR. WEEKS: I didn't mean to suggest final action, but just for your discussion today. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I'm sorry to keep belaboring the point. My thought today was we're going to discuss every element and vote on all of them except those now that we've been told are going to change. You're going to change population, you're going to change housing. Page 145 November 16, 2006 If you're not going to change the others, we can vote on them. Is that right or wrong? MR. WEEKS: I would suggest that we simply defer the entire package, because I cannot tell you specifically which elements are still at issue, or which issue areas that may -- that will only affect certain elements. For example, the population discussion affects multiple elements. I would not want to mistake them and have you take final action. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, well then let's go into drainage, and that will probably wrap it up for today is what you're saying? MR. WEEKS: Yes, sir. And then we'll need to discuss a continuation date. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. MR. WEEKS: Drainage begins on Page 9, carries over all the way to the top of Page 12. You may recall that this was language from your October 11 hearing. Simply had placeholder language because we have not addressed this objection from DCA. We are not proposing any policy changes, any text changes, simply providing a response to DCA explaining why, well, we think that their objection is not valid. And Corby Schmidt is the key staff member in our department. And Robert Wiley is also here. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, we'll start with Page 9. Is there any questions from the planning commission on Page 9? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: This is the yellow highlighted version that we recently received. On Page 10? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Yeah. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Go ahead, Mr. Murray. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I just have to understand what composite performance value concept really means. It's a single Page 146 November 16,2006 inclusive value. MR. WEEKS: Better get Mr. Wiley up here for that. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I like the phrase. MR. WILEY: For the record, Robert Wiley with engineering services department. The composite performance value was a number that we came up with back in the water management master plan developed by Post Buckley Schuh & Jernigan in 1988, where it goes through a three-dimensional analysis for evaluating how well you handle flooding, how well you handle water quality treatment and how well you handle groundwater aquifer recharge. Now, we generally think of level of service defined only as how well you handle the flooding. But in our level of service definition under the requirements we had in 9.J.5 in Chapter 163, we had to address all three concerns. And so basically you could score real high in how you handle flooding, score real low in how well you handle groundwater recharge, and it would give you a lower composite value. But it was just a way to take those three criteria and merge them together into a matrix, where then we set ranges in that matrix to determine level of service A, B, C or D. We can go through this particularly -- COMMISSIONER MURRAY: No, no, thank you. Actually I realized as you began to talk that I have been interested in in and aware of all of those three components, but this is the first time I've seen them brought together. Thank you. COMMISSIONER CARON: I wouldn't go too far, Mr. Wiley, if I were you. Do we have any other questions? (N 0 response.) COMMISSIONER CARON: Nobody has any questions? Well, I have questions. Page 147 November 16, 2006 I am concerned here. Then let's move on to Page 11, essentially, where the entire page talks about how we have no deficiencies, essentially, is what this is saying. However, in what you gave us here, I don't see anything that's coming above a C or aD -- MR. WILEY: Okay. COMMISSIONER CARON: -- which is, according to your own LOS assessments here as substandard and unacceptable. How does that get us to we have no deficiencies and we have no problems and everything's hunky-dory and you -- DCA, you should just buy off on whatever we say? I mean, this is -- it just is -- seems to be bureaucratic double talk is what I'm seeing here, and I need you to explain it to me in depth. MR. WILEY: I will try to do so. COMMISSIONER CARON: Thank you, Mr. Wiley. MR. WILEY: When we came into development of the drainage sub-element back in 1987, we were required at that time to identify the existing level of service. Now, Collier County was one of the very first communities to have to submit a Growth Management Plan. And quite frankly, we didn't even know how to define level of service, because according to DCA's definition, it was population driven. But level of service for stormwater is not population driven. So we met with them quite a few times. We came up with the concept of how well we handled flooding, aqua-recharge, and as we started looking -- and water quality, the third criteria in your composite value. As we started looking at it, we hired the firm of Post, Buckley, Schuh & Jernigan to do this master plan. Now, just to take you all