Loading...
CCPC Minutes 11/1/2007 R November 1, 2007 TRANSCRIPT OF THE MEETING OF THE COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION Naples, Florida November 1, 2007 LET IT BE REMEMBERED, that the Collier County Planning Commission, in and for the County of Collier, having conducted business herein, met on this date at 8:30 a.m. in REGULAR SESSION in Building "F" of the Government Complex, East Naples, Florida, with the following members present: CHAIRMAN: Mark Strain Lindy Adelstein Donna Reed-Caron Tor Kolflat Paul Midney Bob Murray Brad Schiffer Robert Vigliotti (Absent) ALSO PRESENT: Jeffrey Klatzkow, Chief Asst. County Attorney Marjorie Student-Stirling, Assistant County Attorney Joseph Schmitt, CDES Administrator Ray Bellows, Zoning & Land Development Review Page 1 AGENDA COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION WILL MEET AT 8:30 A.M., THURSDAY, NOVEMBER I, 2007, IN THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS MEETING ROOM, ADMINISTRATION BUILDING, COUNTY GOVERNMENT CENTER, 3301 TAMIAMI TRAIL EAST, NAPLES, FLORIDA: NOTE: INDIVIDUAL SPEAKERS WILL BE LIMITED TO 5 MINUTES ON ANY ITEM. INDIVIDUALS SELECTED TO SPEAK ON BEHALF OF AN ORGANIZATION OR GROUP ARE ENCOURAGED AND MAY BE ALLOTTED 10 MINUTES TO SPEAK ON AN ITEM IF SO RECOGNIZED BY THE CHAIRMAN. PERSONS WISHING TO HAVE WRITTEN OR GRAPHIC MATERIALS INCLUDED IN THE CCPC AGENDA PACKETS MUST SUBMIT SAID MATERIAL A MINIMUM OF 10 DAYS PRIOR TO THE RESPECTIVE PUBLIC HEARING. IN ANY CASE, WRITTEN MATERIALS INTENDED TO BE CONSIDERED BY THE CCPC SHALL BE SUBMITTED TO THE APPROPRIATE COUNTY STAFF A MINIMUM OF SEVEN DAYS PRIOR TO THE PUBLIC HEARING. ALL MATERIAL USED IN PRESENTATIONS BEFORE THE CCPC WILL BECOME A PERMANENT PART OF THE RECORD AND WILL BE A V AILABLE FOR PRESENTATION TO THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS IF APPLICABLE. ANY PERSON WHO DECIDES TO APPEAL A DECISION OF THE CCPC WILL NEED A RECORD OF THE PROCEEDINGS PERTAINING THERETO, AND THEREFORE MAY NEED TO ENSURE THAT A VERBATIM RECORD OF THE PROCEEDINGS IS MADE, WHICH RECORD INCLUDES THE TESTIMONY AND EVIDENCE UPON WHICH THE APPEAL IS TO BE BASED. 1. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE 2. ROLL CALL BY SECRETARY 3. ADDENDA TO THE AGENDA 4. PLANNING COMMISSION ABSENCES 5. APPROVAL OF MINUTES - SEPTEMBER 20, 2007, REGULAR MEETING 6. BCC REPORT- RECAPS - SEPTEMBER 25, 2007, REGULAR MEETING; OCTOBER 9, 2007, REGULAR MEETING 7. CHAIRMAN'S REPORT 8. ADVERTISED PUBLIC HEARINGS A. Petition: PUDA-2006-AR-IOI76, Craig T. Bouchard, manager of Tennis Realty LLC, represented by Michael Fernandez of Planning Development Inc., is requesting an amendment to the Naples Bath and Tennis Club PUD to revise the process for approval of an accessory use pertaining to transient lodging facility units within the 20" acre Tract B of the 153.7 acre project. The subject property is located on the west side of Airport-Pulling Road, between Pine Ridge Road and Golden Gate Parkway in Section 14, Township 49S, Range 25E, Collier County, Florida. (Coordinator: Kay Deselem) B. Petition: PE-2007-AR-12164, Keith Basik, Larry Basik, Jeff Basik of Naples Big Cypress Market Place, represented by Patrick White, Esquire, of Porter, Wright, Morris and Arthur, LLP, is requesting a Parking Exemption to allow 355 additional overflow parking spaces for Naples Big Cypress Flea Market in an Agricultural Zone District on a,,9 acre tract of land. The subject property is located at 220 Basik Drive, at the Northwest corner of US 41 and Trinity Place, Section 17, Township 51 South, Range 27 East, Collier County, Florida. (Coordinator: Willie Brown) 1 C. Petition: RZ-2006-AR-10422, Myers Enterprises of Naples, LLC, represented by Tim Hancock of Davidson Engineering., requests a rezone from the Industrial (I) Zoning District to the Commercial (C-4) Zoning District for a \.8H acre project to be known as Naples Mazda. The property is located at the Southwest Corner of Airport Road and J & C Boulevard in Section II, Township 49 South, Range 25 East, Collier County, Florida. (Coordinator: Willie Brown) CONTINUED TO 11115/07 D. 2008 Floodolain Manal!ement Plan: To consider and make a recommendation on the adoption of the Collier County 2008 Floodplain Management Plan. E. Petition: CPSP-2007-7. Petition creating a new Public School Facilities Element with support document, and amending the Capital Improvement Element and Intergovernmental Coordination Element of the Growth Management Plan to establish a public school concurrency program. This is a companion item to the School Concurrency Inter-local Agreement between the Collier County District School Board and Collier County Board of County Commissioners and the cities of Marco Island, Everglades and Naples. (Coordinator: Michele Mosca, AICP, Principal Planner) CONT FROM 10/18/07 AND RE-ADVERTISED FOR 11101/07. 9. OLD BUSINESS 10. NEW BUSINESS 11. PUBLIC COMMENT ITEM 12. DISCUSSION OF ADDENDA 13. ADJOURN 11/01/07 cepe AgendalRB/sp/mm 2 November 1, 2007 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, Ray, it's that magical time. Good morning, everyone. Welcome to the November 1st meeting of the Collier County Planning Commission. If you'll please rise to pledge allegiance to the flag. (Pledge of Allegiance was recited in unison.) Item #2 ROLL CALL BY CLERK CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. Will the secretary please do roll call. COMMISSIONER CARON: Mr. Kolflat? COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: Here. COMMISSIONER CARON: Mr. Schiffer? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Here. COMMISSIONER CARON: Mr. Midney? COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Here. COMMISSIONER CARON: 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: And Mr. Vigliotti is absent, and Mr. Tuff is no longer on the CCPC. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. He's still on this earth, he's just no longer on the planning commission. COMMISSIONER CARON: Right. That's why I qualified it. Item #3 Page 2 November 1,2007 ADDENDA TO THE AGENDA CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Addenda to the agenda. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Mark, I -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes, sir. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Just a question I'd like to ask Ray, new business about the e-mail, county e-mail. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: We'll add that to new business, then. That will be a fun one. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Simple. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I'm sure Ray will have a very politically correct statement to make to you. I may not have. Addenda to the agenda. If anybody is here for the Naples Bath and Tennis Club, that one will not be heard today. There was an advertising error. It has to be readvertised, and it will come back to us in December. So if you're here for that one today, we will not be hearing it. Margie, do we need any comment by you on that? MS. STUDENT-STIRLING: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. For the record, Marjorie Student-Stirling, Assistant County Attorney. I think we just need a motion. It's not shown as such on the agenda index, so just we need a motion to continue. Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Is there a motion to continue Petition PUDA-2006 -- COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: So moved. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- AR-10176? COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: So moved. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion made by Commissioner Adelstein. Is there a second? COMMISSIONER CARON: Second. Page 3 November 1, 2007 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Second by Commissioner Caron. Discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: All in favor, signify by saymg aye. COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: Aye. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Aye. COMMISSIONER CARON: Aye. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Aye. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Aye. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye. Anybody opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion carries 7-0. Okay, we have some other issues. Well, first of all, our next meeting is a special meeting scheduled for the 14th of November. I have heard that there's a possibility that may not occur. Can anybody shed any light on that from staff or from for the county attorney's office? MR. SCHMITT: For the record, Joe Schmitt, Community Development and Environmental Services Division Administrator. Mr. Chairman, I've heard nothing official, unofficial. I've been waiting for a letter from the county manager, but I think it's safe to assume that it will be -- the best way to approach this is to continue the item indefinitely to a future date to be announced. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, we can't continue it here today, it's just going to be continued is what you're telling me -- MR. SCHMITT: Yes. It's a special meeting. There was no advertising requirement per se by code, but we did advertise. And I've got no direction from the board that the item will be continued. But it is believed that the board will ask the planning commission either to continue the item, or possibly the board may deal with the situation Page 4 November 1, 2007 prior to the planning commission hearing it. That is all I know right now. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. MR. SCHMITT: If the meeting is canceled, we will have someone here basically to announce that the meeting is canceled. Again, there's no special requirement as far as advertising. It was a special meeting at the request of the Board of County Commissioners is what you're aware of. And we can -- how to deal with that, I'm going to turn to the county attorneys for opinion. Do we need to meet and then cancel or we just cancel the meeting between now, and then if we get word that the item -- the board's going to deal with that? MR. KLA TZKOW: I'll leave this to the discretion of the chairman at this point in time. I think it's within your power to simply continue it right here and right now so that the public is aware that there's no point showing up November 14th. You can continue it without setting a date. And we'll have further direction, as Mr. Schmitt said, on the 13th of November, perhaps. Or you can simply choose to meet as scheduled November 14th, and then if the board cancels November 13th, we can put a staff member in front of the door to advise people that it has been canceled. CHAIRMAN STRAIN : Well, first of all, if we were going -- if we don't continue it and it stays on the agenda and we don't know until the 13th, we wouldn't have enough time to adequately review for the 14th. So I think the decision needs to be made today and whatever that decision is has to stick in regards to our involvement, from our perspective. Because if we're going to prepare for that one, and that's a pretty lengthy preparation, we can't wait until the decision on the 13th to prepare. So ifthere is a question at this point, it looks like it's going to have to be continued, just to be fair for the analysis that we'd have to do. Page 5 November 1, 2007 By the way, for anybody who's not understanding what issue it is, it's the Bert Harris claim that was remanded back involving the Cocohatchee project in North Naples. I don't know what the reasons are or what's changed with the board, although I don't know any circumstances that would have changed other than that the applicant is trying to maybe resolve things. I don't know what's going on. MR. KLA TZKOW: I have no independent knowledge of any issue. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. I think it's in the best interest of this board, so that in any case we provide a -- we have enough time to thoroughly understand it. And if the BCC is not making a decision until the 13th, by all means we need to entertain a motion to continue until another time that is selected in the future. Mr. Kolflat? COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: I make a motion that we continue this issue. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Is there a second? COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: I'll second it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Seconded by Commissioner Adelstein. Is there any discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, the motion's been made to continue indefinitely -- COMMISSIONER CARON: I just have a question. Are we certain that the BCC will not take it up until the 13th? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I don't think they have another meeting till then, do they? MR. SCHMITT: They have an AUIR meeting on the 5th, which is the special meeting of the Board of County Commissioners for the AUIR, 5th and 6th. I would assume that that meeting will only take one day, but next Monday. So the board, because they meet, could Page 6 November 1, 2007 provide guidance on the 5th at a special meeting. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, Joe, we don't have another meeting between now and the 14th, so the only meeting we can take action at is now. MR. SCHMITT: Correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Jeff, if we continue this now but the Board agrees that we should continue -- they still want us to hear it and they make that decision on the 5th or 6th, can we still have the meeting on the 14th, or do we just have to go to the next -- the week after or something like that? COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: It would have to be afterwards. MR. KLA TZKOW: There's no requirement that this be advertised, but I always think it's a good thing to get the public involvement. So that I think -- I do think there should be some time lag. I don't know what the open calendar is like, when you can meet again for this. MR. SCHMITT: The planning commission has a meeting on the 15th, but there certainly is no room on that agenda for that item. And I would like to advise the planning commissioners that we do have revised site plans and additional information to hand out that we were preparing to send -- actually, we were going to send it yesterday and then I got word that possibly just hold off until 1-- so there is additional information that was going to be sent to you. I think it's in the best interest of the planning commission right now, based on at least what I'm aware, and I probably turn to Margie because she may have more information -- because there was a meeting between the respective attorneys. But we would probably have to find some date in December, if we were -- and I will have to do that, based on board guidance and tell the board that based on the direction right now, the uncertainty, that the meeting for the 14th is at least continued. And if the board directs, we'll try and reschedule a Page 7 November 1, 2007 meeting in December. MS. STUDENT-STIRLING: My recommendation would be to continue indefinitely. There's some other issues on it, I really want to go through the record on it here, involving a site plan that could take some additional time. So my recommendation would be to continue it indefinitely. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Brad, did you have a comment? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Just the concern is that in the Bert Harris there is a lot of timing triggers. And the last time we were here we got the attorney for the applicant to state that obviously he would hold this in abeyance, but does this continuance -- would it in any way cause us to lose something on the timing threshold? MS. STUDENT-STIRLING: I don't think so, because we're trying to work these issues out, and everybody understands that, so -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, there's a motion then to continue this item indefinitely at the discretion of the BCC and the time tables, and there was a second. Any further discussion? Anybody. (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: All those in favor, signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: Aye. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Aye. COMMISSIONER CARON: Aye. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Aye. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Aye. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye. Anybody opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion carries 7-0. Page 8 November 1, 2007 Item #4 PLANNING COMMISSION ABSENCES Okay. Mr. Schmitt touched on something on the 15th. First of all, on the 15th of the month, it's our regular meeting. I'm assuming everybody's going to be able to make it-- COMMISSIONER MURRAY: No, I may be -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Murray won't? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: -- I have jury duty notice, so -- during that week. Don't know if they'll call me. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. The -- we have two -- that's a pretty lengthy agenda. Actually, I got it the other day as a draft format. I asked the person sending it to me not to publish it because I don't agree with the agenda. We have one, two, three, four, five, six regularly scheduled hearings involving PUDs and variances. And then we have all -- one, two, three, four, five, six, seven, eight, nine of the adoption hearing issues from the GMP. If you recall, we went through transmittal. Now, I had asked staff to look for a separate date to hear the GMP things. I never got a response to it. Instead I got an agenda showing it added to the 15th, which I previously had asked them not to do. The adoption items are critical. They're comprehensive plan -- they're Growth Management Plan amendments, and it's important for this board to have adequate time to review them, and it's also equally important to have time to air them in the public. It doesn't help to have staff sitting here all day long waiting for seven or eight agenda items to go through and at the end of the day start the GMP stuff. Ray, before the meeting adjourned this morning I asked you to find alternative dates that this room is available in the month of November. I would like those items moved to an alternative date m Page 9 November 1, 2007 the month of November, in this room, whether it be morning, afternoon or evening. I would expect it be three to four hours for us to get through those items. But it shouldn't be done on the same day as our 15th. So unless there's a disagreement from the board members here, I'd like you to take that as direction to change it, and we just need to get it done. The next time if I suggest something like that and you don't agree with me, if you could let me know ahead of time so we could have the discussion, it sure would be helpful. MR. BELLOWS: For the record, I asked compo planning to respond. I don't know what happened. I'll check on that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Also, on the 15th, we have an item that's coming up that is in an ST area in Collier County. Two days ago I asked county staff why it was not -- to give me a valid reason as to why that was not going to the EAC, because under the EAC they're supposed to review issues that are in ST areas. I was told they passed my message on to Bill Lorenz. It's been two days. I've gotten no response from Mr. Lorenz. MR. SCHMITT: He responded this morning. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I'm here. MR. SCHMITT: I realize that. There are several special treatment designations, and this is a wellfield ST area. It is not an area that is reviewed by the EAC. There's no impact into the well fields by this rezoning, and basically there is no need to send this to the EAC. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, I just now, since you just told me that information, I will verify what he said myself, and I'll e-mail you guys back on whether or not this needs to be remanded to the EAC in regards to that ST issue. I don't know if Bill's statement is consistent with the way these areas have been looked at before in the past, but that needs to be Page 10 November 1, 2007 verified. We should be consistent in the way we look at all these applications. So I'll have get back with you tomorrow after I get time to read that e-mail. Item # 5 APPROVAL OF MINUTES SEPTEMBER 20, 2007, REGULAR MEETING Okay, with that, the approval of minutes of the September 20th regular meeting. Has everybody in their packet received them? Is there a motion to approve? COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: So moved. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion made by Commissioner Adelstein. Is there a second? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Second. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Seconded by Commissioner Murray. Any discussion? Anybody. (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: All in favor, signify by saymg aye. COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: Aye. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Aye. COMMISSIONER CARON: Aye. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Aye. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Aye. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye. Anybody opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion carries 7-0. Page 11 November 1,2007 Item #6 BCC REPORT, RECAPS - SEPTEMBER 25,2007, REGULAR MEETING; OCTOBER 9, 2007, REGULAR MEETING Ray, the BCC report. MR. BELLOWS: Yes, the Board of County Commissioners met on October 23rd. They heard the conditional use for the Fawzy excavation, earth mining petition. That was denied by the Board of Zoning Appeals by a vote of 3-2. The board also heard the variance for the Wendy's Restaurant off Immokalee Road. That was approved on the summary agenda, as well as the PUD zone for Habitat W oodcrest. That was also approved on the summary agenda. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. Item #7 CHAIRMAN'S REPORT Chairman's report. I have one item to bring up today, and that is, for all of you who probably already know it, Russell Tuff had to resign due to a conflict with his newly promoted position over at the Naples Daily News. So I guess congratulations to him on one count for being promoted, and I don't know if it's congratulations or what on the second for not being here. But I'm sure there'll be somebody else coming along. With that, we'll get into -- oh, as Mr. Schiffer had indicated, he requested under new business we add a discussion of the county e-mail involving additional information. That will come up on 10 -- number one under new business. Page 12 November 1,2007 And I will be adding an item for discussion of a joint workshop with the City of Naples at that time. And with that, we'll go into the advertised public hearings. Again, for those in the audience who came in late, the Naples Bath and Tennis petition has been continued. It will probably be towards the end of December before we hear that. But it has been continued. It will not be heard today. Item #8B PETITION: PE-2007-AR-12164 The second petition is Petition PE-2007 -AR-12164, the Keith Basik, Larry Basik, Jeff Basik of Naples Big Cypress Market Place. It's a parking exemption petition. All those wishing to testify on behalf of this petition, please rise to be sworn in by the court reporter. (Speakers were duly sworn.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. Are there disclosures on the part of the planning commission? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I do. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Schiffer? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Yes. I had a phone conference call with Patrick White and the developers who are in the room, and we discussed essentially the access from Trinity. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody else? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: My part, I had a discussion with Mr. White as well. I informed him that because it was in the notification area of a project in which I receive income from, I would not be voting on this under the perception of a conflict, but I will be chairing the meeting. Page 13 November 1,2007 So with that, I'll -- and if there's no other disclosures, we'll continue with the applicant's presentation. MR. WHITE: Good morning, Mr. Chairman, Commission members. Patrick White with the law firm of Porter, Wright, Morris & Arthur, representing the Naples Big Cypress Market Place, Limited Partnership, LLP. I note for the record that the general partner of that is Basik Development, LLC, and that its managing members are Jeffrey and Keith Basik. In addition to my remarks, we may have -- Mr. Larry Basik desired to comment on some aspect of the case. But essentially I'm all yours today. We've worked closely with staff in this application to address a number of procedural and substantive aspects, and I just would like at this time to acknowledge their assistance in that regard. It has been most helpful in getting us here today in a timely manner. The request for which we seek your favorable recommendation is a parking exemption. It has its regulatory root in the LDC in Section 4.05.02, capital letter K, which is entitled Exemption to Locational Requirements. And in Subsection 3.A of that, under (2), a lot such as this which is proposed for off-site parking qualifies, as it's not zoned commercial. Here the subject, approximately 9.8 acres, are zoned agricultural, which under the LDC of course is not a commercial designation. The proposed off-site parking would be interconnected with the existing roadway and immediately adjacent and abutting commercially-zoned parcels to the west, the most proximate of which will have the Naples Big Cypress Market Place structure on it and for which the maximum of355 parking spaces being sought is intended to be located. Page 14 November 1,2007 The very same parcel may be familiar to you, as it was the subject of a recent request for a small-scale comprehensive plan amendment. In that regard, your staff has found the parking exemption to not be inconsistent with the comprehensive plan. And I say it that way because the staff report indicates that there is no provision directly on point with respect to this type of a request other than to the extent that it is required to be considered compatible under the Future Land Use Element Policy 5.4, which I believe the responses to the criterion for your consideration reflect in the staff report. Turning specifically to consideration of those LDC criteria themselves, I note there are a few minor modifications that, based on the staffs comments and discussion in what we have in the staff report, I think are worthy of note in the narrative that was provided as part of the application package. First off, this is an irregularly shaped parcel, as you can see on the viewer. It's intended to allow the construction of some basic parking facilities. The narrative originally indicated it was for approximately 372, but it's in fact 355 total additional parking spaces: 338 of them are regular spaces, and approximately 17 are intended as -- for parking of oversized vehicles. Looking to the criteria set forth in the LDC under the 4.05.02.K.3, the application meets the intent of the criteria therein as evidenced in the staff report and as I'll discuss momentarily. The staff report also indicates that the application is associated with an SDP that is approved, that being SDP 2002-AR-2230. That is presently in for a proposed amendment, an SDP A denoted as AR-8747. How that SDP A ultimately shapes up and is considered for approval by the staff is largely going to depend upon whether we have the favor of your recommendation and the board's approval. So it's pending but awaiting some further determination through this Page 15 November 1,2007 process. All of the parking spaces that are being requested are essentially, as to the existing SDP, overflow parking in that those spaces exceed the minimum parking standards required by the approved SDP and as referenced in the LDC under Sections 4.05.04.G and 4.05.09 for the adjacent commercial uses to the west, that being the Market Place structure and others. And in fact these spaces will support those uses. The off-site parking area is intended solely to further support those uses but is not itself zoned commercial. As I noted, it is ago Weare required to demonstrate in order to qualifY for the requested relief that fact under the provision of the LDC I mentioned at the beginning of my remarks. The existing commercial area, which already has existing required parking provided, is separated from this area by an internal access roadway that will extend from north to south between them along their shared boundary line. And that roadway will also serve to interconnect the commercial uses with both the required and the access parking. As designed, the farthest overflow parking spaces from the facility to be served, Market