the way back to 1987 and 1988, at that time our adopted level of service statement simply said we would adopt whatever were the findings of the water master plan that was in the stage of development. And that got us through the first year for our initial submittal we had to have in August of '88. Page 148 November 16, 2006 After we made that submittal, we began to get the results back for the water management master plan. And what we came up with was the acknowledgement that many of the canals were not able to handle flooding. Most of them could handle the water quality, most had good recharge, because they are sitting right on top of the confinement units, or in some cases actually punched through (phonetic), so we were getting some recharge. But we were finding that the capacity of the stormwater facilities in some cases were, well, okay, somewhat livable, other cases horrific, because they had never been designed to handle a storm event. Our primary canal system in Golden Gate Estates is one of the very few systems that was ever designed for a storm capacity. And that was a 10-year, 24-hour storm event. Immokalee Road canal at that time was simply the borrow ditch that they had used to excavate fill material to create Immokalee Road. Same thing with State Road 29, Airport Road. All the major canals were simply a borrow ditch. So we were stuck with a situation to identify an existing level of service. Now, if we came in with the concept that we wanted a level of service that said we will keep water in the bank of the canal at a 25-year, three-day storm event, we basically would put a moratorium on the entire county . We did not have a single facility that could do that. So Post Buckley, we sat down with them and we talked it over, and we came up with these four definitions for A, B, C and D. And thinking of it from a stormwater volume standpoint, the capacity to handle the flooding became the concept that for flooding evaluation, A meant that it stayed within the banks. B, it's just coming out of the banks. C, it covers the roads and in the yards. D, it's in the houses. Then they did some analysis based upon a number of old engineering studies that we had, some of which even used regression equations to come up with regional discharge rates. We took that analysis and put it against the system that we knew Page 149 November 16, 2006 we had out there, which was a very limited amount of cross-sections. We had grossly undersized culverts at some of these private crossings of the canals and things. We used a concept that basically says if there was a restriction within a system for an entire drainage basin, then that became the weakest link in the system and that limited the ability of that basin, because we had to identify them by drainage basin. So as you look at our level of service, we did not think that level of service D was an acceptable condition for the general public to consider. But that happened to be what the existing level of service was. So we adopted LOS A, B, C and D. Now, by our own definition, we don't like them. But we adopted what we don't like, because that was the existing. Now, it took us a number of years to get DCA to even begin to understand how an unacceptable level of service could be acceptable. And really, it was just probably if you go back and look at it, you know, in hindsight you never throw the interception on Monday morning that the quarterback throws on Sunday, we probably would have used different wording here. But at the time, engineering analysis said the A produced -- again, when you look at level of service addressing only for the ability to handle the volume of water, we had the A, B, C, D. The A, excellent, handled everything within the bank. But the D gets the water into houses, okay. We adopted that. Now, having adopted a level of service D, what we're saying is in that particular basin you really don't have any deficiencies. You can't get any worse than flooding a house out somewhere in there. And it created a situation that we could live with, but -- now let me follow up with this, though. We also put within the drainage sub-element a clear statement of what we really wanted to get to. Now, the object of that was to show what future planning efforts Page 150 November 16, 2006 would do to make improvements to the system so that once we got the improvements designed and constructed, then we could go back and change the level of service and bring it up to a level of service that we really wanted to be there. But faced with a situation of having to adopt an existing system, we came up with these definitions. I don't really like some of the wording that is here, but that's what came out of the study, so that's what we adopted. So you could say we adopted a deficient system. But because that is what we adopted, it cannot be more deficient than deficient. And that's not intended to be a play on words. The reality was we adopted a system we know does not provide flooding that we would like to see eliminated. But it was there. And I hope I haven't confused you. I'm not trying to do a word game with you, I'm trying to help you understand the background of how this wording was derived so that it really identifies -- now, let's go use an example. Let's go to Golden Gate Estates. It has throughout most of the basins LOS D, based upon the insufficient capacity somewhere within one of those drainage basins. And keep in mind, there are lots of different drainage basins, but we broke the county out into numerous ones. If you look in the drainage development, you'll find you have a lot -- within the Golden Gate system you have I guess eight or nine, I think, major drainage basins subdivided out in it. Most of those are at LOS D because somewhere within a system, one of those canals, there's going to be a limiting factor that based upon that regression equation says it cannot handle that level of rainfall, so water's going to come out of the banks and get in somebody's house somewhere. Now, that doesn't mean that we're happy about that, but that was the reality and that's what it still is today. Although the recent events of rainfall we had went across the roads, got in yards, did not get in Page 151 November 16, 2006 the houses. So you could say we're actually at LOS C, not D. COMMISSIONER CARON: Robert, hold on. But that's what DCA is asking you to identify, where in the Golden Gate system is the flaw and what are you going to do about it. MR. WILEY: We know that's what they are asking, but again, if you look at the adopted level of service, which says LOS D, which means out of bank, over yards, in a house, that's what we adopted. We don't have to tell them where we are worse than that, because reality is you don't get worse than that. A deficiency says you are not meeting your adopted level of service standard. Now, if we had a basin where we had LOS C, which says water's out of bank, over streets, over yards but not in the houses, and then we knew we had a flooding situation and it got in a house in that basin, then we would have a deficiency and we would have to identify that one. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So you've established a level of service for a deficiency. MR. WILEY: Same as transportation did for the roadway network, too. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Instead of yours being F, yours is D. MR. WILEY: Right, we stopped at D. We made our scale with four steps. I think it got like six or seven in theirs. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So you're saying to DCA we have all these failed systems. MR. WILEY: But they adopted them. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right, you adopted them as fail-- MR. WILEY: So they're not officially a deficiency. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. So what are we doing to correct them? MR. WILEY: What we're doing to correct them is through the years we've done various studies. Right now for instance in the East Naples area you have the Lely Area Stormwater Improvement Project, Page 152 November 16, 2006 and that's about a $61 million project. It's got permits. It's now ready to go to construction. It's supposed to start this dry season, but I don't control that. We'll see if they get the bids -- they're actually getting ready to go to bid right now. When that project goes in for construction, you're going to see in the East Naples area the ability to go back in those particular basins and raise their LOS up from a D to a B. So the planning has been done. Gordon River, we did a lot of master planning there. Now there's a matter of implementation of the different recommendations of the master planning to begin to make physical improvements so that we are able to reduce it. And that's what has been done in the meantime. The Big Cypress Basin and the Cocohatchee have made a lot of improvements. However, in that case they still have not covered the entire range of the basin that was involved in that determination for the link. They have made improvements to segments of it, but somewhere in that basin there's still -- so even if everything is really good, looking like a B, but we know we've got one culvert, well, that's the one that still keeps it down at the current adopted level. COMMISSIONER CARON: Okay. So let's go over the basins here -- MR. WILEY: And which you have an advantage over me, because I don't have them. All I have is two pieces of paper. So if you'll call them out, I'll try to explain them to you. COMMISSIONER CARON: All right. What I want to know from you, Robert, is when these various systems are going to be able to have their LOS raised. For example, if you start with the main Golden Gate system, there are, whatever -- one, two, three -- nine basins and canals under the main Golden Gate system. MR. WILEY: Okay. COMMISSIONER CARON: You've got a plan for that system, correct, for that main Golden Gate -- Page 153 November 16, 2006 MR. WILEY: Do I have one? No. COMMISSIONER CARON: Does the county have one? MR. WILEY: No. COMMISSIONER CARON: Okay, so this one -- MR. WILEY: The Big Cypress Basin is where a lot of that comes into play. COMMISSIONER CARON: Okay. MR. WILEY: So you're thinking correct, the Big Cypress Basin is working on a plan. But are they able to implement a plan to raise level of service? Probably not, because that is a very constrained system out there with existing easements and the fact that the discharge of additional volumes of water into Naples Bay is not an acceptable condition from an environmental standpoint. So that's where part of the study is coming into play for -- sounds like a ridiculous way to say it -- but the Belle Meade master plan, which