Place, are in fact closer than some of the required spaces already provided on-site further to the west, across Basik Drive. All of the spaces being provided, both under the existing SDP and as proposed under this exemption, are within ready walking distance to the adjacent uses, a criterion for your consideration, and as a result will not require internal traffic flow to leave the commercial site in order to reach the proposed off-site parking. Thus patrons and employees parking in this lot would not be required to cross Basik Drive, an enhancement to public safety. Access to the overflow is also provided through to the adjacent public road, Trinity Place, over a short portion of the road closest to Page 16 November 1, 2007 the East Trail, U.S. 41. Trinity Place is primarily used to access a local residential neighborhood of 13 or so homes, but it's worth noting that the LDC does establish that it is essentially a criterion for consideration that we provide some connection directly to the public road. And that is what the access to Trinity place is intended to achieve. You'll further note that your transportation staff has imposed a condition we are agreeable to, that access to Trinity will be gated and used for emergency purposes only. The primary route of access for overflow parking will be through the existing roadways on SDP 2330 and will go through to the north and west to Basik Drive and then out to U.S. 41. This will further enhance pedestrian and vehicular safety by reducing the amount of queuing that will take place. We believe that this will occur because the traffic will essentially have two options as it enters Basik Drive, both to turn to the east, go around through the internal drives to the parking exemption lot, if you will, further to the east of the Market Place facility, and, as already allowed for, the bulk of the parking to be further to the west. So by allowing the traffic to kind of divide, we believe it will reduce the queuing, stacking and potentially any traffic conflicts for vehicles arriving from the west on 41. We also believe that this will -- the parking exemption, if granted, will protect the character and the quality of the existing neighborhood. And we believe that that's true because of the fact that we're looking to gate the access to Trinity Place and have the rest of the traffic circulate through to the already existing commercial designated lands. Turning a little bit more to the surrounding properties, the only immediately abutting but unrelated uses are those existing to the north of the subject lands on what is, as to the immediately adjacent parcel vacant but also agriculturally zoned property. It may be eventually developed, but in order to be assured that any potential impacts from Page 17 November 1, 2007 the parking lot are properly addressed, there will be a Type B buffer of 15 feet along that side. The other two sides kind of more to the south are proposed along 41 to have a Type D 15-foot buffer, and I believe along the Trinity side a Type D 10-foot buffer. I believe the staff report indicates they're both, the type D's are 10-foot. But if you look at our concept plan -- thank you, Ray -- it indicates down there in the fine print that the one along 41 will be 15 feet wide. Because there are no abutting residential uses in that ago parcel to our north, no wall is being proposed as part of the buffers, and that is consistent with the LDC's requirement. But we also note that any structures, were they to be on commercial lands, which these are not, would have to be set back 15 feet. So I believe with the buffer that we're intending to put in place, as a matter of fact, no structure could be in the area that would otherwise be required, even if this were considered to be commercial. So I think we're meeting what the intent of the LDC is, although not required to do so. None of the proposed parking spaces will require motor vehicles to pack out onto any street, and indeed, that is an LDC requirement we comply with. Although the staff report under item 11 -- I'm sorry, it may not be 11, I think it's maybe 10 -- indicates that no valet parking is proposed, our narrative indicated that from time to time for certain types of events valet parking may be offered as a convenience to some of the patrons. And I believe that that only further enhances the opportunity for vehicles to move quickly through the parking areas and to be parked as far as possible away from the Market Place use by the valet employees so that, again, more spaces nearby are available for those who choose not to use that service. But as I indicated, it is not proposed to be provided on a routine basis, only kind of in a special event. Page 18 November 1, 2007 Number 11 of the criteria on the staff report at the bottom of Page 5, although not commented on by staff, our narrative made clear that some employee parking may take place in this lot, and that it's the intention of the owners that those employees will be directed to park as far as possible, that would be to the east if they're in this parking lot, or potentially if the spaces are even further to the west on the other side ofBasik Drive, to have the employees park there. So that again, more spaces are as proximate as possible to the actual entrance of the Market Place. As a further means to assure that the maximum number of already existing required spaces will be available for customers arriving in individual vehicles, all the buses and other similar larger occupancy vehicles are intended to be parked in the proposed off-site area for which there are presently 17 spaces or so anticipated. Given the close proximity of the parking area to the intended adjacent uses, we don't believe that there is a more viable alternative that exists or available, and staff concurs in that respect. And based on the foregoing statements that support the design itself and the site's operational parameters, we believe that pedestrian and vehicular safety will be assured, and that the parking exemption will be compatible with the surrounding uses and thereby demonstrated to be consistent with FLUE Policy 5.4. Based on the points I presented and the materials that are on file in the record, we believe that a recommendation of approval of the request is warranted. I'm happy to answer any questions you may have, and would just ask to reserve time to address any staff or public comments or questions by the planning commission. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you, Mr. White. There are questions. Mr. Kolflat? COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: Yes. Ray, would you put that overhead on the zoning again, please. Page 19 November 1, 2007 I just would like you to confirm my understanding of the number of spaces. What are the number of spaces in C-4? MR. WHITE: Is that a question for Ray or me? COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: For you. MR. WHITE: Okay. Under the existing approved site plan, and I'm not sure that's the exhibit you wanted. Is it, Mr. Kolflat? Is that the one you wanted, that's on the visualizer? COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: Yes. MR. WHITE: In C-4, I don't know that I can separate out the number that are in just the C-4, because you'll note that I believe there's additionally a portion that is C-5. But as to both of those commercial designated parcels, the amount of parking under the existing SDP that is required was I believe 300 and -- one second -- what was required was 438, and what was provided on those lands were 477. We're asking for an additional 355 maximum on these adjacent more easterly lands that are there. COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: I understood in C-4 there were 34 spaces, and C-5, 439. Is that incorrect? MR. WHITE: I don't have them broken down by the respective zoning districts, but I'm being told by staff and the owner that that's correct. COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: That is correct? MR. WHITE: Yes. COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: What constitutes an oversized vehicle? An SUV, a bus, a semi-trailer or what? MR. WHITE: We were thinking buses. I'm not certain of how any other types of large occupancy vehicles will be on the site as far as semis or not. I really don't know how that will play out as things move forward. The reason why, as I mentioned, the pending SDPA isn't finalized is because in part we're looking to assure that we're going to properly design it to accommodate those types of vehicles so that Page 20 November 1,2007 they'll have an ease of turnaround. COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: Would you limit it to buses and exclude semi-trailers? MR. WHITE: I have an indication from the owner's representative that they would be willing to do so. COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: Thank you. The material we received had questions relative to valet. Some said valet parking would be used, another said valet parking would not be used. I understand from your statement this morning that you would like to have valet parking as a feature. MR. WHITE: It will be something I believe that from time to time is going to be offered to the patrons, and I believe that that enhances the function of the actual parking exemption itself by, as I mentioned, allowing for a more quick drop-off of patrons and a further parking away from the entrance of those vehicles that are valeted. COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: So you would like to have the valet parking feature retained? MR. WHITE: Yes. It is not a fundamental aspect of what we're asking for, it's simply one of the criterion for consideration. COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: Right. Now, do you concur that the Trinity Place access is only for emergency? MR. WHITE: Absolutely. We agree with the staff condition. COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: Right. Now, looking at the parking as you come up Trinity Place there where they were going to have the oversized vehicles stored or parked, it appears that you would pull in head first coming up Trinity Place. MR. WHITE: No, sir. As I mentioned, what you have is our originally proposed concept plan for the site. Based upon the staff comments we received about their desire to have Trinity Place gated, which we agreed to, we did not go back and redesign this, because it is conceptual. Page 21 November 1, 2007 But my comments I made a few moments ago indicate that we recognize that there will have to be some redesign under the SDP A that is presently pending to accommodate the means by which those vehicles would turn around so that they could enter nose first into the spaces as they're diagonally oriented. COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: So that would be taken care of. MR. WHITE: Yes, sir -- COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: Thank you. That's all I had, Mark. MR. WHITE: -- I appreciate you noticing it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Schiffer? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Patrick, a quick question. Something confusing on -- there's an SDP that you said was approved. MR. WHITE: Yes. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: But there's one section here where, you know, that situation where if you go over 120 percent of the requirements of the code, and it appears that that's waiting the approval of the SDP. It's on Page 2, the paragraph right above surrounding land use. MR. WHITE: Yes. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: What is the status of -- or is that paragraph confusing me? MR. WHITE: I can assure you, we had the same initial reaction to it. As I've indicated, note that this parcel's not zoned commercial. I'm not sure of the legal applicability of the provision that's cited there. Regardless, we're willing to go along with the staffs assessment of that. It is not directly the subject of to day's consideration for the parking exemption, but as the staff report indicates, something that we're being put on notice of and will be addressed as part of the SOP A. Page 22 November 1,2007 And let me tell you what our anticipated handling of that will be. We've gone through and done the calculations based on the LDC requirements, which is what provision 4.05.04.C speaks to, and we believe that we will be only approximately three or four spaces overall above the threshold of 120 percent. So we appreciate the staff pointing it out to us. If we trip that number of 120 percent, then we're certainly prepared to comply with whatever procedural steps we need to go through. But our belief is that factually we will not have to, we will be under that threshold. Although we're asking for 355, we may only build 351. And our intention is -- we've talked to our engineer about this -- is to potentially eliminate the most easterly of those bus diagonal oversized vehicle parking spaces in an effort to facilitate a turnaround for those types of vehicles. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay, so the SDP that's approved would trigger and you'd cure it by removing some parking places. MR. WHITE: The SDP that's pending, not the one that's approved. But essentially, yes is the answer to your question. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. The other question is, will you be joining these properties via unity of title? And if so, would it then be considered off-site? MR. WHITE: Because of the zoning, I believe it is considered off-site by the LDC. In fact, if -- the ownerships, to answer your question in part, are the same. But for those ownerships having only recently gone into essentially the same entity holding title to them, I believe we may have qualified for administrative relief under provision one or two of the same section of the LDC that this parking exemption is found under. Those are ones that anticipated administrative type of approval. But because the ownerships are in the same entity at this point, the only option we have is to come forward for this exemption from the Page 23 November 1,2007 locational requirements that requires us to be designated as a parking exemption. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Any other questions of Mr. White? Mr. Murray? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Good morning, Mr. White. MR. WHITE: Good morning, Mr. Murray. COMMISSIONER MURRA Y: You speak of -- let's talk about safety, which is a paramount issue for us. I know that the consortium plans to do some work, and I can't recall whether or not the U. S. 41 will be two-lane or four-lane as far as that area. Do you happen to know? MR. WHITE: I believe it is going to be four-Ianed. And I note for the record that Mr. Keith Basik has arrived and I believe he was otherwise at those discussions this morning about the consortium. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: And in the structure of the laning, will there be a rather long queue for a left-hand turn to allow people to queue and come into the flea market? MR. WHITE: My understanding, Mr. Murray, is that that consideration would be made in conjunction with the FDOT at the time. My further understanding is that they are not at that level of planning development and engineering studies, PDEs. However, my expectation is that we're going to look to have at least the minimum that's required for what the functional aspects are of that turn-in, that left turn-in. So to answer your question is we will -- we anticipate it, we expect that it is going it be required, and we're going to make it as long as it needs to be, if not longer. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: That's fine. Then let's go into the interior of your area. Now, I'm really not Page 24 November 1, 2007 happy with the documents that I received to be able to review effectively. If you'd like to put your finger on the space where the entrance is between C-4 and A on that current document before us. MR. WHITE: I can put one on the visualizer that may make it a little easier. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: That would be wonderful. MR. WHITE: I believe that the location you're requesting for me to direct your attention and that of the commission to is here. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Well, wherever it is that people come in. I'm talking about off of U.S. 41. MR. WHITE: They will enter off of Basik Drive. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Please point that out on this diagram. MR. WHITE: It is not part of the subject lands for this, but I can momentarily. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: It really should have been in order for us to evaluate a common driveway, if there is one. MR. WHITE: As the staff report and my presentation indicates, there's already an approved SDP. And I note for the record it is AR-2330. And I'll demonstrate on the visualizer how the traffic flow is intended to operate. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Thank you. (Mr. White indicates.) COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Good. Now, we speak -- MR. WHITE: Can I just make one other comment, Mr. Murray? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Certainly. MR. WHITE: As I noted before, this is an additional alternative for vehicles arriving. Presently the bulk of the vehicles would be coming in traveling off of U.S. 41 in a northerly direction and only able to turn essentially left and to the west. So we're providing two opportunities for those vehicles to disburse. Page 25 November 1, 2007 COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Okay. Using this document here and talking about two things, queuing, where will your people be who will be directing vehicles to go to their parking spaces, whether they be left or right, ultimately? MR. WHITE: My belief is that as part of the SDPA we may be committing to either signage and/or, depending upon the size of some type of an event, providing additional employees to flag vehicles, depending upon how well the patrons adapt to the increased and new opportunity for parking. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Well, that's very vague in terms of safety requirement. And I'm very much concerned with safety requirements here. We have the potential for 800 vehicles. We have -- they're all going to queue up within a certain time frame and they're going to be coming from left and right, and you're talking about valet parking, which I question as to its applicability for moving vehicles. In fact, I think it's a stop jerk type of thing, people have to get out of their cars, others have to get in. So ifthere's adequate queuing, it might be acceptable. But I would think you would need people there pretty much from the beginning of the opening, especially -- I haven't been to a flea market yet that didn't have somebody directing vehicles. Now, maybe there are cases, and maybe, you know, the Basik family would be eager to do that. But I'd like to think that there was a plan to do that. MR. WHITE: I'm telling you that there is a plan, it is just not one that is committed to in writing here. It will potentially be evaluated as part of the SDPA. We're looking for something that's a bit of a square peg in a round hole here when it comes to parking exemptions. We're asking Park to treat it, I think to some degree, like approval of a use, when in fact it isn't. In some respects it's kind of like a variance, but it's not. Page 26 November 1, 2007 And so although we share your concerns about safety, and those have been the paramount decision-making aspects of it, to give you a specific answer to how we've thought that through as far as valet goes, you'll note that there are multiple parking aisles down which patrons will be able to turn further to the east to provide parking, and that the entrance, which I'll point to now, people will be able to stop there and essentially queue a few vehicles at a time without interfering with the rest of the flow to get to these additional parking spaces. So I believe that there is a plan. I've discussed that with the owners as far as how the gate itself would operate, as far as I've indicated earlier signage and other potential employees being present at the junctions for turning movements to help facilitate the flow of traffic. I think it's fair to say part of what our answers are going to have to be are going to be based upon experience. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Well, that may be true to some degree. But I would say to you that in these tight budgeting times, if we're going to end up because of your development having to put a sheriffs deputy, one or more, there to control traffic, that's a cost to the county that shouldn't be borne by the county. And I would offer that we perhaps put a stipulation in that requires that there be some form of man control, manned control. MR. WHITE: My brief discussion confirming our prior discussions with the owners indicates that if deputies are required, they would be paid for. If employees are required in order to facilitate the movement of vehicles, they will be out there on-site. So I believe that there's a commitment to doing that. I'm just not certain how it fits into a condition, if you will, for the parking exemption to be improved. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Well, for it to be exempted from whatever constraints there are in the LDC, safety is a big factor, that's how I believe it fits. Page 27 November 1,2007 I'm finished, Mr. Chairman. MR. WHITE: I'm not saying I don't agree with your rationale, I'm just saying I don't know how we write the condition. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Well, I think what you've answered is that you've agreed, you're on record, having said that whether it be your own employees or the county sheriff's deputies that you will make payment for those. And I don't know what the tripping point would be for that. I would imagine the first time that they have a tremendous backlog and it may be safety and accident. Hopefully not. Thank you. MR. WHITE: I'm expecting that that would be a part of the SDP A review by the staff and that approval. And that seemed to me more logically as a matter of process where those considerations and potential conditions would be imposed. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Well, you may be right, and I'm sure our professional staff will do a fine job. I just want to make sure it's on the record that we care. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ms. Caron? COMMISSIONER CARON: Yes, according to the plan that you have up there now, the oversized parking spaces are 34. Now, I've heard you say 17 in this meeting, and I just want to confirm that it is 17 oversized parking spaces and not 34. MR. WHITE: That is correct. The narrative is the only place where I believe 34 is referenced. The actual plan itself, I've counted them more than once, are 17 of those spaces. And as I'd indicated, the greater likelihood is that at least four of them may be removed. COMMISSIONER CARON: Well, I'djust like to correct you on that fact, because the plan itself does say 34. I can count the spaces myself, and if you count each dash you're looking at 34. If you count the space itself, it's 17. But according to one of the documents I have on here, it states that there are 34 vehicle spaces here -- on one of these, Patrick, but Page 28 November 1,2007 you need to go back and just correct that. MR. WHITE: I'm going to correct it now on the record, Ms. Caron. I appreciate you pointing out that detail. It should indicate on there that it is 17. I note that this is conceptual. And there are, I believe -- and my oversight to not have noted that there were, I guess through the dashed lines the possibility of interpreting it as two parking bumpers. But given the size of the vehicles, I believe it's the intent of the owners that there will be utilization of those as a one-to-one, so that the 17 will be corrected where it's written, and the graphic indication of 17 spaces for oversight (sic) is what we're at this point proposing. COMMISSIONER CARON: Thank you. MR. WHITE: Thank you. COMMISSIONER CARON: I'm not through. Your client -- and this, Patrick, is a yes or no question. MR. WHITE: Yes, ma'am. COMMISSIONER CARON: Your clients are a part of the transportation DCA consortium? MR. WHITE: Yes, ma'am. COMMISSIONER CARON: Thank you. Now, next, the buffers along Trinity Place, it seems to me odd that we would have 15-foot buffers against U.S. 41 and only a IO-foot buffer against Trinity Place where the residential is located. MR. WHITE: My understanding is that that flows from the way the LDC operates in that when you have a more intense transportation route, an artery or collector, a buffer is required to be wider. COMMISSIONER CARON: Thank you. And I understand that because I can read the LDC as well. However, I'm talking about your clients being good neighbors, and I would think that you would increase the buffering against the neighborhood as a good neighbor policy, if nothing else. MR. WHITE: I would indicate for the record that the owners Page 29 November 1,2007 are agreeable to a 15-foot as well along Trinity Place for a Type D, I believe that one is. And we will so indicate. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Are you done? COMMISSIONER CARON: Go ahead. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Brad, did you have another question? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Yeah, I do. And Patrick, I'm still confused on the parking again. The original existing approved SDP -- and this building is under construction, correct? MR. WHITE: Yes, it is. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Has 477 spaces provided. What you're requesting today is to add, and forget the oversized for a second, 338 more spaces, right? MR. WHITE: Yes. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: What's happening to the building that would -- and you stated that if you figure it out you're close to the 120 percent. But this looks like it's almost really doubling the parking. I know that the calculation for the building is one per 100. I'm sure you have food and stuff like that that's going to raise that, but -- MR. WHITE: The calculation under the approved SDP 2330 was approved for an alternative parking methodology that, as indicated on 2330's site plan, is at one to 100. The LDC requirement is one to 50. And in fact that is part of what is propelling this request, is to be more consistent with the LDC's requirements. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. But you said the other SDP was approved, so essentially -- MR. WHITE: It was. But that was a 2002 application. And we're at this point looking to make some productive use of this property and to do so in a way that's more consistent with the LDC. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: That makes sense. Page 30 November 1, 2007 Do you have a copy of the new SDP? MR. WHITE: I do not have one with me. The only copy I have is in a plan set. It is essentially though the same bounded area. And I'm happy to make that available for your review, if you're interested in seeing it. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And the other question is, there's a lot of vacant land, open space on the site. Is there any plans to do any development on that or would that be left open? MR. WHITE: I'm unaware of any present plans, and believe thus it would be left open. My understanding is it may be grassed. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. But, I mean, you're not going to store anything, trailers, nothing like that is going to be driven on that -- MR. WHITE: No. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay, thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ms. Caron? COMMISSIONER CARON: The parking spaces that are going on this ago property, are they going to be -- and I should have asked this the first time around, are they going to be grass parking spaces or paved parking spaces? MR. WHITE: All of the aisles and access ways will be paved. All the handicapped will be paved. My belief is that as a matter of that SDPA review, many of the parking spaces will be gravel over a stabilized base and they will have each parking bumpers to identify the appropriate spaces. We had had an initial discussion with staff about some portion being grassed, and I believe we will work that out with the staff to the extent that they're comfortable with it as part of the SDP A. Our goal was to not increase anymore than necessary the impervious area. And I believe that our application committed to providing double trees in the interior islands, notwithstanding the fact that I don't believe we trip the requirement of 4.05.04.C that talks Page 31 November 1,2007 about for commercial parcels needing either that variance, if you're over 120 percent, or not. So we're committing to the double trees that are part of that standard, regardless. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Any other questions ofMr. White? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, we'll hear the staff report. MR. WHITE: Thank you. I'd ask to reserve some time to respond to any additional public or other comments. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes. MR. WHITE: Thank you. MR. BROWN: Good morning. Willie Brown, principal planner with the department of zoning and land development review. The petitioner's description of the project is consistent with the application submitted to the department of zoning and land development review. The property is within the urban residential fringe district, as shown on the Future Land Use map of the county's Growth Management Plan. However, the GMP is silent regarding parking exemptions. FLUE Policy 5.4 requires new developments to be compatible with the surrounding land area. Comprehensive planning leaves this determination to the zoning and land development review staff, as a part of their review of this petition in its entirety. The LDC specifies criteria upon which parking exemptions may be approved. Section 4.05.02.K.3.A, number two of the LDC, allows a parking exemption to be sought when a lot proposed for off-site parking is not zoned commercial. The subject property is zoned agricultural, as you already heard. In addition, there are 13 criteria which must be met, upon which staff elaborates in the staff report. Most importantly is the impact of the exemption on the character and quality of the neighborhood and future development of surrounding properties. Page 32 November 1,2007 Staffs assessment is that this impact would be minimal. The site was previously cultivated for row crops. It's currently vacant and undeveloped. Surrounding the site are properties zoned agricultural with lot sizes of five acres or more, and there are no contiguous residential zoned districts. In addition, buffers are proposed along the perimeter of the site, as required by the LDC. Also, access is provided, as you've heard, via Basik Drive, which channels traffic directly into the site and away from local abutting roadways. Lastly, no letters of opposition have been received, and staff is recommending approval of this petition. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Any questions? Mr. Murray? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Good morning, sir. MR. BROWN: Good morning. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Is valet parking a commercial activity? MR. BROWN: My manager is nodding no, it is not considered to be a commercial activity. MR. BELLOWS: For the record, Ray Bellows. It would be considered an accessory to the principal use. They can have valet, such as a restaurant or any other type. A museum can have valet parking. It's accessory to that particular use. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Any other questions of staff? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Got off easy this time. Thank you. Are there any public speakers, Ray? MR. BELLOWS: Yes, I believe we have four public speakers. The first one is Paul Rodinsky. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: When you come to the microphone, Page 33 November 1,2007 please state your name for the record. And we ask that you limit your discussion to five minutes. Thank you. MR. RODINSKY: My name is Paul Rodinsky. I live at 11231 Trinity Place. I think that this parking lot that Mr. Basik is -- wants for the overflow parking, I think that it's definitely going to need it there and it's probably going to need a lot more there. He also has a plan for a trailer park in the back of this project. There's also storage companies. And they all use this Basik Drive, which is a good road. But there's been a problem over the years with there's an easement which Mr. Murray was talking about between the flea market and this parking lot that also has fire hydrants in place for an emergency road that they wouldn't need one off of Trinity Place if they have one coming right off of 41. But this easement's had problems over the years, because the Basik Road was built a little bit too close to this easement, and so they won't allow Mr. Basik to use this easement for this particular Basik project, which it all should be kept to Basik's project. And now since Mr. Basik's asked these people back in '89, I think it was, for the use of this easement for his flea market, he was denied mainly because this road that Mr. Basik built, Basik Drive, is too close to this easement coming off 41. And since then Mr. Basik has purchased the 10 acres of land to the left side of this road. Now, I can't understand why the state and why the county won't look at this and let Mr. Basik move this road so it could be a proper distance between Basik Drive and this easement so this way they can do the proper changes onto 41, so when he does decide to develop this land that he's using this parking lot on, he'll never have to use Trinity Place so it won't end up like the flea market on Davis Boulevard. But it's so hard to try to get the state and the county, for them to Page 34 November 1,2007 look at this now that Mr. Basik has purchased this 10 acres of land, to let him move it to 20 feet so it will be the proper distance from Basik Road. And then people are telling me, well, it will be to close to Trinity Place Road. Well, we can't do anything on Trinity Place Road, because Basik owns that corner property now, and across the street there's a cypress buff over there that's been dedicated by the golf course. So I can't understand why the county won't look at this and the state won't look at this and let Mr. Basik move this easement to 20 feet so this way he'll have two major lanes coming right off 41. When he does the improvements they can come in on one side and go out on the other side. And plus the fact that they're not showing -- this flow of traffic is going to have a trailer park in the back with a couple hundred trailers in the back of it. There's also a storage company coming off Basik Road. But this parking lot he's proposed here is great. It's terrific. This is going to be a slam dunk for Collier County. Collier County has nothing like this. Matter of fact, Lee County has nothing like this. An 800-person arena, 350 indoor booths. This is not going to be a two-day-a-week thing. This is going to be at least a five-day-a-week thing, you've got an 800-person arena, this is going to -- hundreds and thousands of cars are going to be there. And this should be all confined to Basik development. And they should look at this easement road, which I still have a right to use, Mr. Basik still has a right to use this road, not for his development, because it's a little bit too close to Basik Road. But like I said before, he bought the 10 acres on the other side of it, which why doesn't the county let him move it. And they're telling him, well, it would be too close to Trinity Place then. It doesn't make any difference, he owns the property on Trinity Place and on the opposite side of the street nobody's ever going to build Page 35 November 1,2007 anything on the other side of Trinity Place because it's a cypress buff for the golf course. So, I mean -- but it's so hard for me to get everybody to look at this. And Mr. Basik, I guess he'd love to do that, because this way he could just do the improvements on 41 with the turn lanes. Instead the future is using Trinity Place in the future, putting turn lanes in on the highway and then using Trinity Place, which is really a residential area. They can say agricultural but that's changed over the years. You can't have any more than two horses or two pigs. The law has changed. And all I can say is this place is going to be a big thing for Collier County and a boost in employment. But like the parking here, you've got to look at the future with the parking. It should be all confined to the Basik development and not spill out onto any streets around there. Especially Trinity Place where we only have one house per five acres, that's all we're allowed there. And mostly all the land has houses on it now on Trinity Place. But if they look at that easement road, which the people on Trinity Place still have a right to, and the people at Trinity Place would be more than happy to vacate that front part of the easement. IfMr. Basik put a gate at the end of Garcia's property, which would be right next to this parking lot, which would give us access to go onto Basik Road. But we would be willing to vacate the front portion of this easement for Mr. Basik, and if the state would look at this and the county would look at this and maybe we could get a state representative together and look at this, maybe we can confine this whole project to just the Basik property, and this way Mr. Basik will have to do the improvements onto 41 with turn lanes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: When Mr. White comes up here for his conclusionary remarks, we'll ask him to address that issue. MR. RODINSKY: Thank you very much.h Page 36 November 1,2007 COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Mark, I have a question. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Schiffer? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Sir, I don't understand what you mean by the easement. You don't have a microphone, but could you just not say anything and point and then come back to the microphone. MR. RODINSKY: Mr. White, could you put up that other one that shows it a little more clearly. Mr. White, could you show me that between C-4 and C-5 where that easement is, that other -- MR. WHITE: I'm happy to. If -- may I have your permission, Mr. Chairman? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Go ahead, sir. MR. WHITE: Thank you. I believe -- and I don't want to interrupt Mr. Rodinsky's comments. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: His comments were finished. I was going to have you provide this in conclusion, but since it's been asked now, why don't we just get it on the table and get past it. MR. WHITE: Okay, hopefully we can. The easement in question -- let me just start with a general area view. MR. RODINSKY: You had a really clear map before of it that really showed it from the beginning. This is Basik Road. This is the flea market, and this is the easement road, which is right on the other side of the flea market is in here. But this is Basik Road that comes down in here. MR. WHITE: In fact, Basik is a little bit further to the west, I believe. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I mean, essentially -- MR. WHITE: If I can just point -- MR. RODINSKY: This is the parking lot-- Page 37 November 1, 2007 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Rodinsky, both people cannot be speaking at the same time, so you've got to let Mr. White finish, then you can go forward. This is a little abnormal, but we'll try to get past the question. MR. WHITE: As you can see by the pen, this is Basik Drive shown on the general aerial view. The easement in question, I believe, that Mr. Rodinsky is referring to aligns along this property line here. The reason why the FDOT and the county I think concurs that an access point is not allowed where the easement is is quite simply because of intersection spacing requirements. I appreciate the enthusiasm and support both for the project and the request today, but I think the regulations as they exist preclude us from being able to do as Mr. Rodinsky desires. Although we may want to do so ourselves. As you can well imagine, the decellanes, other access points to cross the median, are ones of great concern to FDOT. And as recently as today as to Basik Drive our understanding is as part of the consortium discussions that we will have at least a left turn into Basik Drive for the eastbound traffic on U.S. 41. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. White, can you address any comments that Mr. Rodinsky made concerning the use of that easement as an emergency entry or exit only for the residents up in that area or -- he had alluded to that. I'm just wondering if you know anything about it. MR. WHITE: I'm unaware of anything that relates to it, other than to the extent we have agreed to commit to essentially a gate across our access to Trinity Place. The graphic shows kind of here where that's anticipated to occur. And I'll go back to the general view and show that the area where Mr. Rodinsky and the other 13 or so homes going in a more northerly direction are all along and get their access from Trinity Place here on U.S. 41. Page 38 November 1, 2007 So I'm not sure how the easement, which I indicated is here, plays into the discussion about Trinity Place at all. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Is that easement on a section line; do you know? If it is, it might be the typical section line easements that occur all over the county, and they're either -- they're not necessarily for just emergency, they're basically public easements that have been routinely vacated when other locations have provided relief to those. So I don't know if it's a section line easement, but if it is that could be why -- MR. WHITE: My recollection is that it is a private easement. It may have been -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You'll have to use the microphone if you're going to speak, sir. MR. WHITE: Just one moment. MR. RODINSKY: It's a utility easement. MR. WHITE: To the best of my recollection, because I have looked at this, but it was a number of years back, it may have been possible to be used for a public road, but I think it essentially is intended to serve the private landowners that abut it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. Are there any other questions on that issue for the planning commission? Mr. Schiffer? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: On that issue, no. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Any other questions ofMr. Rodinsky before we go to the next speaker? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Just a question. He mentioned the word arena -- nothing n what do you mean by that? MR. RODINSKY: Well, an 800-person arena they're going to have there. Do they call it an arena or is it a -- what do they call it? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I don't know, it's the first time I've heard of it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Brad, that is -- I think that may be Page 39 November 1, 2007 more better addressed to staff if it's a use issue rather than -- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Well, he used the word. Ijust wondered -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I know-- MR. RODIN SKY: For parking. You know for -- you've got an 800-person arena, they're going to use that for parking too, along with the flea market. And that was a part of it. And the last question is, is with this easement we have a right to a secondary road on this easement. Can Mr. Basik put up a gate across this easement? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I think, sir, you ought to ask a legal counsel of your own or county staff that question. It's not a matter that this board can decide upon or we have the background of the easement to give you that answer. MR. RODINSKY: Okay. Thank you very much. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you, sir. The next speaker, Ray? MR. BELLOWS: Edward Cassetty. MR. CASSETTY: Yeah, my name is Edward Cassetty. I live on Trinity Place. I'm not going to get into the easement thing, because that's another issue. But as far as the parking up there, I think it's very, very important. The only thing that I'm questioning of is to make sure that this gate is closed at all times, because the issue that I'm thinking about, if you go over on State 29 over there, where we spent tons of money, our money, you look at those gates over there sometimes, I go through there quite often, and those guys leave those gates open and the panthers that we're supposed to be protecting, they could just walk right through those things and go right out on the. roads. Are these gates -- is there a penalty for leaving these gates open or whatever? Who's responsible for locking them and what kind of locks are we going to be putting on them? Page 40 November 1, 2007 Because Trinity Place up there, if you leave a gate open, you've got people coming through there and somebody sees that gate's open they're going to go through there. Monkey see, monkey do. That's the way people are. I know. I've worked employees, I know how people are. And that's my main issue on the thing. Because Trinity Place, we don't have a turn lane up there. That's 60 mile an hour speed limit on that road up through there. And when they went through there -- I'm hoping that we get the thing four-Ianed before long, and ifthey do, they hopefully put a turn lane for us. Because you're taking your life in your hands every time you turn in and out of there, the way those people drive up through there. Because if you put a turn lane in, that's a passing lane to those people out there. And I don't have any qualms with the flea market, because I think they're doing a good job putting buildings up. They look nice. And it's going to be a plus for our neighborhood. Do the thing right, everybody work together, I think we can have something nice up there. We do need to get the issue straightened out as far as the easement back through there. And we all work together, we can get it done. There's a lot of things that need to be worked out and we got to work it out manly and then in a proper fashion. So that's basically what I've got to say about the whole situation. Thank you, gentlemen. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you, sir. We'll get your question addressed during Mr. White's conclusions here today. Next speaker, Ray? MR. BELLOWS: Frank Morrison. MR. MORRISON: Good morning, Commissioners. My name is Frank Morrison. I've been a Collier County resident for 15 years. And I wanted to put a positive spin on this discussion today, because Page 41 November 1, 2007 it's -- this market and the plan that the Basiks have for the east side of Naples and the county in general is going to provide the opportunity for over 200 small independent businessmen to have a business of their own and have a low overhead. And in this economy that we're in now, it's really important that opportunities are given to small business people. And so this is going to be a fantastic development. And you've heard even from neighbors that live nearby, they're in favor of it. And certainly parking is an important issue when you're going to have the kind of business and opportunities that are going to be brought into the county. Thousands of people, that's true, will be coming into Collier County just to go to this market. It's going to improve the whole economy of Naples and Collier County and the east side. And as you know, the east side is really growing. It's a wonderful thing. I've been living in Lely Country Club for 15 years, and it's really neat to see that now they're starting to notice the east side of town, and we're really happy about it. So I just wanted to put a positive spin on it, because it really is going to be a major contribution for not only 200-plus new business people but also for the community in general. And I appreciate the opportunity to speak with you this morning. Let's get the parking situation figured out. I think it will be a big improvement. Thank you very much. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you, sir. Ray, next speaker? MR. BELLOWS: Chris Tomin. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Is he our last speaker? MR. BELLOWS: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. MR. TOM IN : Good morning. My name is Chris Tomin, and I run the business at 195 Basik since '04. And I've watched this place Page 42 November 1, 2007 develop over the years, and I'd like it to continue to develop. There's a lot of opportunity for the locals in that area, and I'd like to see the thing get approved. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you, sir. Okay, Mr. White, you had -- first of all, in your discussion I'd certainly like you to address the nature in which the emergency gates are controlled onto Trinity Drive. MR. WHITE: Certainly. In response to the gentleman's concern, I think it's fair to say that the owners are committed to providing all the neighbors their phone numbers so that if they see a problem, they'll address it, the owners will address it. But the more typical circumstance and the way that this would work in a regulatory fashion of course is that if a complaint is filed to code enforcement, this is going to be a condition of approval, I would assume, for this parking exemption, and it would essentially be a violation of that condition, and if not remedied in a timely manner could be prosecuted for code enforcement. And if it repeats, obviously becomes a very quick turnaround as a repeat violation. My expectation is we will not have any violations. The gate will be secured and monitored by the property owners themselves. I just want to note that I appreciate the support from each of the speakers as to the requested exemption. If I haven't addressed one of the concerns in a way that one or more of the commissioners may feel appropriate, I'm happy to try to do so at this point. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Any other questions ofMr. White in regards to that? Mr. Schiffer? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Patrick, on the site plan we're given, there's a note under the parking calculation that says all parking shown is excess parking. Is that true? MR. WHITE: It is excess in the sense that it is beyond what was required under SDP 2330. Page 43 November 1,2007 COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: But the stealth SDP, the one we don't see, does it require that parking? MR. WHITE: Under the LDC we believe that the requirement is greater, because the standard's different, as I'd mentioned, from the alternative parking methodology that was approved for the 2330 SDP. So it's fair to say that we're getting closer to meeting the LDC standard, even though when originally approved we had an alternative methodology. So I'm not sure I understand the concern. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Well, my concern is that we have a series of documents, documents -- you know, in this case this is a pretty black-and-white fact. Yet I'm hearing arenas, I'm hearing an allusion to something that there's an additional SDP that this is tied to, but we have no idea what that SDP -- MR. WHITE: Well, that SDP of course does not authorize any uses, and any uses that are in it that are a legitimate aspect of the existing zoning are ones that the parking will be provided for. Mr. Rodinsky may have been referring to the food court, I don't know. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. Could I have Willie answer that same question? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Sure. Let's make sure we finish with Mr. White first, and we'll hold that. Any other questions for Mr. White? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. MR. WHITE: I'd just simply note that I believe we've demonstrated compliance with the LDC criteria and would ask for the favor of your condition of approval. Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. Mr. Brown? MR. BROWN: I'm sorry, could you repeat the question? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: The question is that on the documents we have, on the documents showing the parking layout it states that all parking shown is excess parking, i.e., not required. Is Page 44 November 1, 2007 that a true statement? MR. BROWN: That is a true statement. As Mr. White pointed out, in the original SDP A 2330, in the lot across Basik Drive and the 34 spaces directly in front of the building, with those spaces, those existing spaces that were approved on the original SDP, they meet the minimum parking requirement. So the parking adjacent to the proposed flea market building, for which we're here today for the parking exemption, these are all, all 355 spaces are excess parking. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Based on the approved existing SDP. There's an SDP that's been applied for? MR. BROWN: There's an SDPA. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Is that a true statement with -- I mean, because here we're playing with a technicality on where the SDP is in the process -- MR. BROWN: The SDPA was not a part of my review. It's a separate part of the planning division, another planner's reviewing that one, and it in no way impacts the parking exemption before you today. That's -- at least that's the way I was told to look at it. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: So that if we approve this today, that statement can't go false, because that's the statement you're giving us to approve it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Brown, let me ask you something that might help clarify it. An SDP was submitted for the flea market, it was approved and under construction. MR. BROWN: Correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: They now have come back in and they want excess parking across the street. They submitted a SDP A then to amend the original SDP that was for the flea market. MR. BROWN: You're correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The additional parking across the street is in excess of what was needed for the original SDP, but it is the Page 45 November 1, 2007 subject of today's meeting. And it only applies -- the A is only referencing -- the amendment is only referencing the additional parking they're requesting here today. Is that a fair statement? MR. BROWN: I hear what you're saying. I did not analyze the SDPA. But in terms of what's been approved, the parking exemption is for excess parking only. The SDPA does not come into play for the parking exemption, because it's not yet been approved. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. But what I'm trying to get clear is that the SDP A that Brad thinks is the elusive SDP A is only to match the parking request that's here today. And if you don't know that, I guess you can't answer it. It seemed logical, but I understand. MR. BROWN: Am I missing something, Ray? MR. SCHMITT: I believe that's correct, your statement, Mr. Chairman. I would have to confirm that with either Ross or someone who is reviewing that. But the scenario you just painted seems to be the most logical. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. White, are you familiar with the SDP A that's in the system now? MR. WHITE: Yes. In fact, the SDP A also is intended to address other site planning issues. For example, we have a South Florida permit already, and in fact it is anticipated that the impervious area that this represented is something that has been considered as part of that South Florida permit. So we're looking to align the various levels of review between the county, South Florida, and as an administrative review all of these concerns will be addressed. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Understand. Does that get you-- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: No, I still don't -- let me ask Willie a question and put this in -- let's try to do this yes or no. When the new SDP is approved, will the statement on the plan, all parking shown is excess parking, be true? MR. BROWN: That will be a determination the planner Page 46 November 1, 2007 reviewing the SDP A will have to make. It's not a part of my -- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: What ifhe makes the determination that that's not true, then where do -- I mean, we're here today to look at excess parking, purely excess parking. MR. BELLOWS: For the record, Ray Bellows. It's not excess parking, per se. It's off-site parking. The petition is a parking exemption and it's for off-site parking in an agricultural zone. Whether it's in excess or less than or to help the project meet the minimum parking requirements will be determined as the current SDP amendment is reviewed and approved. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. I know why we're here, I'm just taking data off of the thing, and the data has to be true. MR. WHITE: Ifit would help move us forward today, Commissioner Schiffer, we'll be happy to strike the word excess and just indicate, as Mr. Bellows says, that it's off-site. I don't want to get us hung up on what may be technically correct and true today that might change based upon the actual approval being granted for the parking exemption by the board, and then as part of the review of the SDPA actually have changed. So in order to be consistent with the facts in both circumstances, we're happy to change it from excess to off-site. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: So the answer to my question is maybe yes, maybe no. It is a yes or no answer. MR. BROWN: In an effort to not go into detail about what's in the SDP A, because it's changing, it's not yet been approved, for purposes of to day's meeting the adjacent site for the parking exemption is off-site parking and/or excess parking, however you want to look at it. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I just think that this package would have been probably better if it showed us what the intent of the project really is. And since they have another SDP, they have a different intent than the one that's given to us. Page 47 November 1, 2007 MR. BROWN: It was the purpose in presenting you that information without going into any detail about the SDP A. And perhaps we shouldn't have mentioned the SDP A at all because it has no bearing on the parking exemption. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I think perhaps you could have shown us it, but that's -- let's move on. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Are there any other questions on this issue today? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, with that, we'll close the public hearing and entertain a motion. Is there a motion? I have to abstain from the vote so somebody's got to make the motion. Mr. Murray? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I'll make a motion, which I'll ask my fellows to enhance if they find other things that I may have missed. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Murray, would it help if I read some notes that I made before you made the motion-- COMMISSIONER MURRAY: No, I have some -- well, it certainly would help, but let me cast the motion, because this is a crafting process. I would make a motion that the parking exemption be -- do we have the last word on this, by the way? We do not, do we not, this is to the BCC? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes, recommendation of denial or approval with stipulations to the BCC. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I recommend approval of the parking exemption under PE-2007-AR-12164, Naples Big Cypress Market Place with 15-foot buffer along Trinity Place and notation that valet parking may be utilized and that signage will be provided. And in the use of personnel, should they use county staff, meaning Page 48 November 1, 2007 deputies, that payment will be made to the county for those individuals. If there are any other additions, I'd be happy to entertain them. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, first, Mr. Murray, we need to get a second. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: I'll second. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion's been made and seconded by Commissioner Midney. Now we can get into discussion. And you had made three stipulations. So everybody knows what those are, one was for valet parking being, did you say, allowed? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Yes, being permitted. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ray, if that's an accessory use, isn't that already permitted? MR. BELLOWS: Correct. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Okay. Then I withdraw that as -- that piece. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And it's -- also said signage. Isn't signage already required? MR. BELLOWS: That's correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Do you want to leave that in, since it's COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Well, the signage that I was attempting to reference would have been directly related to the movement of vehicles. Now, if that's also in there, that's fine, we can withdraw that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Murray, here's what I don't want to happen at this board -- I'm not criticizing your motion. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I hope not. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Stevie Tomatoes, there was some language there that was not as clear as it should be, that should taught us all a lesson. So I will ask any member making a motion with Page 49 November 1,2007 stipulations that the stipulations, if they're vague, we define what signage, what issue in the stipulation we're referring to. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Mr. Chairman, I truly appreciate that, but this is a crafting process, and not everybody is able to be very precise in the first instance, so I would appreciate that if we're going to do this we can help each other to make a more effective -- and I appreciate your contributions, certainly. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, then let's go back to the signage stipulation that you asked for. What specific signage do you feel needs to be added to the project so that the applicant knows if it's above and beyond the code. If it is the code, we don't need to have it as -- COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I'll answer you by saying that Mr. Bellows indicated that that would be taken care of, so I withdrew that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. And your third stipulation was? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Well, I remember the 15-foot buffer along Trinity Place, which Commissioner Caron had indicated, which I thought was good. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Now, I had written other stipulations. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: And the payment for Sheriffs deputies to the county. MR. BELLOWS: For the record, does that include staff conditions listed on the -- COMMISSIONER MURRAY: That would include staff conditions. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The payment for the Sheriffs deputy, can the Sheriffs deputies be brought out there without payment? MR. BELLOWS: I'd have to look into that. I'm not aware -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I'm not aware of it either, since-- MR. SCHMITT: That's not an LDC issue. It really is an issue Page 50 November 1,2007 if they're off duty. And that's certainly a contract between Mr. Basik and the Sheriffs Department. It's something that he would have to take care of without any regard -- it's not an issue -- COMMISSIONER MURRAY: That's implausible then. Then I withdraw that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. So now we have a motion. The remaining stipulation is the 15- foot buffer along Trinity Place. And I believe it was supposed to be a type B. Is that an affirmative, or was it a Type D? It was to match the one along U.S. 41. MR. BELLOWS: I believe that would be a Type D along the roadway. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Type D. Okay. The other comments I heard mentioned was to limit the oversized area to non-semis, meaning buses or RV's, but no semis. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Good catch. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That the Trinity access is an emergency access only, and it's to be gated. That the correct number of oversized spaces is shown at 17 and is to be stated as 17, not 34, as the conflict on the plan. And that they were to strike the language that referred to excess parking spaces and replace it with off-site parking language that is referenced. And that the stipulation also includes staff recommendations. Mr. Kolflat? COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: On the oversized automobiles __ oversized vehicle issue, didn't we also discuss the possibility of the egress into the slot as far as parking and a turnaround? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, they wouldn't be able to get permission to put the slips in there without that issue being addressed. COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: So there's no reason to stipulate it. Page 51 November 1, 2007 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No. It's part of the code. They're going to have to provide that to begin with. Those are the stipulations that I wrote down. We also have the Trinity -- the buffer, which Mr. Murray had stated. Does the motion maker want to accept those stipulations or modify them? COMMISSIONER MURRAY : Yeah, I'll accept them. I thought that the issue of the gate was included in the staffs recommendations on Trinity Place. Perhaps I'm in error on that one. I thought that was -- nevertheless, it's certainly applicable, so that can remain, even if it were redundant. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Does the second -- so you accept the stipulations, Mr. Murray? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I do. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Does the second accept them? COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: (Nods.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Midney, yes. Any others? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: All those in favor of the motion-- MR. BELLOWS: Mr. Chairman? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Go ahead. MR. BELLOWS: I just would like the planner to repeat all the conditions, just so he's clear on them. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's a good idea. MR. BROWN: In addition to the conditions of approval proposed by staff, I have that a IS-foot Type D buffer shall be installed along Trinity Place. We struck payment for Sheriffs deputies to the county. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Why don't you tell us what you've got instead of what's struck. MR. BROWN: Oversized spaces shall be limited to buses and not semi trucks. And excess spaces, as shown in the staff report, shall Page 52 November 1,2007 be changed to off-site parking. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, there were a few others. Go ahead, Ms. Caron. COMMISSIONER CARON: Well, you missed that they need to change the plan to reflect that there are only 17 oversized spaces involved, not 34. MR. BROWN: Okay, anything else I missed? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, the Trinity exit is emergency access only. MR. SCHMITT: That was in the staff -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Was it? MR. BROWN: It's in the conditions of approval. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Question. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Schiffer? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: The intent on the Type D buffer. Type D buffers are based on the right-of-way width. Is it the intent that that buffer be built as if it were a right-of-way equal to 41 ? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes, that was what my understanding of what the applicant said. I see them nodding their head yes, so I think that would be the affirmative. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Then make that clear. Otherwise it would be the smaller buffer. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Klatzkow? MR. KLATZKOW: Just for clarity, the oversized parking you said would be for buses. Does it also include RV's? MR. BELLOWS: That's correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes. I had said that. I was going to bring that up before we finished the discussion. Thank you, Mr. Klatzkow. So the stipulations have been stated earlier. They were kind of restated by staff. We just discussed them again. Is everybody clear? Is the record clear on the stipulations? Page 53 November 1, 2007 MR. WHITE: Patrick White. Just Mr. Klatzkow's point. I think that the form of the stipulation, Mr. Strain, that you made was that it was one that was prohibitory, not what it was going to allow. It was going to prohibit semi tractor-trailers. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: It was. And the way I worded it was that limit the oversized spaces so that -- limit the oversized spaces not to be used by semis. That was the statement. Is that in agreement with everybody else? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Yes, that would allow all others. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. MR. WHITE: Right. I didn't want to try to define the set including park models and who knows what all else. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Yes. MR. WHITE: Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. So now we're limiting oversized spaces so that semis are not allowed; the emergency access on Trinity Drive; reducing the oversized space number to 17, or leaving it at 17; having a buffer along Trinity Place at the Type D buffer, like there is on U.S. 41; strike the word excess and replace with oversight (sic); and accept staffs recommendation. That's as clear as I think I can get it. Everybody in favor of that motion as stipulated, signify by saymg aye. COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: Aye. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Aye. COMMISSIONER CARON: Aye. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Aye. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Aye. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody opposed? Page 54 November 1,2007 (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's six in favor, one abstaining. Let the record show that I abstained from the vote. Okay, with that we'll conclude that issue. We'll take a break for 15 minutes, be back at 10:20 and resume with floodplain management. (Recess. ) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, thank you. (Mr. Eastman is present, representing the School Board.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: We did have a petition that was previously noted for continuance on our agenda, just so everybody knows, if they're watching, or anybody in the audience, Petition RZ-2006-AR-10422 had been continued to 11/15/07. Item #8D 2008 FLOODPLAIN MANAGEMENT PLAN So with that, the next item on the agenda is the 2008 Floodplain Management Plan. I think staff is here to provide a presentation on that. MR. WILEY: Yes, sir. Good morning, Commissioners. For the record, my name is Robert Wiley, with the engineering and environmental services department. We're going to be presenting to you this morning a Power Point presentation to go over some of the highlights of this thick document that you received from us. There's a lot of work that has been put into it. The current staff you see sitting here, we have Ray Smith, he's with the pollution control department. He is the chairman that was -- that's part of the floodplain management planning committee. That is a group of 23 individuals, half of it citizens, public, half of it staff. Page 55 November 1, 2007 And then you have three members of it from each municipality, which we'll get into that. So he's the chairman heading it up. Mike DeRuntz is the planner. Underneath the requirements of FEMA and the community rating system program, we have to have a planner who actually prepares the document. And then I'm the staff engineer working as a coordinator to keep this thing rolling. So if we could get into our presentation this morning on the floodplain management plan. Why are we preparing this floodplain management plan? We have an existing plan that was produced in 2004. Every so often, a minimum of every five years we have to go over it, revise it, edit it, so we took the opportunity to pull together a large community effort in this one. But it's a requirement of the community rating system. Now that's a special program that we are in through the flood insurance program that allows Collier County citizens to receive a discount on the flood insurance premiums. And basically it's a program where when you exceed the minimums, the more you exceed the minimum requirements of the flood insurance program the more discount they are willing to give you. It's designed to protect the county residents' safety, health and welfare from flooding dangers. And when we're talking about flooding dangers, right now the flood insurance rate maps, when someone says what flood zone is my house in, that's strictly based upon coastal surge flooding. So you'll understand that there is also the issue of rainfall-induced flooding. Those are not shown on the current flood maps. That is what is a separate issue that we are working to develop is a combined rainfall plus coastal surge flooding. As we look at the flood insurance program, it's federally-backed flood insurance. Your home owners policy does not cover flooding. It encourages communities to enact and enforce floodplain Page 56 November 1,2007 regulations. One of the things about flood insurance is if you have a federally-backed mortgage and your property is within a flood zone, designated letters A or V, it's mandatory that you have flood insurance, unless you're able to show that your house is individually above the base flood elevation. That means the ground around the house. And then you can go through a process to exempt your property out. But that's not a real common thing to have happen for most properties. The community rating system is, as we just said, an incentive to help communities do more than the bare minimum. The idea being to minimize the amount of damage that a community would receive from flooding. It doesn't say it prohibits development within a flood zone, but the development that is coming forth is done so in a manner to minimize flood damage. Principally it's used for elevation, is one of the primary uses. You just raise the structure up. And that's the base flood elevation is the minimum floor elevation for the house then. There are 10 rating system classes. We are rated a class seven, which gives a 15 percent discount on the premium rates for those people in the flood zones that start with the letter A or V. Now if you're in an X flood zone, you can still purchase flood insurance, but you're only getting a five percent discount. But it's already a discounted rate. Our goal is to obtain either a class six rating or a class five rating. And we are very close to achieving those right now. Revising and rewriting the floodplain management plan is just one tool in this whole tool box that the flood i~surance program provides through the CRS program to let you achieve point ratings with them. So let's go through the four key components that are required to be in a floodplain management plan. You have a planning process, a risk assessment process, a mitigation strategy, and a way to maintain Page 57 November 1, 2007 the plan once you develop and adopt it. So starting in the Phase 1 planning process, we're required to have a particular section of the plan that shows how it's organized, how involved the public, and how we coordinate with other agencies. So this is the committee that we were just talking about, 23-member committee. This was approved by resolution of the Board of County Commissioners. The resolution authorized the county manager to appoint the people do it. We advertised, we asked for people who were interested in serving on the committee to submit resumes and information about themselves. Those citizens that you see there, starting with Phillip Brougham and going through Marlene Wood, are the citizens that were appointed by the county manager. County staff were positions that were appointed directly by the county manager to spread out among the various departments that we are required to at a minimum include on a planning level effort. And then you see one representative from each of the three municipalities. And then on the corner is me. I'm the staff coordinator. I'm not a voting member of the committee, I just get to keep the things rolling here. Involving the public was one of the big issues of this planned development. We spent a lot of evenings out throughout the community having special meetings. We had 15 regular meetings, one special meeting for agencies to put information that they had in their knowledge into the plan, a special interest group meeting. So there's been a lot of effort done. This map shows you how we spread out throughout the county and the dates on which we had the evening meetings. Now, I will say that the attendance at the evening meetings varied greatly. We went from an attendance of one up to about 50, just dependent upon the location, what was else happening that night and the amount of advertising that the people were able to receive. Information we received from them was really, really helpful in Page 58 November 1,2007 many situation here. The agencies that we contacted, we made e-mails, we made telephone calls, through the regular mail, even sent return receipts, because we weren't getting much response from them. We wanted to make sure these people got this information. So you see the agencies that we contacted there, the special interest groups. There was a big list of people. Here's the bulk of what you see that we contacted. Again, some people responded, some did not. As we get into Phase 2 of this report presentation, one of the first things that you have to do is go out and tell them exactly what kind of a flooding problem you do have. So we got staff together. Staff consisted of engineering department staff, Big Cypress Basin staff, the storm water management department staff. We used information that we had in the GIS from known flooding events, got from the Sheriffs Department, anywhere we could gather information, emergency management was involved with it, to begin to locate on the map areas that we knew had had flooding problems in the recent past and as far back as people could remember. We did that through the hazard assessment and the problem assessment phase of the program. That report that you have in front of you, it's over 800 pages. The bulk of the document is in that section. Because some people called it boilerplate, but that's really the documentation behind locations of flooding, proposed objectives, goals, policies and the action plan of how we want to address flooding issues in the future for the county. Now, by the way, this plan, once we put it together, we have to keep evaluating it. It's sort of like the Growth Management Plan, it's on a cycle at least every five years. So this becomes basically a living document that annually will get revised and we have to also report on it. For a mitigation strategy, we came up with a set of goals. We're required to review some activities that we can undertake to begin to Page 59 November 1, 2007 achieve those goals, and we had to draft an action plan. The actual action statements that we intend to do in this plan to make sure that we're making the community as safe as we can for the hazard of flood and protection of flood damage. The two goals that we have are on the screen before you: Reduce flood exposure and minimize flood protection efforts. And then goal two: Minimize the flood hazards, protect water quality countywide by employing watershed-based approaches that balance environmental, economic and engineering considerations. Keep in mind goal two follows right along the requirements of what's in the flood insurance plan -- or flood insurance program. We are looking at it not just from a volumetric standpoint but also FEMA wants us to address water quality conside.ration, and environmental. One of the big issues they have is making sure you leave open space in the floodplain open so it can continue to act as a reservoir to temporarily detain and store the water so that you don't raise the water levels up onto someone else and pass it on. Out of the goal one strategies, we had 12 objectives. They're listed in a shortened form for you here, just sort of like a bulletized version of them, to show you the various areas we were really focusing on. Repetitive loss is the big issue with the flood insurance program. A repetitive loss structure is one that has filed multiple flood insurance claims that exceed $1,000. And that has a time frame to it within any I O-year period. We currently have 31 structures in Collier County that are repetitive loss. We had 32 as of May of this year. One of them was demolished. And that one was our only severe repetitive loss property, which had, I think, six or seven flood claims against it. More claims have been filed against the house than the house is even worth throughout the long-term period. Here we're talking about over a number of years. Page 60 November 1,2007 And so that one is now demolished. The owner sold, the new investor bought it just for the property, demolished the house. So we were able this year to have that one removed. Our goal ultimately is to get them all removed. You remove them by mitigation to either raise the house or whatever it takes to get the house so it doesn't flood again, it's above the base flood elevation. We'll see how that goes, as we have 31 more to go. But we are talking about environmentally sensitive lands and aquifers. Compatibility is a big issue between the Growth Management Plan, the Land Development Code and the ordinances. We're talking about addressing flooding issues. Flooding, evacuation plans, coastal dune issues, protecting the dunes primarily because of their ability to reduce the amount of coastal flooding that comes in. A good example most recently would be what everyone's aware of with Katrina. Up in Biloxi years ago when Camille came through, they had a lot of flooding. They put in what they considered would be good coastal protection, said this will take care of the next hurricane, the big one that comes in. However, when Katrina came in, it swept across and just kept on going. So even though you plan for it, this doesn't mean you're going to prevent flooding. But they planned the best they knew how at the time. So as I said, coastal dunes are very important, and protecting them helps to protect the inland portion of the county from the surge. Acquisition of conservation land in the floodplain. We talked about that. There's an objective to promote development compatible with sensitive and coastal land resources. It's not saying stop it but make it compatible. Adequate emergency procedures for catastrophic floods, addressing incremental surface water impacts to the county, minimizing flood impacts within those flood zones, these special Page 61 November 1, 2007 flood hazard areas. Updating the flood maps is also an objective for us to keep that effort going. And enforcing construction requirements and avoiding deliberate variances. That one seemed to be a good one with the committee. They really thought we should avoid deliberately producing a variance for our whole purposes of don't let someone vary just because they want to. Because they'll sell that property one of these days, and that new owner then faces a potentially serious situation that they weren't wanting to have. Implementing strategies. We had 18 policies out of all those objectives. And you can see how they were basically divided into groups of six. Three different objectives had the policies attached to them. Goal two, implementing strategies. There were 10 objectives developed for that one. You can see them listed here. We can go through them individually if you want to, but you can read them ahead of you here. And we'll get into this a little bit later here. But the five policies that were coming out of those objectives for goal two, again, we had groups of two policies underneath one, groups of three policies underneath another objective. And the policies, interesting how you look here for goal two, addressing stormwater runoff on water quality and public health and then issue open space and natural resources. So you begin to see the focus of goal two is slightly different than goal one, as far as addressing the environmental side of the flood insurance program. Then we started reviewing the possible activities that we could do. There was a big push throughout the committee's effort and the citizens to have an increased emphasis and effort on maintenance of the stormwater facilities that are out there, both public and private. You can design the best system you want, but if you don't maintain it on a continual basis, it will begin to fail. And that was where we noted most of the flooding. It occurs in the older Page 62 November 1,2007 developments as maintenance begins to not occur and they begin to diminish in their capacity. There's also an activity to continue the use of development practices and standards to reduce flooding risks and correct known problems. And then the third possible activity dealt with all those public meetings we had. We had citizens come out and we asked them to fill out a brochure. And as they did so, we asked them, where have you seen flooding? Have you seen it get somebody's house? Have you seen a well go underwater? Give us some address, some locations, what would you recommend we do. And some people took the liberty, and we're thankful for it, to really give us some good comments. It was not a bash your county staff, bash your county government, this was people with real serious concerns. So we looked at that as a possible activity, emphasized correcting the problems that we had identified for us by the citizens living out there and experiencing them. Then we went to draft an action plan. Now, the action plan, you have a set of guidelines within the CRS coordinators manual. You're told, address these specific areas. So we used that as a guidebook. We put together the action plan, also coordinating