is not a part of Golden Gate Estates but lies south of it. But that's where that master plan looks at is there an ability to take water from Golden Gate and run it through there back into its historical drainage basin. If that comes to fruition, then they can make improvements that will handle to raise level of service then. Because you're able to displace and put water back out of the canal system where it used to go. COMMISSIONER CARON: What about district number six system, which is Rock Creek and Lely and Haldeman Creek? MR. WILEY: Okay. District number six, as I just mentioned, you have the Lely main and you have the Lely branch and Lely Manor COMMISSIONER CARON: That's all part of LA SIP -- MR. WILEY: That's the LASIP, those three right there. COMMISSIONER CARON: Good, so -- MR. WILEY: Those three. Now, there's other-- Page 154 November 16,2006 COMMISSIONER CARON: And that's scheduled for completion when? MR. WILEY: If they are able to get a good start on it this year, I think it's about a five or a six-year window to complete those. And then that system is going to have tremendous improvements. But that's the one that took us 16 years to get permitted for, too, you know. COMMISSIONER CARON: My point. But again, it's only for those three basins -- MR. WILEY: That's correct. COMMISSIONER CARON: -- not for the entire system, not the rest of the system. MR. WILEY: That's correct. Rock Creek basin, your C-4 canal basin is going to stay where it is, at C. And your Haldeman Creek and Winter Park outlets, that's correct, those are not part of the LASIP. COMMISSIONER CARON: All right. What about Cocohatchee River system? MR. WILEY: The Cocohatchee River that you see there as aD is, generally speaking, already been improved by the basin. It's those side shots off of it that happens to fall in the basin that are still sitting there with some bad conditions in a few spots of them. And those are the ones that the stormwater management department in its long-range plan over the next 20 years are looking at starting to pick those up and make improvements to them. But I do not have a detailed schedule for them. On your Pine Ridge canal basin, that is at level of service C. Just so you know where that is, that's the one that goes right through the middle of Pelican Marsh and discharges north. So there's not a lot you can do there either for increased discharge capacity that goes into the Cocohatchee, which is OS W. COMMISSIONER CARON: I mean, I'm just -- MR. WILEY: Some of these are somewhat physically Page 155 November 16, 2006 constrained in the ability to have them increase of discharge. So now the concept comes in to provide a way so that if water is able to be utilized in a similar fashion or diverted somewhere else. But that is a very complicated process. Which is where -- the other side of the coin that you ought to have been reviewing in the past on these watershed management plans, that's where that begins to come in, looking more at the whole watershed, not just these individual piecemeal basins. COMMISSIONER CARON: Well, which is why the watershed management plans are so incredibly important and why they should have been done when they should have been done. But regardless, here we go. MR. WILEY: They're very important, right. We don't want to go around this bush too many times on that one. COMMISSIONER CARON: Yeah, we have. But basically here, none of these levels of service are going to get significantly better, with the possible exception of the LASIP area and the Gordon River extension. MR. WILEY: What you're going to see probably over the next-- COMMISSIONER CARON: In my lifetime, let's talk about that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: One at a time, guys. MR. WILEY: It really depends upon how old you are, I guess. And we're not going to go that route. But what you're looking at here is the ability to start seeing some of these systems come up from a D to a C over the course of the next 10 to 12 years, with the funding mechanism that's been provided by the Board of County Commissioners. It does not mean we have a legally defined deficiency, but that's the effort that's put forth. One way to look at it is if you go down to the Faca-Union system. Now, let's talk about this one, sort of a different perspective here. When you look at what's called the prairie canal basin, that's level of service C. Page 156 November 16, 2006 Now, just so you get a good grasp of how things are changing, that's entirely within the Picayune Strand restoration. What they're doing there is just the reverse of what you typically think. They're plugging the canal to prevent overdrainage of uninhabited wetland areas. As soon as the plugs go into that one and it quits overdraining, that will go to level of service A. Because the irony is our level of service addresses flooding, but in the unpopulated areas where it was wetland, overdrainage took it down because the scale inverted, by definition of our level of service in that master plan report. So as they finish plugging off this canal, that will go from C to an A. And that's ongoing right now too by the basin. So you really -- you have to know the background of some of these things to be able to appreciate what the letter designations mean. And if I ever get hit in the head and forget it all, we're sunk. COMMISSIONER CARON: Be careful to duck. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Schiffer? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: My concern is, and maybe it's the same thing you're saying, is that we actually meet the intent of the objection. And Randy, have you read that and looked at the stuff? Because it looks like what Robert's providing -- especially to answer objection number two is this narrative which we just went over. So I don't want to touch that, trigger anything there. Do you think that actually answers -- because essentially what we're doing is we're referring to a copy of the October, 1999 study, which I think Donna's conclusions or the conclusions you would come to reading all this is that you're really saying we're not acceptable, we are all deficient, and you're not really providing a narrative of how to get out of that. So do you think that will satisfy -- I'm only concerned about satisfying the ORC report and responding and getting a favorable Page 157 November 16, 2006 acceptance of the response. I mean, I read it and I don't think it answers the question, that's my problem. It answers a lot of questions that it doesn't ask, but it didn't answer the ones that it did. MR. WEEKS: Staff believes it adequately addresses the objection. We have not yet provided this response to DCA. I'm looking at a document from DCA that came to us just yesterday. And they've -- we haven't provided the data to them yet. We have not given them this response. We don't yet know if it's sufficient. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: So we're essentially as we were on the July 28th ORC report. MR. WEEKS: Correct. Their response basically is we haven't heard from you yet so we have no further comment. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: But the attached facilities -- public facilities element, sub-drainage sub-element, and we were handed this one with a note of objection, too. This is the one we're going to send them, the 1997 study; is that right? MR. WEEKS: That's part of the support data, yes. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Good luck. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Are there any other questions on -- well, Page 11 or 12, the end of this drainage issue? David? MR. WEEKS: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Do you have more to coordinate with this, or is this something we can finalize today? I know you're going to have more, you just acknowledged that, so we'll just wait till you get to the rest of it. MR. WEEKS: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, I think that wraps it up for today. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I feel wrapped up. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Are we going to talk about a continuation date? Page 158 November 16, 2006 Why don't you suggest, David. MR. WEEKS: Yes, sir. Again, our staffs objective, and hopefully yours as well, is to try to stick within a five-week window so we can avoid readvertisement. Staff will be going before the County Commissioners on December the 12th to present the population issue and ask for their direction to go with the BEBR methodology. So we would prefer to wait until after that date to come before you. Your only regularly scheduled meeting after that date, which is the last meeting within the five-week window, is December 21. We did check on December the 14th, which is your usual off Thursday, and this room is available from 8:30 to 1 :00. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: On December -- what was that off, the 13th? MR. WEEKS: December 14th is available, 8:30 to 1 :00. There's a 1 :00 meeting. So perhaps I should say 8:30 to 12:30. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I have another. You're going to go before the Board of County Commissioners on December 12th on the population issue. Now, based on the volume of work that board has to do, the review of that issue might be helpful to them if we got it before they did. I mean, you're going to go to them, you're going to get their input on the population issue without any of our input. MR. WEEKS: Let me clarify. We're not taking EAR-based amendments to the board on December 12th. We're going as a separate agenda item simply to say we're in the midst of these EAR-based amendments, we're in the midst of AUIR. This population issue is extremely important to both processes. That's why we're going to them on the 12th and asking for direction. We're going to ask them if they'll agree to direct us to use that BEBR-recommended methodology as opposed to simply waiting until the January date that they would get these EAR-based amendments to act on and make that Page 159 November 16,2006 decision. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, so what happens then? They set the policy for the population, it comes to us in the form of revisions to this. What if we have questions with it that reveals something that is now wrong? I mean, since we had such a big concern about it, why wouldn't you want to bring that to us ahead of time? MR. COHEN: I think the important part in the recommendation from DCA is that it tells us to use the medium BEBR numbers with a seasonal adjustment, but it doesn't specify what the seasonal adjustment is. And that's the information that David and I will try to get ahold of. We're not going to go to the board and say this is the seasonal adjustment that we want to use, we'll come back to you and say based on our conversations with DCA, with the Bureau of Economic and Business Research in Gainesville and also looking at surrounding counties and communities with their seasonal adjustments, this is the number that we feel is an adequate seasonal adjustment at that point in time. So they're giving us the leeway, saying use BEBR plus a seasonal adjustment. But they haven't said what it is. And I don't think we're going to go at that point to the board and say this is the seasonal adjustment that we're recommending. So we're not going to come to them with the wrong number but give you that opportunity to revisit the issue and, based on the data that we do collect, and then make a recommendation back to the board on what that seasonal adjustment should be in conjunction with that BEBR medium number. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: December 7th we have a meeting. Could you please give us the presentation on December 7th that you're going to give to the Board of County Commissioners on December 12th? MR. WEEKS: Sure. Page 160 November 16, 2006 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you, that will short-circuit that . Issue. Okay, is there any other issues you guys want to get into right now, or are we basically done with the EAR at this point? MR. WEEKS: That's it for the day. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Oh, the continuation of this meeting. December 7th will be basically a report on population that you're giving to the BCC on the 12th. So the 13th is a -- did you say the 14th or the 13th? MR. WEEKS: 14th. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: 14th works for me. How's the rest of you? It's in between our two meetings in December. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I won't be here. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And Mark, on the 7th I have a building commission meeting the day before that may run into the 7th, so I may not be here then, but I can be -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, we'll have a quorum anyway. So even if you -- Donna? COMMISSIONER CARON: And don't we have a tentative on the 15th already scheduled? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah, we do, for something. What's that for? COMMISSIONER CARON: I think that's the AUIR continuation. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Let's just do that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Why don't we just use the -- I doubt if we'll need that, based on what I've seen in the AUIR. So -- we've already got three days in November blocked for the AUIR. And the 15th is already blocked here for us for the AUIR. Why don't we tentatively put that down for the EAR as well. Why don't we just put it down for the EAR as well, period. I can't -- MR. COHEN: Commissioner, I can't recall if it's this room that Page 161 November 16, 2006 we've got booked for that date or if it's 609, 610 over at CDS. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I have it down here. I mean, if it's CDS, they usually put down CDS. I don't have anything like that on my schedule. Margie, the EAR portion of this meeting we are going to continue until the 15th of December at 8:30 in the morning in this room. Do we need a motion to that effect? MS. STUDENT-STIRLING: Yes, sir, we need a motion. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Is there a motion from someone on the commission to continue to the 15th of December at 8:30 in this room for this EAR hearing? COMMISSIONER CARON: I'll make that motion. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: I'll second. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion made by Commissioner Caron, seconded by Commissioner Vigliotti. Any discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: All in favor, signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: Aye. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Aye. COMMISSIONER CARON: Aye. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Aye. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Aye. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Aye. COMMISSIONER TUFF: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye. Anybody opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion carries. Item #9 Page 162 November 16, 2006 OLD BUSINESS That takes care of your next meeting, gentlemen. Is there any old business? (No response.) Item #10 NEW BUSINESS CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Any new business? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And the public is just overwhelmed with comments out there today. So with that, the meeting will be adjourned. Thank you all. See you Monday. ***** There being no further business for the good of the County, the meeting was adjourned by order of the Chair at 2:45 p.m. COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION MARK P. STRAIN, Chairman Page 163 November 16, 2006 TRANSCRIPT PREPARED ON BEHALF OF GREGORY COURT REPORTING SERVICE, INC. BY CHERIE' . NOTTINGHAM. Page 164 .^' ^_,.,.,__..,~"""",,,,,,,_,,.,__,."_,__,.,.;,,.,.~,,_.o..,,._~,,.__.._....._.._.."'"..,,"_"..,_...__~,...~__~'"._'.__..",_~,~~."..,."_~;"""...__."_.____._,~~_~",,,,_____.__'___~_"_