it with the goals, objectives and policies within the plan. And here's the action plan broken up for you in a series of slides. Under preventive activities, now, keep in mind you'll see where it says preventive activities, that's the first of six categories we have to address. So we'll go through these slides here. Under planning and zoning, we talked about incorporating smart growth criteria. Smart growth, planning growth so it is flood-wise is one way to think of it. Amending the Land Development Code to require a special flood hazard area overlay on the zoning map. This was thought to be a good thing so people Page 63 November 1,2007 ahead of time know in your zoning maps what area you're getting into. Instead of having to go to a separate map, just put it all together. And it can be done through our GIS system. Stormwater management activities. We're looking to establish a maximum allowable discharge rate for the Belle Meade area. The study's already been done. It identified a maximum allowable discharge rate as a recommendation to be incorporated, which we have in six other basins throughout the county. So we will be going forward through the ordinance revision process to do that, to fulfill the action plan item here. Also, as said, under storm water management, develop a series of watershed management plans. That effort has already been started also through the Growth Management Plan requirements. So we're working forward on all these. Open space preservation. We'll talk about that just a little bit later. But floodplain regulations, making sure we coordinate the activities through the county's budgetary process. The committee thought there was a really strong need to coordinate this whole concept of floodplain management into the county's budget process, its capital projects, to make sure things are addressed accordingly and not tend to be ignored off to the side. Under the floodplain regulations, also evaluate amending the flood damage prevention ordinance no less than once every two years. Now, we're getting ready to come in with revisions in 2008, but they want us to look at it, what have we learned, to go from year to year and evaluate it, definitely the committee no less than once every two years. Building codes, look for ways to make the county more resistant to flood damage. Under the drainage system maintenance, stress having bi-monthly meetings with the Big Cypress Basin to coordinate Page 64 November 1,2007 maintenance with the county. We've talked about this for a long time but it never seems to bear fruit. So the committee said put this in the action plan to make sure you do it. Also address specific problems that were identified. We already talked about that. Dune and beach maintenance. We have a proactive program already going. They said continue it, keep it up, don't back off. Because maintenance of that dune and beach is very important to cut down the amount of coastal surge damage that you have. Under property protection activities, some of these you'll notice we say there's no activity. We really did not come up with a plan for relocating someone's house out of the floodplain, because the floodplain covers so much of the county. We don't have a small riverine area where we can simply move up on the side of the hill. We don't have the hills around here. So that one did not seem to fall within any parameter that we saw as being viable to have someone just pick their house up and move it somewhere else. Where are you going to move it that it will still not be in the floodplain? So retrofitting did appear to be, though, a very good concept. Basically elevating the house, whatever it takes to make the house resistant to flooding. But to do so quite often requires people to go get a grant through FEMA to help them with the cost. And to get the grant through FEMA, you have to have some upfront monies that most people who have the houses that are the older, lower-lying houses don't have the money to raise them up in the first place. So they looked at the concept evaluate a local government-funded loan assistance program for the repetitive loss properties. Keep in mind they limit it to repetitive loss. That means that there's 31 of these structures throughout the county that the committee wanted us to look at to consider having a loan. It's not a grant, it's not to be given to them and never recovered, but a loan Page 65 November 1,2007 system offered to people to help them meet that initial upfront monies they have to have for matching participation with FEMA. Under the acquisition activity, evaluate the concept of a loan program to help them even apply for the grant. Building elevations. The committee really liked the concept of one foot of freeboard. That means requiring development to have a minimum of one foot higher than that base flood elevation. We've already taken that through the planning commission and the workshop level. We've taken it to the Board of County Commissioners in a workshop level. Everyone is in agreement that it is a very good idea. That also helps us quite a bit on our point score with the CRS program, just building one foot higher, which, if you talk to many of the builders, they're doing it anyway. So it's not like it's absolutely out of this world strange. Now, sewer backup protection, we didn't see that as being an activity that we wanted to pursue here, because we don't have the problem of sewer backups in basements that are in northern communities. But FEMA's program is nationwide so this is an activity that we're supposed to show how we're addressing it. We simply say it's not applicable down here. Insurance again, because of the requirements they have within the plan, we did not address any specific issues to change the msurance program. Natural resources protection is that third area we had to address. We're talking about wetland protection, promoting more open space for floodplain use. Look for lands to buy their open space that are in the floodplain so we can preserve them in such a fashion. Erosion and sediment control emphasizes the use of best management practices, and that's along the lines of also bringing about better enforcement of best management practices to prevent erosion at the construction sites and even afterwards. Page 66 November 1, 2007 Improve the efficiency of these BMPs, the best management practices. And for coastal barrier protection, we did not have any. Keep in mind, our coastal barriers are not the same barriers that people would have in other parts, particularly the Panhandle where you've got the big, steep dune area. We don't have that. Ours are very shallow. We already have some coastal barrier islands, they have regulations on them. We did not see at this particular version of the floodplain management plan a need to address that topic. Subsequent years we may, but we did not feel so right now. Under emergency services, the emphasis there out of the first two, through emergency services department, emergency management department is to continue our storm-ready certification. There's a lot of factors behind that terminology, a lot of requirements that are met. And we're certified as storm ready. So we're saying keep that up. That simple statement carries a lot of weight with FEMA when you're talking about a flood insurance program. Under critical facilities protection, discussion has been going around for a while about what are critical facilities. But basically we're talking public and private facilities that are identified as critical, meaning they're hazardous materials areas, they're public utilities, emergency situations, your EMS, your Sheriffs stations, things -- substations for power, things that when you have a flood, you don't want them to fail. And so the concept there is design them for that 500-year event, a .2 percent annual chance storm event. And then under health and safety issues, expand the best management practices outreach opportunities to get more and more people starting to look at BMPs. Under structural projects, we don't have reservoirs, we could not address that. We don't have levies, floodwalls, seawalls. Page 67 November 1, 2007 Now, we're talking about seawalls designed to withstand that one percent annual chance event storm surge, the 100-year event. We're not talking about the seawall for somebody's dock behind their house. That will get overtopped. We're talking about the big massive seawalls, levies such as New Orleans -- let's don't go there. We don't want to think about that kind of situation here. Diversions. We talked about how can we incorporate diversions. We know that there are two diversionary projects in the thought process right now. One of them, the Picayune Strand, is more than thought, it's actually in design. But North Belle Meade rehydration concept of taking a large volume of water out of the Golden Gate canal, running it south into the north end of the Belle Meade watershed as it historically used to go instead ofletting it continue to flow west and into Naples Bay. That helps from a flooding standpoint, it helps from an environmental standpoint. And then the Picayune Strand restoration project, that is ongoing. That's the building of the canals in south blocks of the Estates. And so we're working with the District and the Corps on that issue. Channel modification. We know we need to make some channel capacity improvements, so the committee said well, let's put in here that we're going to try to seek grants to help out as much as we can on those improvements and also make sure that the stormwater management departments, capital improvement project budget is fully funded. They put lists up there for projects that are needed, then put a big emphasis out for the Board of County Commissioners to fund them. And so that's the direction we went with it. We've already talked about the ongoing beach renourishment Issues. Under storm sewers, culverts, swales and ditches, the committee Page 68 November 1, 2007 wanted us to evaluate the use of slotted pipes. That can be pro, that can be con, so the effect of it. The purpose here is to evaluate where the use is appropriate to try to encourage more groundwater discharge. Actually, you're perking into the ground. I don't mean that you're draining your groundwater into the pipe. And that's the situation you have to avoid because the water will flow both ways through that slot. And where it is possible to let the water flow out and perk into the ground, they want us to evaluate that. And it carries some weight with it. That very concept is what's proposed if they ever wanted to enclose the swales in Naples Park. That's a permit condition through the DEP already, and has been for a number of years. Underneath that same issue, evaluate the benefits of cross-drains in northern Golden Gate Estates to help restore flowways. As you know, the Golden Gate Estates is just a patchwork of roads spread out in a uniform one-mile pattern, so -- or quarter-mile pattern, I should say. The one-mile long the streets are. But they produce ditches and dikes to the historical flow of the water. And so the concept was consider putting cross-drains in to promote the old flowways again. The more water you keep in the flowway, the less you have to handle in a ditch or a canal somewhere. Under public information, which is a big issue with the flood insurance program, we're trying to get more information out so people will know where you are, what's out there. We want us to locate all the existing mobile homes in the special flood hazard area. That's the A, V, E and VE zones. And also to put together in the GIS a listing showing the locations wherever someone has a flood insurance policy, begin to develop a pattern. That one's going to be fun to do in GIS, because as ownerships change you're going to have to constantly keep up with that. But we'll see how that one turns out. Page 69 November 1, 2007 But it's a good effort because it lets people know this is the potential area where you are located for flood insurance, and if we ever have to do any kind of mass mailings to those people, we would have that information readily available. For outreach projects, the committee really wanted us to continue those evening public information meetings as we go into this wintertime, people are back down. They want us to keep it up. They felt we got such good information that they want this to be an annual program. Get out there. But when you get the information from the public, follow up with it and implement it. Also to enhance the floodplain management website, get more information on that. That's a new website and we're still building on it. It's available, but basically it's still under construction, although it doesn't say that, so you'll know. They want us to make sure that under real estate there's disclosure statements so that we get an all-hazard statement out to every realtor. They want us to seek grant funding if necessary to make sure we can pay for it to get the information out to people, let them know what you're getting ready to buy. Maintain the current flood information within the library system. That is now in there. We have it in four of the main libraries in the county. They want us to keep technical assistance going, and even beef it up so that we give people lots of information when they call. They want a single point to address the issues versus saying well, let me transfer you here, transfer you there. And then the environmental education, we've already talked about that one. Now, as we get into plan maintenance-- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Wiley? MR. WILEY: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I don't mean to interrupt you. We've been going on about a half an hour, and I know we've all read the Page 70 November 1,2007 document in front of us, and certainly you can continue, but obviously this is going to take longer just because of your presentation than I thought it would. And I can't see the school people having to sit here while we end up listening to the rest of this, we ask our multitude of comments and then we still take lunch. So out of deference to them, I would like to suggest that the earliest that we would start the school board concurrency is at 1 :00 today. Does anybody on this panel disagree with that? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: No. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: No. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. That's for the benefit of the school folks. I am sorry you were here all morning. I could not tell ahead of time how fast this was going to go. But we will not resume the school concurrency until no earlier than 1 :00. Mr. Wiley, go right ahead. MR. WILEY: And I'm sorry for the lengthy presentation. This just happened to be a really big document to go through that we have to cover certain points publicly. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I know. And you have given it to us, and to be honest with you, we all have read it. Well, I shouldn't say -- I have read it twice. But that's fine, I understand why you want to get certain things on record, and I ask that you get to the -- I also met with two representatives of yours before this meeting and suggested they not provide a lengthy presentation, because you provided a 900-page document that we had ample time to go through, if we wanted to, of the relevance of which was only the first 87 pages anyway. And out of those, there is only maybe six pages that are relevant regarding the policies that we're supposed to review, which is the GMP. Page 71 November 1,2007 Now, having said all that, I ask that you start to consider winding your presentation down. MR. WILEY: I am heading down the final stretch right now. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. MR. WILEY: Adopting the plan is what will come after this meeting. We go to the Board of County Commissioners, they will adopt it through a resolution to include Section 7 of the Hazard Mitigation Plan. Then they officially adopt the Hazard Mitigation Plan, which covers a lot more than just flooding. And then following that up, we have the ongoing effort to implement it, evaluate it and revise it through the annual process of giving the Board of County Commissioners an annual progress report. Just to let you know what's been going on already, in 2006 we already took an LDC amendment through that you're aware of about the 18 inches above the crown of the road for the maximum height you can put the fill on a property. So this is a process that's been gomg on. In the 2007 amendment cycle one, there's a proposed regulation to limit the amount of impervious area on a property, to begin to regulate that so we don't have increased amounts of runoff getting out of hand. Amendment cycle two, we're bringing before you the interim watershed management regulations that have a lot of flood plan issues involved with them. In 2008 we're going to be coming to you with recommended amendments to the flood damage prevention ordinance. And we've already talked to that in a workshop. So as you can see, this effort is already moving forward, and this plan that you have is simply an issue that we have to document and submit to FEMA every so many years. It's that year now. With that, we have discussion and questions. I'd be glad to help Page 72 November 1,2007 you out through this one. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: For the panel's benefit, I know that you have read the document. The meat of the issues really gets into -- starts on Page 50, that's the language that is proposed to be changed in the GMP. Prior to that is a good history of what's been going on and how they've processed through to get to that language. And so if the committee doesn't mind, what I -- I know we take everything page at a time. But I'd rather just ask that ifthere's any questions from pages 1 through 49, we'll entertain those and then we'll start on Page 50. Mr. Schiffer? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And it's on Page 29. It's a chart. And the reason I'm asking this question is we review PUDs and stuff, Robert. What kind of input does this data have? I mean, is somebody studying this? Is somebody going to look on, for example, a page like this and discuss how a project is going to be impacting flowways? MR. WILEY: Basically as that goes through the review process with county staff, that's one of the things I get involved with. So we are reviewing it. Does it have an exact procedure? No. Because you look at them differently as to where they're located. Some will get a lot more serious review because if it's an area that doesn't have that issue, it doesn't get looked at with near the same level for regional benefits as if you have someone proposing totally new flowway instructions or something. But we're already doing that. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. So if a project is in a sensitive area, as this map would show, you would be providing that input. MR. WILEY : Well, again, this map shows you what is coming Page 73 November 1, 2007 as a result of the interim watershed management regulations, okay? Now, that's where we have been especially asked to look at them. But any of these areas that are here, we are already looking at them. This just sort of helps the people who are going to be coming with projects to know where we're going to be looking anyway. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: What do those two acronyms mean, they're not in your list, the ADG and the BAT? MR. WILEY: I wish I could tell you. This map came to us out of the Southwest Florida feasibility study. And so it was to try to coordinate an existing regional project already on, so we just simply took a draft of their map and brought it in here for consistency purposes. I don't know what the letters stand for, though. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: What's the use of it then? MR. WILEY: We just put the whole map in so everybody can quickly reference right back to Southwest Florida feasibility study, and you'll see that same nomenclature there. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Very good. Thank you. I'm done, Mark. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Murray? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: On Page 12, just to clarify something, under 7.5, the first paragraph there, it says approximately 400 to 500 square miles. That's quite a difference. Four hundred square miles would be, from what I typically hear, is about -- 80 percent of the land is in conservation, et cetera. But 500, where do you pick up the 500? Seems like an enormous variance, 100 square miles. MR. WILEY: That's basically looking at here's the county and just get back far enough, it's going to take roughly -- we didn't actually draw the fine line going around it. Just when you looked at it from FEMA's perspective, how much is land from a broad area do you figure is even considerable (sic) developable. Page 74 November 1, 2007 That doesn't mean it's all going to get developed. That's not looking at all the angel (phonetic) flowways or things like that, just -- when you take that percentage of the county, so many square miles, you've got 20, 25 percent of it is a max that's ever -- that we can perceive right now would have a chance for development. That's all the way up to Immokalee, the coastline, everything. And just a broad number is all that was. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: All right. MR. WILEY: It's sort of like signing your name with a can of spray paint. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Okay, I'm ready to go to Page 49,50. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody else on the first 49 pages? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Wiley, I want to get something on the record, starting on Page 50. Your proposed language will have -- or could have, the way it's written, a rather great impact in Collier County in the form of ad valorem taxes, special taxes or actual building costs to individual builders and homes. And because of that, no doubt if some of the things were instituted as written, you could expect maybe an outcry from people who feel that they didn't have participation. So I want to make the record clear about the efforts your group went through, and I think they were excellent efforts in trying to seek public participation. And that is on Page 10. Basically, specific notices were mailed and e-mailed to special interest groups. Then you got a very poor response to that. Then you sent out certified letters to these same groups requesting their collaboration. Again, you got a -- very little response was received to that. Then you sent out to special interest organizations more review on August 17th. And each time you had apparently minimal public Page 75 November 1,2007 input. And these are from the stakeholders that are required to be notified by Florida Statutes of GMP amendments. And these are -- could I assume they were engineering firms, development firms, building companies? MR. WILEY: That and other areas, too. I mean, we have a list of people who seemed to be expressing concerns, so we tried to put it together and make sure they were aware of it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Did you notify the CBIA group on a regular basis? MR. WILEY: Ah, CBIA. I know they even have a representative who is coming to our committee, so that they're aware of it, but as to notifications, Mike would know how to answer that one. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: What I'm trying to get-- MR. WILEY: Mike did the notification process, I didn't do that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: We have a requirement by statute to make sure that we notify the stakeholders. I'mjust making it very clear that we did that. Because the implementation of your language, as written, if it isn't modified has grave financial impacts to this county in all sectors. And I want to make sure that the record is cl ear. And Mike, if you're the one to answer this as far as stakeholders go, groups and organizations, Chamber of Commerce, EDC, CBIA, were they involved or notified to be involved or requested to be involved? MR. DeRUNTZ: We had an extensive list that we sent out, and CBIA was notified. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's what I'm trying to find out. Thank you very much. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Mark, can I add something-- MR. SCHMITT: Could I ask to put on the record also that the Page 76 November 1, 2007 DSAC was thoroughly briefed on this as well, the development services advisory committee. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Were they seeing the document we're seeing today? MR. SCHMITT: Robert? MR. WILEY: Yes, they have. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Did they comment on the goals and objectives section for the DMP? MR. WILEY: They're still doing so. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Pardon me? MR. WILEY: They're still doing so. We have met with them twice and we're still going to be with them one more time. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I would have expected to see the benefit of their results. That obviously won't happen from what I understand then because they're now still reviewing it; is that right? MR. WILEY: They are still waiting to finish the review and vote on it officially. We've met with their sub-committee, so -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That would be like us reviewing some new fire codes without going through Brad's fire group, and I'm a little concerned about that. Mr. Schiffer, you had a comment? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Just that the list of people is Exhibit 8 in your report. Exhibit 8 is chopping off the names of everybody, so you may want to recompile that. MR. WILEY: Thank you, sir. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: That was it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Why is this procedure out of sequence? Normally we see things after the subordinate boards have time to review them, and then we get the benefit of their comments, because they are more specialized boards. Why is that happening? MR. WILEY: In the case with DSAC, we have gone to them, Page 77 November 1, 2007 they have met with us, they have some comments about it. They've asked us to come back. Primarily they're holding off because they're still waiting for us, which we're still trying to prepare a map that would show the location of all these interim watershed management regulation issues, where there's that one point in there that says, and other areas known to be susceptible to inundation and flooding. They said, well, where is that? We're still trying to put that map together. The other issues, we've gone through with them and you get some support and they keep holding off on voting until we get this map to them. We don't have the map finalized yet, which is not even in your plan yet, unfortunately. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Klatzkow, this is a GMP Issue, and I think maybe we're the LP A in regards to this. If recommendations come out of DSAC, and they are viable recommendations, ones that should be considered, concerned and possibly implemented, would they -- how do they get implemented if we've already been done with the issue? MR. KLA TZKOW: Well, you can ask staff to bring it back to you. MR. SCHMITT: Let me clear it for the record. These are not GMP amendments yet. You're looking at a plan that sets policies that go to the next step, which is GMP amendments, LDC amendments and other things. You're not actually looking at a GMP amendment here. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. So this GMP language as proposed is something that you're trying to put together to implement in another GMP round, a cycle that will occur next year? MR. WILEY: That's correct. These themselves do not change the GMPs that we have. But these are setting direction for putting it into motion the next cycle. Page 78 November 1,2007 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But then you're taking it from us to the BCC, and that means you'd be taking DSAC's comments directly to the BCC as well. MR. WILEY: Well, we take everybody's comments, yes, sir. Including yours, yes, sir. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: We just wouldn't have the benefit of DSAC, but we will prior to the next round of true GMP implementation. MR. WILEY: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Well, that's good to know. With that, we'll move on. And I guess we're on Page 50. We're going to have to take it page at a time through the proposed GMP language. There may be a lot of comments. And let's just start actually with Page 50, and it's 7.8, Setting Goals. And we'll just go on through the entire page at one time. Are there any comments, questions, on Page 50? Mr. Murray? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: On Policy 1.1.5, it says conduct site investigations, research exposure and hazard data. Could you just give me an example of what you mean by researching exposure? MR. WILEY: Where that comes into play is, as you look at it, repetitive loss. We know that there are 31 of these in the county. So when someone comes to us with -- let's just use an example-- COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I got it with that. MR. WILEY: -- a building modification requires a building permit. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I got it with that. You satisfied that question. Under Objective 1.2, pollution control is the lead agency there. And I wondered, is that a sub of the transportation department? MR. WILEY: No, sir, that is in the public utilities division. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: So-- Page 79 November 1, 2007 MR. WILEY: Now, let's explain this. These lead agencies, these were the recommendations given to us and assigned to us by the county manager. And basically he's looking for people to oversee other people to make sure they get the job done. It doesn't mean that they're the ones out there doing it, but the county manager tried to set up a structure so that different departments begin to work with each other. And so you have the lead agency who's helping to make sure the others follow up and comply with these things. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Okay. And I appreciate what the county manager would like to achieve. That's fine. Under Objective 1.5, we're talking about prohibiting private and commercial development and we're talking about restored dunes. We would be -- then when we go with a GMP amendment, they would be looking to qualify -- require the dunes restoration or qualify it or enhance the dunes structurally or whatever. Is that the intent there? MR. WILEY: There will be a lot more refinement before it gets to that level, yes, sir. This is the recommendation for direction for us to take, is basically what this document is. It's a planning document. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Got you. Thank you. That was all for that page. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody else on Page 50? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Bob, Policy 1.1.1. It's talking about repetitive loss in -- does that -- let's see. Reduce repetitive loss in FEMA designated flood zones through land acquisition and/or engineering stormwater solutions when appropriate. I would like you to consider adding the words and financially feasible. MR. WILEY: You mean after the word appropriate, add financially feasible? Page 80 November 1, 2007 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes. MR. WILEY: We can do that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Only because I'd hate to see us locked into something just because it's appropriate, but we can't afford it. In the future that could happen an awful lot. I will have that repeated philosophy through quite a few of your paragraphs. MR. WILEY: That's a very good comment, sir. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Objective 1.2, you're talking about protect environmentally sensitive lands and aquifers to maximize their survivability from known flood hazards. Again, I have to ask for a caveat on there, where appropriate and financially feasible. 1.3 would be the same thing. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Mark? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes, Mr. Midney? COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: How do you determine financially feasible? What -- you know, you sort of have to have some sort of laws or regulations to determine that, don't you? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: County Commissioners would have to have a budget that can do it. If their budget can't do it and they can't raise ad valorem taxes, or they have no other sources, it may not be financially feasible. But I would hate to have to see this take precedent over other items because the language in this is stronger than the other items are, and all of a sudden we have to divert funds we need vitally somewhere else for this issue. So that's my purpose, is to give that flexibility. It's there if we want to use it. The public pressure will determine how they use it. And I think that's the appropriate mechanism that we really need in dealing with this kind of issue. Objective lA, it says develop an efficient coastal storm surge Page 81 November 1, 2007 and inland flooding evacuation plans. That's like saying what we currently have is not efficient. So I'm just wondering if you need the word efficient or you need another word. Because efficiency, I think what we have right now for our times may be considered efficient, and for liability purposes I certainly would argue it is. I don't know if putting a word in here that we need efficient systems is connotating a negative to what we currently have. MR. WILEY: So your preference is to strike -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Either strike that word or come in with a word that doesn't negate what we currently have. MR. WILEY: I'm open to suggestion. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I'd just as soon strike it then, it makes it simpler. Ms. Caron? COMMISSIONER CARON: Or just say develop additional coastal storm surge and inland flooding evacuation plans. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's fine, too. Is that -- COMMISSIONER CARON: I think that we are talking about additional regulations, correct, Robert? MR. WILEY: Well, when we were meeting with the committee that the governor set up on coastal issues, the state department of emergency management was trying to get all coastal communities to be able to evacuate within less than 12 hours. And we don't meet that. Most coastal communities don't meet that. And we may never meet that. So just to say that ours is absolutely the greatest plan, no. It works, but it still doesn't quite get to the point that the state would like to see us. So that's where the concept of efficient came in. But additional, I have no problem with that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I was thinking of -- or we could say develop comprehensive coastal storm surge and inland flooding Page 82 November 1, 2007 evacuation plans. That might be even a better word. COMMISSIONER CARON: Yeah. MR. WILEY: Yes, that's better than conditional. Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: On 1.5 I read that, and I thought great idea. But why is it here? Why isn't that in the CCME? Why are we putting this in this document? Because now what we're going to have, just like we discovered on the review of improvements in the coastal high hazard area, and I think it came up on the Cocanelia project, that there's a conflict in various segments of the GMP that have redundancy. Some stuff in the FLUE doesn't coincide with the CCME. And I'm wondering, is this necessary in your floodplain management section or would this go in the CCME? MR. WILEY: Well, this concept is already in the CCME -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, then-- MR. WILEY: -- but in our floodplain plan FEMA doesn't review our CCME, and they want us to address coastal dunes, so that's why we have the topic discussed in here. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Is it verbatim? MR. WILEY: I couldn't quote that one, sir. I don't know. The concept is there, but I don't know if it's verbatim. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Would you check to make sure there's no conflict? Because the last thing we need is different parts of the GMP conflicting with newer parts. MR. WILEY: Okay. COMMISSIONER CARON: I don't think it's necessarily conflicting, but it is not verbatim. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, we ought to take a look at that, just to make sure. MR. WILEY: Let me just interject here, you may tend to find things that appear to be repetitive with other parts of the government's document that we have, but again, we had to repeat because this has Page 83 November 1, 2007 to be a complete plan for FEMA to review. We've already been told that we have a lot of stuff we don't need in here by other people, but we say it's got to stand alone. And then when you incorporate it, you've already got that portion of it. So just to help you understand that one. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Well, I'm glad you said that because it does resolve some other questions. Thank you. Okay, any questions on -- let's go to Page 51. Questions on Page -- Mr. Schiffer? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Objective 1.9. Robert, what does the word incremental really mean? Is that -- it's the same thing as rising or movement laterally, or damage growing or -- MR. WILEY: Basically that deals with the situation from different levels of storms. So you're not going to design everything to this one huge storm event, but the practical side of it is you're willing to accept certain levels of risk for different features here. So the incremental deals with that. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Brad, anything else? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Well, I think other people could ask that -- I mean, your answer is good. Is there a way we could work some of your answer into the objective? MR. WILEY: Help me. I'm willing. That's the trouble, when I know what I mean, to me it means it already. So I'm very willing to edit this thing. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Well, you're using incremental .surface water impacts. Maybe you should use incremental storm impacts. I mean, is it just the surface water you're focused on or the flood -- MR. WILEY: Well, you have a quantity and you have a quality issue that are involved here. So for instance a developer, he'll design a project to handle the one inch of water quality. But then Page 84 November 1, 2007 quantity-wise he's going for the 25-year, three-day storm event, but then he has to put his house at the 100-year elevation. So even in different parts of the county the canal system can only take so much. There's lots of factors back and forth that all get played here. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Well, leave it then. MR. WILEY: Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: We're still on Page 51. Are there any other questions? Mr. Murray? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: On Policy 1.10.3, provide technical information, and also on Policy 1.10.1 where you say assistance to, they pretty much establish the same thing. Who authors that technical information that we're going to provide? Is that something from within the county or we have expertise from elsewhere, or is it a conglomeration of things? What is it that it is? MR. WILEY: Primarily what we're doing is we're showing the people the publications produced by FEMA. We give them the information, we show them how to access it on the website, we'll print them off copies. But then sometimes people say well, I don't understand this. So you sit and you explain to them how to do it. And we're not trying to generate information ourselves as much as show them what's out there already available to comply with the flood insurance program. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: That -- do you anticipate much staff time associated with that? I'm trying to relate that to cost, again, financially feasible how much we're opening ourselves up to. MR. WILEY: Generally speaking, it's not a lot of staff time. Most of the people, their concern deals with what can I do to get my property out of the flood zone. And they want to know what that means. So within five, six minutes on the telephone you explain to Page 85 November 1,2007 them what they have to do, the procedures to apply to FEMA for an exemption from the flood insurance requirements. That's the biggest one. Very few people have actually come to us asking for recommendations on what they can do. But it does happen. Just within the past two weeks I've helped a gentleman on that even, so -- it's very rare, though. MR. DeRUNTZ: For the record, Mike DeRuntz, principal planner with comprehensive planning. Along those policies, I met with the real estate board, and they're very interested in participating with county staff and having workshops to educate that profession. And also with the CBIA, the same way, getting their members more knowledgeable of floodplain regulations and ways to address reducing the flood impacts on properties. So I see us in the future developing workshops with those different groups. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Will there be a fee associated with attendance, or is that a public service to them? MR. DeRUNTZ: A public service. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: In Policy 1.10.5, protect critical facilities, are we speaking only of government facilities here? MR. WILEY: No, we're talking private also. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Hospitals, things of that nature? MR. WILEY: Hospitals, places with hazardous material storage, generators, things of that nature, yes, sir. Things you don't want to fail in time of a flood. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: And on Policy 1.10.6, I just thought it odd that the lead agency was facilities management, not emergency management. Of course you folks know best, I guess, but I just thought that was a little strange. MR. WILEY: The background for that is our facilities Page 86 November 1, 2007 management department handles the public facilities that are the government-owned facilities, and that is why we set them in the lead of it. Since they're doing it for their own facilities, they would tend to be able to address it with other people asking for assistance too. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Okay. And lastly on 1.11 it says, based on the best available. How about the latest and authorized technical data and analysis? Best available, I've seen where brochures are still in locations where they're a year and a half old, et cetera. Maybe some means of making sure that we have the latest and authorized by the right persons. Some verbiage like that perhaps. MR. WILEY: Let me explain why it says best available, and then we'll be glad to modify it. But we have certain portions of the county that are approximate A zones, that would be basically for rule of thumb east of State Route 29. And there's a little bit north of Immokalee. In approximate A zones, there is no base elevation defined, base flood elevation. It's not defined. And so FEMA says use best available information. That's why this wording is in here. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: When the UDAR is concluded, I don't know if that's still in effect, I assume that they're still using the LIDAR to do the mapping -- MR. WILEY: What that is useful for is your ground elevation, but that doesn't establish your flood elevation for that -- COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Okay, so that's a different criterion. MR. WILEY: A little bit different, yes, sir. But if you want to modify it, I just wanted you to understand why it says best available. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: No, I don't want to modify anything unnecessarily, I just -- you've explained it to me and I appreciate what it is. And if the FEMA is satisfied to use that phrase, I'm not going to argue with FEMA at this point. Page 87 November 1, 2007 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Any other questions on Page 51? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I've got some, Bob. Objective 1.6, continue acquisition of Conservation Lands, and that's capitalized, within the floodplain to assist with mitigation of flood events. The fact that it's capitalized leads me to believe when you say conservation lands, are you referring to lands that are purchased by Conservation Collier? MR. WILEY: Yes, sir. It may not need to be capitalized here, but that's why. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, Conservation Collier was put forth to the public as an additional tax voluntarily through referendum to purchase open space and conservation lands above and beyond what was already necessary for various facilities and operations in Collier County. Now I see Conservation Collier lands being utilized by count, like for the parks and rec. department, we heard through the AUIR. The Pepper Ranch discussion occurred partly, they-- transportation staff wanted to use some of that land if they ever got it for mitigation purposes. And now you're talking about using it, continue the acquisition for floodplain assistance. I don't believe that was the intention of the referendum or the voters. Now, I could be dead wrong, but before you include this Objective 1.6, I would ask that you take this to the Conservation Collier committee and let them know you're thinking of adding this here and get their opinion on it. They are meeting in the middle of November. It would be an easy thing to do. And I would suggest that you do that so we don't have any intentional conflict between what we told the voters and what's actually -- how the lands are being possibly utilized. MR. WILEY: Yes, sir. We have had quite a bit of discussion with Alex Sulecki on this, and her concern is can she even utilize Page 88 November 1, 2007 Conservation Collier lands for floodplain. The background of this one basically says if you're buying lands that are in the floodplain anyway, let them go ahead and be used for open space for floodplain storage. We're not proposing to go in there and use Collier lands to modify them to make them floodplain storage. And so that also has been part of the discussion within our committee, a desire to do just that. And we're saying you can't do that. But if they happen to be there and there's opportunity, I guess the concept is as a part of their criteria for Conservation Collier, use the issue of it is in the floodplain and give us open space storage but a criteria for evaluation. But we need to take this to that committee to make sure they're in agreement with that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I think the purpose for that is twofold. I don't think you ever want to let anybody make the assumption you're trying to do something that may have been told in a different way during the referendum. You certainly wouldn't want any misconception that we're trying to capitalize on additional taxes that are out there. It would be a very good thing to do, and if you don't do it now, we'd probably ask that you do it before the GMP round, if it came in anyway. So why don't we just cross that threshold and get it done. And that way everybody can say, hey, we took it to all the right authorities and everything is fine. MR. WILEY: Good idea. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Objective 1.8, you use the word ensure the adequacy and completeness of emergency procedures that address catastrophic flood events. I don't think anybody can ensure things. In fact, Louisiana knows that with the dikes around their town. So why don't we use the word review instead of ensure. Page 89 November 1, 2007 MR. WILEY: Good word. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Objective 1.9, develop a policy that -- and you use a word, I'm not sure how I would read it, it says deals with. And I'm just -- is there a better word than deals with? I mean, I know there is. You guys have always used them. And that's the first time I heard you use that kind of connotation. I can't suggest one sitting here today but I made a note that there's got to be a better word for that. And I would suggest that you -- you might -- if you have an idea. Ms. Caron? MR. WILEY: Should we just simply say that addresses-- COMMISSIONER CARON: How about the word addresses-- MR. WILEY: -- or evaluates, or something along that line? COMMISSIONER CARON: Develop a policy that addresses incremental surface water impacts throughout the county. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That works. How does that sound to you? MR. WILEY: Got it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Number -- Objective 1.10, you're talking about minimizing impacts from flooding in FEMA. I agree we should be doing that, but I certainly would like to add the words where financially feasible. Policy 1.10.2, review existing development regulations to ensure that they minimize to the extent feasible flooding impacts to other properties. Now, in this case I would suggest you drop the language to the extent feasible. That provides a level that we may not be able to reach in all cases. Where if you're just reviewing it and you're making recommendations, that provides a more adaptable level. MR. WILEY: Let me just ask a question. As I'm looking at remove (sic) that feasible, if the development itself shows that they're not causing any increase, do you say that they would have to reduce Page 90 November 1,2007 the existing flooding impacts on the neighboring property? Just want to get your thought train going here. When you remove that to the extent feasible, if they haven't caused it in the first place, it's already flooding, does that mean they have to go the other way? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Let me tell you where I was going with the suggestion on that language. If you say you've got to do something to the extent feasible in this connotation, and there is a way to do it, they're almost obligated then to do it at any cost. That's where my concern was. I'm always looking for the extreme. Not saying that you'd go there, but somebody that may replace you someday might go there. MR. WILEY: I hadn't even thought of your direction. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So that was my concern. If you can figure out or suggest an alternative, or maybe leaving that language in and adding to the -- as financially feasible or something like that, but MR. WILEY: I can even strike it. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: And Mark, wouldn't you have to eliminate the word ensure as well? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That was my -- yeah, once I got past step one I was going to go to step two. MR. WILEY: Okay, Ray Smith has suggested maybe it says to the extent practical, or even just to strike it out might work just as well, though. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's what I was suggesting is just to strike it. Because it still reads you're going to have the review there, and the review's going to develop into LDRs that are going to then -- the LDRs get down to the meat of this. But I don't want the LDRs to be so limited by the tight language here that they can't be flexible enough to give us some latitude if we need it. So that's what I was looking for. Page 91 November 1, 2007 And then the word ensure becomes into play agam. Ms. Caron, do you have a -- COMMISSIONER CARON: Well, I just want to make sure that we are not mixing insure with ensure, so -- MR. WILEY: We're not using the I-N-S-U-R-E. COMMISSIONER CARON: They're not trying to msure anything. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Let's talk about definitions. Mr. Murray, this is just up your bag. You love words, so -- COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Ensure in the context he used it was appropriate. He didn't introduce financial matters about insurance. I think it's often, though, that those words are used interchangeably, and in the context it can be construed. The grammarian, though, I'm not. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I need someone to define Mr. Murray's statement. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Try the gentleman from the legal department. MR. KLA TZKOW: Well, I know the difference between ensure with an E and insure with an I. I generally don't use either word in my documents, because it is one that is confusing to a lot of people. And two, quite frankly, it's a very hard thing to do, to ensure anything. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's why I've been concerned about it in my reading of this text. So with that in mind, what's another word we could use there, Mr. Wiley, that would work and still not be so definitive? COMMISSIONER CARON: Just strike it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Just strike it? How about -- COMMISSIONER MURRAY: How about just simply reVIew existing -- Page 92 November 1, 2007 COMMISSIONER CARON: Review existing development regulations to minimize flooding impacts to other properties. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Right. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's fine. I like that. Thank you, Ms. Caron. Okay, under 1.10.3, provide technical information regarding flood proofing and retrofitting of property, structures in FEMA-designated special flood hazard areas in other areas of the county. And I would suggest that we add language that would minimize substantial flood damage instead of prevent, because it's very hard to prevent. MR. WILEY: Good. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ten -- 1.10.4, and here we go with the ensured again. I think it should be review proposed construction development projects. And after the word projects, I'd suggest you add the word to minimize or eliminate flood risk where financially feasible, without introducing additional flood impacts to other properties. MR. WILEY: So you start off with the word evaluate, you say? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Review. MR. WILEY: Review. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Or evaluate, that's a good word, too. I think that does the same thing, but you-- MR. WILEY: Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And we're looking to minimize or eliminate flood risks where financially feasible without introducing additional flooding impacts to other properties. Policy 1.10.6, now, this one is interesting. I understand you want to target harden various buildings, public facilities, but don't you want to do it in just certain zones? So if they occur in certain FEMA zones, those are the ones you'd have to do it. Because the way this reads, it would be all public Page 93 November 1,2007 facilities. And you've got them in places that may need not to be hardened, places like Immokalee, places elsewhere in the county. MR. WILEY: What we're finding is that wind damage doesn't necessarily match up with flood zones, so that's why we didn't want to limit it just quite to that region. Your wind can have far reaching effects beyond an area that floods. The -- I say that because through the emergency management department we have what is called a local mitigation strategy work group. And they've come up with target hardening projects on our approved mitigation list that once it gets on that list makes it eligible to apply for FEMA grant funding and other federal grant funding, and those are not limited just to the flood zone areas. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, that's what I was trying to understand. Okay, that's all the questions I had on Page 51. Anybody have any others? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: If not, we'll move on to Page 52. Are there any questions on Page 52? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Robert-- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Schiffer, then Mr. Murray. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Robert, we have areas of the county that have not been determined for flood zones, essentially Policy 1.11.3. Why is that? In other words, we have areas that are undeterminable but possible. What does that exactly mean and is that what you mean by this policy? MR. WILEY: In 1.11.3 where we talk about continue active participation in the flood insurance community rating system, that doesn't really deal with establishing flood zones, though. If! understood, you said 1.11.3? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Correct. Page 94 November 1, 2007 MR. WILEY: Our active participation in the CRS program basically deals with the program the county is involved in, how we use that to provide discounts on flood insurance policies that the current owners have. But let's address your area that you're speaking of, would be the flood zone 0, an area of -- undetermined. Currently that would be almost all of Golden Gate Estates north ofI-75, and then it swings up and incorporates even a good portion of the Immokalee area and all of urban Immokalee area. The current flood insurance rate maps, as I said, are based strictly upon a coastal surge evaluation. Now, when they came with the maps in 1998, we did not agree with those maps. That's when they -- basically they took the coastal area, they evaluated changing the location and the elevations in the VE zones and the AE zones. The X zone is still located landward of that. But then FEMA came up and they said well, you've got all this interior area that we just think is susceptible to flooding, so they were going to declare all of that an approximate A zone, which mandates flood insurance. But it's very expensive. And since there's no base flood elevation, it would throw the county in a big quandary as to we are supposed to establish an elevation before we could ever approve a building permit. We negotiated with them for a number of years. By the time we got around to the maps that are currently implemented with an effective date of November 2005, FEMA had agreed, we had shown them enough information that they had no justification to base a large portion of the county on to put in an approximate A zone. But they didn't know what to do with it otherwise, so they agreed to put it into a 0 zone. Now, they still left a good portion of the eastern county in the approximate A zone, but that, the boundary they carved out, that was the best we could get them to agree to. So we have this block of 0 Page 95 November 1, 2007 zone area that doesn't have an evaluation for it. At the same time we did that, though, we went into an agreement with them that we are developing those flood maps that will cover that area. So we're doing the coastal analysis as well as the rainfall analysis for seven interior basins, of which that area is totally encumbered in our basins we're analyzing. So when all is said and done we won't have the 0 zones, but that's still going to be a little bit under two years from now. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Murray? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Back just in time. Okay, policy __ on Page 52, Policy 1.11.4. You spoke earlier about -- I thought I heard you say review about every five years, at least every five years. Is that your plan, to review at least every five years? MR. WILEY: We at a minimum have to review and revise this document here every five years. But the other thing is we can initiate that at any time we so desire. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: So in other words, under Policy 1.11.4 you would be reviewing the stormwater system for deficiencies on what, an annual basis? MR. WILEY: Actually, it's a daily basis for the applications that come in. In new developments when there's proposals to modify developments, that's an ongoing system. The county storm water management department every year analyzes its system through the AUIR program, and so it's just a continual process that's going on. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Do you want to employ the word continuing on ongoing in some fashion there to make it clear? MR. WILEY: We can very gladly do that here. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I think it's important. Because inasmuch as you've indicated five years, it's a long time between Page 96 November 1,2007 document modifications. That's fine. MR. WILEY: Should we say review on a continual basis or an annual basis? How do you want it worded there? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Continuing basis. And then under policy -- you finished there? MR. WILEY: Yes, sir. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Under Policy 1.11.6, when appropriate. I was wondering in the context of that sentence provide property owners with information on removing property from FEMA designated -- when appropriate. In other words, it goes back to that 31 units again. MR. WILEY: No, no, in this particular case here this would be anybody who has a property within a designated flood zone starting with the letter A or V. That's a special flood hazard area. I get a phone call and they say, what do I need to do to get my property exempted? So you provide them that information. And basically that's where they go through the process with FEMA, to-- they get an elevation certificate for their property and they fill out the correct application, submit it. They can essentially get their building surrounded by a little miniature X zone if it gets approved through FEMA. But it's strictly FEMA's call. I just provide the information how they can apply for it. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Okay, so that's the criterion for when appropriate. Under Objective 1.12, not allowed deliberate variances that are feasibly avoidable. I think you touched on that earlier. I didn't know that we allowed any deliberate variances. Would you explain what that really means to me? MR. WILEY: What that means is you've got a situation that has a base flood elevation, you can't build below that, or you have a building restriction based upon -- in a VE zone. You have to have Page 97 November 1, 2007 everything above the base flood elevation, and then the open foundation lets the velocity wave travel through. So along comes a landowner that says well, I want a variance because it's going to be a special thing for me out here, and I just -- I'm willing to take the risk. Well, that means the county would go through the variance process. We're saying let's don't do that-- COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Let me stop you-- MR. WILEY: -- deliberately. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: -- because I remember Stan Chrzanowski suggesting that we have stem walls over building up the property. Is what we're referencing? MR. WILEY: No. No, no, that's a different issue-- MR. SCHMITT: Can I clarify -- COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I thought I had it. MR. SCHMITT: There's only been one variance since 1976, and that was for a property that was built, and it was an after-the-fact vanance. So, no, basically the policy is no variances. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Good. MR. SCHMITT: And that's then the policy that was -- what was proffered when we were proposing even for the restroom out in Vanderbilt Beach. So -- short and sweet -- COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Well, you might want to modify that -- MR. SCHMITT: -- it has to go to the board. Our recommendation is no variances. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: You might want to -- if you're going to leave that in there, you might want to leave it in and not allow intended deliberate variances. MR. SCHMITT: Well, they still have a right to petition their government, and the Board of County Commissioners is the agent that approves the floodplain variance, and we still have to send those Page 98 November 1,2007 forward. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Thank you. MR. WILEY: But this was also coming from the committee, they felt real strong about it, don't deliberately create a variance issue here. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: All right. Under Goal 2 -- and I don't wish to take all the questions, you may have some. Is it okay ifI continue? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Murray, that's what we're here for. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Under Goal 2 -- I didn't hear you, what? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I said that's what we're here for. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Oh. Under Goal 2, I wrote a note here, master plan, because it says minimize flood hazards and protect water quality. Do we have a master plan or is this the master plan? I know it said it's the floodplain management plan, but is there a master plan associated with this or is this the master plan? MR. WILEY: That's a tough question to answer because of the way it's addressed here. This is addressing evaluating watershed-based approaches. We are just starting that process. Over the course of the next two years we will be developing all these watershed plans that will effectively implement what this is giving direction to do. So we don't per se have it now. We have a water management master plan which back in 1988, '89 we went through and identified where are the public canals, the crossings, things of that nature. But nothing really to address overall analyzing from a watershed the impacts of anything that takes place in that watershed. So we're heading that way out of this one, though. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I thought I remembered in the EAR that this body spoke about the fact that it seemed to be that it Page 99 November 1,2007 was addressed so -- the distance apart was five, 10 years or whatever. And it seemed extraordinary. I guess this is a movement forward. Let's see. Again, watershed under Objective 2.3. Again, where feasible. Do we want a financially feasible associated with this one? MR. WILEY: Financially feasible, is that what you're-- COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I think so. I think because what it does provide is a publicly maintained storm water conveyance system, that can be quite expensive, and -- MR. WILEY: I just want to -- I do want to caution you here about using the word limited to financially feasible here, because there are some issues that may not be environmentally permittable either. So that's why we left just feasible. It's a little bit more involved. I give you an example is within the Gordon River, it's a very constrained watershed. I don't think we would ever stand a chance of getting an Army Corps permit to open that thing up to a big, huge canal and let it just quickly flush the water down into Naples Bay. It would provide the 25-year storm level for developments that are in there, but you're never going to get through that permitting process. So I don't want to limit us just to financial feasible here, but if you want to add it and some other caveats, be glad to explain it better. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I'm not going to argue on that point. But then where based on what you just responded, I just wonder where feasible applies even. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, if you add the words where practical and financially feasible, that takes care of it, I think. MR. WILEY: There you go, that's what I'm looking for. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: That's what I was attempting to get at. Maybe I should have waited for you on that one. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Doesn't matter, as long as they get there. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: And on Objective 2.4, Page 100 November 1, 2007 including the use of Board of County Commissioners' initiated multiple services taxing units to correct the affecting -- I recall Commissioner Coyle at a meeting indicating that the county doesn't institute or doesn't compel municipal services taxing units. This kind of suggests that the county would initiate its own taxing units, which doesn't seem logical. So I'm wondering what this really says. MR. WILEY: You're right on what it says. When you establish an MSTU or an MSBU, you have two ways of doing it: You can get 50 percent plus one of the property owners to petition the board and they will do so; or the board has the right to, on a majority of their vote, establish one and establish the boundary for it. What we have seen in the past is the board's indicating through many times in their budgeting process that we'll use MSTUs, use the MSTUs, but you can really not in a practical sense get the board to ever receive 50 percent plus one of the property owners within a drainage basin area that will come forward and say yes, please do this. The committee felt real strong that there needs to be a proactive action take place, and so they're suggesting a policy that clearly indicates we want the Board of County Commissioners to evaluate the need and proactively establish the MSTU. I know that has been done in Naples Park a number of years ago is the only one I personally am aware of. And that's what we used to come up with the design and the construction for the improvements along 8th Street, because I oversaw that project. That's why I personally happen to know about that one. Whether it's been used elsewhere, I do not know. It made tremendous improvements in those portions of Naples Park, but we never got 50 percent of the people to come to the board with a petition to say yes, do it. We had a minority, a very vocal minority, who had come, so the board on its own opted to establish Page 1 01 November 1,2007 that. I'm not aware of them doing it since then. But the committee wanted the board to see that there is a desire for the board to be willing to take that step. Hence this policy. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Okay-- MR. WILEY: Essentially this is going to be an eye opener when it gets to the board also. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I would think. And lastly, under Objective 2.5, I've marked out here, to eliminate or reduce deficiencies to the maximum extent practicable and within a time frame. I suppose the chairman's statement is also financially feasible is appropriate here too, do you not agree? Says maintain the stormwater conveyance system. I mean, I'd love to think that we could have a budget suddenly that would take care of what is a horrendous problem for many people. I don't think that that's going to be possible. So the question then comes up. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Murray, your financially feasible point, you're right. And your reference, Mike, if I was thinking of the same comment, I didn't there because the AUIR is really a financially feasible document and it couldn't be in there unless it was. So that's why I didn't bring it up, I wouldn't have brought it up on that one. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Yeah, okay, I can appreciate where you're coming from. My last go-around with the AUIR didn't prove to me that we did really impact much in terms of change. But okay. That's my questions for those. Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Any other questions on Page 52? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Bob, if we go back and start Objective 1.12, I'm going to read some ideas you might want to insert in the paragraph. Objective 1.12. It's on Page 52. We're on the same page. I Page 102 November 1, 2007 didn't get to my questions yet. Middle of the page. MR. WILEY: Okay. I was thinking 1.1.2. I was looking. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I'm sorry, 1.12 then. MR. WILEY: There you go. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Enforce the building requirements. And I would suggest inserting words that are adopted by Collier County of the national flood insurance program. And not allow -- and I would consider striking the word deliberate. Just say not allow variances that are feasibly avoidable. That puts a heavier onus on it whether it's deliberate or not. So does any -- you have a problem with that? MR. WILEY: No problem. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. I think that would clean it up a little bit better. Objective 2.1, protect and restore, and I would insert the words where financially feasible, wetland ecological functions to ensure long-term environmental, economic and recreational values. MR. SCHMITT: My only question on that is in some cases this is laying out strategy that we're going to require developers to comply with as well. And certainly that is the basis of a lot of what we require for protecting of wetlands and protecting of -- or creating preservation -- or preserves. And we don't care if it's economically feasible or not, you have to do it according to state statute. Section 404 of the -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, then the word ensure, protect and restore wetland ecological functions to, instead of ensure is there another word that we can use? The only reason is there might be some point where it can't practically be done. MR. SCHMITT: Right, understand. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And we recognize that in the way we've reviewed things. MR. SCHMITT: That would be done through the permitting Page 103 November 1, 2007 process, through the Corps or the District's permitting process. Because they're the ones that would -- they're the ones that permit the impact of wetlands. I don't know ifI'm helping you. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: How about just from ecological functions for long-term environmental, economic. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah, that would be -- take out the words to ensure and just put the word for in there. Does that work? I think that's a lot better. Under Objective 2.4, I would -- there are different types of special taxing districts. And the MSTU reference will raise eyebrows because that means we have to reduce ad valorem impacts based on MSTU impacts. So why don't we just strike MSTUs and just say initiate special taxing districts. And that way if there's a variety of those methodologies out there, some of which don't attach ad valorem, they have the option of going there instead of only this particular one. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Good catch, good catch. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. MR. WILEY: You're saying MSTU happens to be one of them. That's -- just so I understand the special taxing districts -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Just take out the reference to MSTUs and just say special taxing districts. That way the board can come up with any kind of district they want to. And some may have less of an impact on the ad valorem overall base and provide other opportunities, so -- MR. WILEY: Good point. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's it on 52 for me. You want to go to 53. By the way, 53 is the last section of GMP objections and policies -- objectives and policies. Any questions on Page 53? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I do. Page 104 November 1,2007 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Murray? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I just want to make a comment on Objective 2.6. It's -- my little notation to myself was how long to get involved. I mean, evaluate possible mitigation of coastal storm surge and/or time surge. But you indicated that we wouldn't really be able to do much about that in your power point. MR. WILEY: The thought behind this situation here is if we know we have areas that have a high tide situation that creates a flooding, and that high tide is created because of a funneling effect, you evaluate the ways to begin to interconnect so you eliminate the funneling concept, is really what this is going for. This was a specific objective that was put in by one of our committee members because of a situation where he lives, he felt that we needed to address it. Bay of Fundy effect is what I want to call it, where the tide comes up, funnels down, drastic difference. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Like 40 feet. MR. WILEY: But just a short distance away you don't have 40 feet of tide. It's that funneling effect. And that's what he's looking at here. And it affected the neighborhood where he lives in particular. He felt that that was one of the things he was observing there. So we put the policy in. Again, we're using the citizens' input here. Or the objective, I should say. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I think it's highly laudable. But then we get back into that question about financially feasible. And I suppose at the minimum that we'd want to relate to that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN : Well, this one is -- Objective 2.6 is just an evaluation. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: And evaluation. Okay, well, sure. Well, I had essentially the same kinds of comments going down. On Objective 2.10, open space and natural resources areas will be managed to minimize flood hazards. What does that really mean? Page 105 November 1, 2007 How do you manage the open space in that sense? Dikes or what, weirs? MR. WILEY: In the situation of where you have open space, if someone wanted to, as a part of an open space, berm it off, but it's part of an area that could be used for floodplain storage. There are some projects, for instance, that water comes more onto than what they generate to flow off. And so we're saying manage them in such a way that you don't have things separated and cut up that they don't operate as a floodplain. So it's going to be -- COMMISSIONER MURRAY: These open space -- I'm sorry. MR. WILEY: It's going to be sort ofa unique situation for that to happen, but I can see it happening in some situations. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: These open spaces that you're referring to, are they buildable, these -- we're all talking about buildable spaces here, right? Developable? MR. WILEY: In some situations they are buildable, except that there is a requirement within the development regs you have to have so much open space. And so you can come into situations with your conflict being the open space is for what use. And it's not a -- I don't say it's going to be happening a lot. But the thought was out of the committee looking at those things, just look at it so that you don't want that open space issue to be one that would create a flood hazard or increase a flooding potential either to that property or some neighboring property. And so that's really where that comes from. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Well, what occurred to me was the Bert Harris issues that might eventuate from something like that as a constraint. I don't know. May have been reaching on that one, but that's what came into my mind. MR. WILEY: I'll give you the example of a small site. I won't give you the exact property location but within the urban area of the Page 106 November 1,2007 county there is a flowway. The property itself is entirely within that flowway. And they wanted to come in and property line to property line berm it, fill it up and build on it because they had the development units that they wanted to put on it. And we worked with them and worked with them and we just told them, we says, folks, you can't do that because you're in a flowway. And you've got -- they were an importer, meaning they brought more water on their site than what they generated. So effectively what we worked out with them to do was to pull back and that left us open space to even scrape down a portion of it to provide additional storage volume between the wet season water table and that 100-year flood elevation. Provided a way for water to flow into it, through their property and out. And so they managed their open space, not just walk off and leave it, but they actually improved that use of floodplain storage. That's just one small example I can think of off the top of my head right now. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: That's clear to me. Under Policy 2.10.2, identify, protect and where necessary restore major. Should that also be financially feasible issue? When you use the term where necessary, that suggests an immediacy of need. And then we get into the conflict of financially available. MR. WILEY: Yeah, that's fine. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: So you don't mind that? MR. WILEY: I do not mind that at all, that's correct. That's a good one. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Okay. Then I found under Policy 2.10.3, identify, acquire, and where feasible construct improvements on lands. What do you mean by the word acquire there? MR. WILEY: Give an example would be where you have Page 107 November 1,2007 development that has restricted flow through a flowway from years ago. But right next to the flowway you've got some upland areas that if could be purchased, could be scraped down, could provide additional room for the storage of that water on a temporary basis to surge in and out. Those are the issues we're talking about here, should that situation arise. And it does have some locations where it would be very possible to see that happen. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: And of course that then represents a question of how much you achieve by against what you expend. And so it becomes again another financially feasible issue, right? MR. WILEY : Yes, sir, it does. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: That's it for me, sir. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Any other questions on Page 53? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Wiley, up on Objective 2.7, that is a difficult paragraph in regards to what you're asking professional engineers to do, especially ones that didn't design the system that they're now requesting to be certifying as to their maximizing their effectiveness of water quality and quality (sic) design. I would suggest that we change some of the wording, and let me read it to you. Ensure that stormwater -- well, the word ensure is going to be changed for sure. Review all stormwater system facilities are properly constructed, operated and properly maintained. And instead of periodically I suggest we put a time frame in, whether it be two years, five years, whatever. And we need your input on that. Inspected and certified by a Florida professional engineer to verify the systems are operating as designed. They cannot after the fact in these older communities certify that they're functioning at Page 108 November 1,2007 their maximum effectiveness of the water quality and quantity design because standards have changed so rapidly. I don't know any engineer you'd get to do that in this county. MR. WILEY: No, I agree with what you're saying. Verify the systems are operating as designed. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: As designed, right. That's all they can do at that point. And I think periodically I certainly think -- see, this is going to be an HOA's cost. They're going to have to pay to have an engineer come out every so much time and say yep, everything is working okay. Some engineering firms will get into, you're going to have to inspect pipes, underwater facilities, catch basins, grading. You have all kinds of issues you're going to get into, and it could be rather expenSIve. And I don't think it needs to be done on a basis that's short lived. I think it's something that you may want to want look at every two, four, three years, something like that. MR. WILEY: Okay. Let me show you where we're going with this. And Joe's talking to me at the same time so I got a little bit divided attention here, sorry. We have within the interim watershed regulations that are actually heading in through the second LDC amendment cycle for this year. It requires at least every three years that inspection take place. Now, we let this one be a little bit looser so that it doesn't establish the actual detail of the implementation policy, it just says have it done. Also, where we're coming in with the proposed amendments to our flood damage prevention ordinance in 2008, we're going to tighten it up even a little bit tighter than that, if we're able to, so that to better comply with FEMA's requirements it would be that any development which is approved after that particular ordinance Page 109 November 1, 2007 amendment is adopted, they would have to do it annually. It's the existing ones that would have the spread of years out from there. Now, that is to -- FEMA says they want everyone inspected every year. We're saying folks, that's not practical. There's no justification for it. So we're trying to work that one through. But right now the interim regulations are saying at least every three years. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Then if we leave the word periodically in we can work it out in the LDRs. MR. WILEY: Yes, sir, that's what we're working on. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Does the rest of the language I think I suggested work okay for you? MR. WILEY: Just want to make sure I got the wording at the very start. You said review, and then I got lost there as to -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, the last -- where the word maximize starts, strike the rest of that sentence. MR. WILEY : Yeah, I got that stricken -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, no, the rest of it stays. I mean, basically review all stormwater facilities for their -- to assure they are properly constructed -- actually, the construction isn't an issue. The construction is going to have already occurred. It's going to be certified and going to be compliant, otherwise you guys won't issue COs and acceptability of the system. So I don't think construction is an issue here as much as operation and maintenance is. MR. WILEY: That is true. We already require it for the construction. However, we come into a situation here that if you have a maintenance issue that requires them to reconstruct it, well, that's considered a construction too with what new stuff they would put in. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. But if they had a maintenance issue that requires reconstruction, wouldn't you require a permit? MR. WILEY: It would be considered -- as long as they replace it like kind to like kind it would still be original so it would not Page 110 November 1,2007 require a permit, as far as I understand. If they proposed to upsize or something, that would be different. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, here's what I -- here's what I think you're going to have a hard time having an engineer certify, that something that's buried underground for 15,20,30 years, that the pipes and everything else were constructed properly. He's not going to know that without digging the whole system up. So how do we build what you're looking for in here without putting that liability on an engineer who could basically end up getting sued by a HOA for something he had nothing to do with just because he had to certify this because you required it? MR. WILEY: The issue here also deals with -- how do I say this without pointing fingers. But I guess I have to point fingers. A developer comes in for development. He gets done with construction, it's built, and then the record drawings are submitted to the county. Now, the records drawings submitted to the county that come to us, the engineer signs and seals them, but he clearly says he's just doing this because that's the information he received from the contractor. Now, I know of a particular situation, the plans were certified in the ground and then we never had any problems for a couple years until it started to rain, because we'd had a couple dry years. As it turned out, there never were any connections made between the lakes because the contractor in building the things, connecting lake to lake, well, he just happened to brick them up so he could dewater between lakes. He never took the bricks out. But he didn't tell the engineer this, he just simply gives the engineer the plans. So the engineer certifies, thinks everything is all ducky since he never looked through every foot of the pipe. And so those are the kind of situations, well, if in his inspection he sees that this is blocked off, he knows it wasn't constructed right. Page III November 1, 2007 So you begin to see that it really gets some wild situations out there that we start inspecting things and we don't find what we're supposed to. Also you find it was supposed to have been a certain size pipe. Well, the contractor just didn't happen to tell you he didn't have that pipe so he stuck something else in. And we're trying to make them, if we find through the maintenance issue we find a deficiency, we want them to go back and reconstruct it to what it was supposed to be. Now, perhaps you can give me some better wording here, but these are why we're addressing it this way. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I'm working on some here. Review all stormwater system facilities for proper operation and maintenance, and where repairs are necessary for proper construction, and periodically inspect and then certify by a proper professional Florida engineer to verify that the systems are operating as designed. Now, it's a little choppy but that's kind of the direction -- MR. WILEY: But it got the message across. Now ifI can just get that. I'm lost on it, so -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Review all stormwater system facilities for proper operation and maintenance and where repairs are necessary for proper construction, and periodically inspect and certify by a professional engineer that all systems are operating as designed. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Mark? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Donna just had something, too. So let me get her first, then you, Bob. Donna, did you? COMMISSIONER CARON: Well, I'm thinking if you read that back again, you just need to break that up into more than one sentence. It sounds like there's a period missing and -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Bob, did you want to-- Page 112 November 1, 2007 COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I was just going to suggest that we add -- now I've almost lost where it belongs, but the word reconstruct, I think your maintenance and reconstruction. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And where reconstructed, for proper construct -- COMMISSIONER MURRAY: And reconstruction. COMMISSIONER CARON: You need to put a period just before you get to where, I think. And again, I don't -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Let's try this. Review all stormwater system facilities for proper operation and maintenance, period. Is everybody -- that sounds good. Where repairs are -- where reconstruction is necessary-- COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Oh, no, where repairs and/or reconstruction, that's what I was trying to interpolate. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Where repairs and reconstruction are warranted. Well, then, how do we fit in -- Bob, I'm -- we're kind of doing this as we go along. MR. WILEY : Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But maybe we should start out with the words properly inspect and certify by a professional engineer all stormwater system facilities for operation and maintenance. And where reconstructed or repaired for construction -- for construction. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: No, where reconstruction or repair is required. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, you wouldn't do it if it wasn't required, though, right? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: If that determination is made, right? MR. WILEY: Let's look at it this way. Ifwe want just to strike out the concern over construction. If you think about it, the engineer, when he's out there he's looking at the system, seeing that it meets what it's supposed to be and it's operating. Page 113 November I, 2007 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: It can't operate unless it's constructed properly -- MR. WILEY: It can't, that's right. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- so that takes care of it. Okay. MR. WILEY: I think that's the way to go with it then. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Well, then let's go back to where we had, because I want to make sure we get in there that the verifying the system's operation as designed, not to standards today. That's important. Because you won't get anybody to certify it any other way. Review all stormwater system facilities for proper operation and maintenance, and provide periodic inspection and certification by a Florida professional engineer to verify systems are operating as designed. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I mean -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Brad? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I've got a simpler way to do it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, we're looking -- we got -- this one's got to be rewritten, so -- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Here's what I would do. I would get rid of the words ensure that, and I would say, all stormwater systems are to be properly constructed, operated and maintained and periodically inspected -- just go through the rest of the sentence. I mean, your concern is the maintenance of the thing that the inspector would be looking at to make sure there's no problems there. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Why don't you say that again. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: What it is, get rid of the words ensure that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Start with the word all. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: All stormwater system facilities, and then get rid of are and put to be. And then keep it the Page 114 November 1, 2007 way it is. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: To be constructed. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: To be properly constructed, operated, maintained and periodically inspected by a certified Florida engineer to maximize effectiveness of the water quality and quality design. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. But after, I would strike from the word maximize to the end and replace it to verify systems are operating as designed. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I mean, I read that last part as that if the guy could look at and do something to make it better, I mean, as we get smarter with these systems. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You can't obligate old establishments to do that, Brad. That would be like going into, for example, Donna's place up there and deciding -- a new engineer says, well, you know, this system could have been designed better, rip it all out by this ordinance and redo it. And you've got millions of dollars of damages. MR. WILEY: And that would also go through the permitting process and everything again, as soon as you change something. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. Thank you. MR. WILEY: I'm not trying to force that issue on them. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. So I like Brad's suggestion, it's cleaner. Then after take out the words from maximize on and replace with what I had earlier said, verify systems are operating as designed. MR. WILEY: So I make sure I've got it, it says all stormwater system facilities are properly-- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: To be -- to be properly constructed, operated, maintained and periodically inspected and certified by a Florida professional engineer to verify the systems are operating as designed. MR. WILEY: Got it. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: That's good. Page 115 November 1, 2007 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That works. Thank you, Brad, that works real well. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Mr. Chairman? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: We're going to have a meeting at 1 :00. It's 12:06. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, no, we said we wouldn't start before I :00. So it doesn't mean it starts at I :00, we just don't start before 1 :00. So we can either have a choice, we can break for lunch and come back at 1: 10 or we can finish up this document, which I probably have three or more items on that page and then a general comment on the last item on the page and that's it for me. Bob, do you have much more? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Well, I have a few questions, but I think they probably will go quick. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Then we could be another halfhour. I think probably we should take lunch now, then. How's that seem? Then we'll come back and we'll finish a half an hour of this up. When the school board gets back here, they'll have to sit through it. And then we'll go into the school board concurrency. Is that okay with everyone? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Aren't we really close? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I don't -- it's hard to say. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I have only one comment and it's not even on the objective. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. I've still got several to go through, plus some general language. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Well, I just -- would you take note on Page 54 as it relates to 53, if you've read it, you see that on Page 53 it says I, then there's A. And then on Page 54 it says four at the top. So it doesn't even seem to be in sequence. It seems Page 116 November 1, 2007 something might be missing. So that's one piece alone that has to be brought out, qualified. And I think the people here would like some time to be able to do that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Let's take a one-hour break and come back at 1: 10 and finish this up. And then we'll go into the school board after that. So everybody, we'll take a break, be back here at 1: 10. (Luncheon recess.) (Commissioner Caron is absent.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Welcome back to the planning commission meeting. Before we broke for lunch, we were in the middle of Page 53 on discussing items regarding the floodplain management. I know the school people have come back from their elongated break. We'll hopefully wrap this up within 20 or 30 minutes and we'll go right into school concurrency. So Mr. Wiley, I think I left off on my questions on Page 53. And my next point after we laboriously went through Objective 2.7, we are now in Policy 2.9.1. And it talks about BMPs. Implement best management practices as required under the National Pollution Discharge Elimination System. And I was wondering if we might want to add the language, where such BMPs are adopted by Collier County. I'm not sure what the National Pollution Discharge Elimination System provides for their BMPs, and I'd be hesitant to accept something without knowing that. And since I don't know what those are, if we just say as adopted by Collier County then in the LDRs we formally include those in and have an opportunity to debate them, that might be helpful. MR. WILEY: I'm not even certain that we have officially adopted any BMPs. The BMPs are a program of recommendations through the NPDES permitting that we know we have certain Page 117 November 1,2007 requirements to limit turbidity discharges, things of that nature. But exactly what you do to limit that, I'm not certain that we have adopted anything. I can inquire about that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Are you certain that everything that is in the BMPs under the NPDES are acceptable to practices currently done in Collier County? MR. WILEY: Well, they just showed me that Steve Preston is here. He can probably address this quite well from the stormwater management department. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Sure. MR. PRESTON: Steve Preston, project manager for stormwater management for the county. I'm the NPDES coordinator. The NPDES program that's talked about in here, is a -- it's a National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System permit for the stormwater collection system. And that type ofNPDES permit is called a MS-4 permit, which is a municipal separate storm sewer system. That program has a lot of BMPs that are required by federal regulation, and they are part of this floodplain management report. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Are we currently operating under those BMPs? MR. PRESTON: Yes, we were, since 2001. That's in Exhibit 29 of this floodplain management plan. That outlines the BMPs of the NPDES program. And just to keep it short and address what you've brought up, there are no structural or engineering BMPs. The BMPs for our NPDES program are things like education, outreach, maintenance and operation issues. But nothing structural or of a nature that would cause, you know, large expense. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I know silt fence placement and maintenance is part of your NPDES rulings, aren't they? MR. PRESTON: Well, that is another type of NPDES permit Page 118 November 1,2007 for construction. And yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Are there any BMPs that apply to that portion of the NPDES system? See, I don't want us -- what I'm worried about is this is a very broad statement, and I'm not sure what it could take in. And I wanted to make sure that as long as it stays -- if it has to be written broadly, it only takes in what we accept. And that's all I was trying to do is get to a point that we weren't unknowingly accepting something by the broadness of the statement. Do you have a suggestion that -- how we -- that's why -- and you said that you've been doing this, we've been using the BMPs that are currently being utilized since 2001. In 200 I did we take some action that made that happen? MR. PRESTON: Well, in 2001 we submitted an application to DEP, who is the administrator of that program for the EP A in Florida. And they approved our outline. And Appendix 29 is a copy of that outline that was approved by DEP. As far as the sediment and erosion control portion of that plan, we're not doing anything more than we have already. In other words, this county already had sediment and erosion control inspection budgeted within, you know, their engineering services plan of action before NPDES came. So we're able to utilize an existing county program for that. And there are no additional sediment and erosion control requirements of the county really or of contractors that are above what was in place before NPDES came along, except a matter of paperwork, filling out an application and paying a fee. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ifwe added a line to the end of this after the last -- before the period to the fact that say where such BMPs have been accepted and practiced by Collier County, is that -- would that get everything we need to? Again, I -- I don't like the blanket statement. I think that blanket statement requiring us to accept any Page 119 November 1,2007 BMP that's developed, I'm not sure. Ifwe haven't got to do that now, I don't know why we would want to put ourselves in that position, unless we had the opportunity to review those BMPs and accept the fact that we may want to use them and currently utilize them. That's my only concern. This is an unknown and I don't like unknowns in our code because it always got -- many times it can get us in trouble. MR. PRESTON: I agree with your reasoning. And I don't think there will be anything lost here by making it general. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Then, Robert, does that sound acceptable then to you? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Could I ask a question? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Sure, go ahead, Mr. Murray. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: What if we in 2001, Mr. Preston, in 2001 if the county sought to have permit MS-4, what was the compelling reason? MR. PRESTON: It was a federal regulation that communities that operate a stormwater management collection system that have a particular population size and density are required to have the NPDES permit. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: And the permit has certain-- sets out certain requirements? MR. PRESTON: It does. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: And those requirements are to your knowledge not in conflict with any of the current adopted county requirements? MR. PRESTON: That's correct. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: And in furtherance of the chairman's question, are there any requirements to your knowledge in that permit that exceed the current county requirements? MR. PRESTON: No. There were in the beginning in 2001, but we have worked with existing county programs, changed them where Page 120 November 1, 2007 needed to -- and they were minimal changes. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: And do permit changes come down -- do the various requirements come down as modifications in some form from time to time from that organization? MR. PRESTON: Yes, they do. This is a new permit. The one that we received in 2001 is a five-year permit. You may be familiar with the TMDL program, total maximum daily load program, which is another water quality regulation program in Florida. This particular NPDES permit will be reopened. We'll reapply for it in fact this year for another five-year period. And the TMDL program will affect rules of the new permit. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: So ifthere were changes that this county thought were onerous or even potentially dangerous financially to us, we would -- would we exceed, we would just simply request the permit to be modified? Well, they'd modify the permit. Would we request to have another permit? In other words, what I'm trying to find out is that are we being subordinated to it or are we willingly accepting everything because we believe their best management practices entirely fit our situation? MR. PRESTON: Well, the structure of the permit is such that the regulations allow a customizing of the permit regulations for a community. So there is room for negotiation, as long as a baseline amount of BMPs are applied. But, for instance, Collier County may have a different list of BMPs that we implement that are different than Sarasota County or Hillsborough County. They do allow us to customize. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: And that's stipulated in the permit itself? MR. PRESTON: Yes. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Then that sounds to me like that we're going after what we want to go after. My thought was as well, I think the chairman was concerned Page 121 November 1,2007 that we were going to become subordinated and excessive costs would be placed upon us to comply with requirements that are really effectively not of import to us. MR. PRESTON: Well, so far we haven't met that circumstance. But with the changes coming up possibly in 2008 and '09 with the TMDL program, there could be some costs. But we haven't seen any of the regulations or changes yet, so there's nothing to react to at this point. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Mr. Wiley, would we have the opportunity to review any of that? Or once these are made into GMP amendments or GMPs, would that -- we would no longer be able to see that, be aware of that? MR. WILEY: Well, no, you can always -- when we get to the implementation stage, such as what Steve is talking about here, negotiating out and working with the permit, this just sets the direction for resolving issues, floodplain management-wise of where you're trying to go. This is not the final result anyway as we've already talked about earlier today. But I do want to incorporate the language, if you could repeat it, so I can get it written down here. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Oh, yeah, I do. Let me get back to where we started. Add the language at the end of the sentence, where such BMPs have been accepted or are in practice in Collier County. And that covers it. MR. WILEY: Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay? MR. WILEY : Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: 2.9.2. We're back to that word ensure again. And I guess we want to review BMPs for stormwater pollution abatement against flood -- increased flood risk or something to that effect. Page 122 November 1, 2007 MR. WILEY: Review them to not increase flood risk, maybe? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah, that would work. I just want to get away from the word ensure. I think that's dangerous. Policy 2.10.1. This one I think needs some words omitted and added. Manage, restore and/or enhance habitat areas, linkages in quarter segments where practical and financially feasible. And drop the words to the greatest extent. MR. WILEY: Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Then 2.10.3, after the word -- it says identify, acquire and where -- after the word where, I would go where practical and financially feasible. MR. WILEY: Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And then at the end of that Policy 2.10.3, you start with a paragraph about a 10-year strategic plan. And it goes on to the following page. And it's all nice and fluffy stuff, but it doesn't mean much of anything. So I'm wondering why did you have it here? Is it a requirement of somebody to put it there? MR. DeRUNTZ: Mike DeRuntz, principal planner with the department of comprehensive planning. As it states there, this is statements of policy and direction of the Board of County Commissioners. And I was just reflecting those particular sections that I felt were applicable from this 10-year strategy plan that are -- you know, coincide with the direction of this floodplain management plan. So that's why the numbers are out of sequence, like you say. It should go A, B, C or D. It should be A-I. Well, actually the one that I was citing here that -- you know, that was a particular. There's like B-3 or -- and as it goes further on under growth management, under 2-C, number two wasn't included because I didn't think it was relative to the floodplain management plan. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mike, the policies and objectives I Page 123 November 1, 2007 understand will eventually go into GMP language and we'll be reviewing that again. What happens with that paragraph that starts discussing this IO-year strategic plan with all that, as I call it, fluff? What happens with all that? Is your positioning of it here under the premise it's going to go into the GMP, or what were you putting it in here for? MR. DeRUNTZ: That these goals and objectives and policies were meeting the IO-year strategy of the Board of County Commissioners. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. But I mean, is it going to be part of any kind of format for adopted language? MR. DeRUNTZ: No. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So it's just like the rest of the preamble to this whole discussion. Pages 1 through 49 are really a history or background of how you got there and this is just more of a way of how you got there. Okay. So the meat of to day's issue really began on Page 50, took us to the next to the last paragraph on Page 53. MR. WILEY : Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, that's the work product. MR. WILEY: And then if you wanted to look at the actual action plan statements, they show some efforts that will be used to begin to implement the work product you have here, the goals, objectives, policies statements. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: See, those action plans will be now subjective to the language that we just worked on. MR. WILEY : Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And that language we just worked on in my opinion will redirect those action plans to a more feasible manner. We could spend another two hours reviewing the action plans, Page 124 November 1, 2007 but actually, when you try to implement them based on the language we just got done working up, you might have a whole different way of presenting it to us than is being presented here by the time we get to that point in time. MR. WILEY: It's possible, yes, sir. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Myself, I don't have any questions for the rest of this booklet. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Couple, Mark. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Schiffer? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Page 57, property protection activities. You make a statement in the first paragraph of that down probably three-quarters, electrical transformers and related facilities may be located below the flood -- the base flood elevation. Provided they have an engineer or architect certification, it will not adversely affect the structural. But I think the code won't allow you to put electrical stuff where they'll be damaged, too. So why -- can you take that sentence out of there? MR. WILEY: Tell you what, I would prefer that you let me go back to our electrical code people and just clarify what was meant by that statement. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. MR. WILEY: If that's okay. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Just because I don't think FEMA wants us to ruin all that equipment. Granted, it might not structurally damage the building, but it -- my next thing is Page 59, I'm confused a little bit. Let me wait till Bob's -- see the chart you have there, in the bottom there's industrial development, and it says 50 percent, not to exceed 25 percent. I'm not sure exactly what that means. MR. DeRUNTZ: Mike DeRuntz, principal planner with comprehensive planning. Page 125 November 1,2007 This section was provided for easy read, but these are existing Land Development Code regulations for native vegetation preservation. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: So you inherited that wording, whatever it means. Just double check to make sure it's properly put in there. MR. DeRUNTZ: Yes, sir. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: My next question would be on Page 66, E, building codes. Are you there, Robert? MR. WILEY: Yes, sir. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I think that would work better. There is such a thing as the existing building code. So rather than review just that, I think if you worded that, that the director will review the governing building codes for Collier County, that would be better. MR. WILEY : Very good. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And by the way, there's no acronym in your list for FMPC, which is the prime acronym you should have in there. MR. WILEY: Okay. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And that's it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Murray? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Just in general, in the recitation from Pages 65 on, there's the statement, budget staff time and materials, operating funds, and it talks about fees in some instances. And in two instances it talks about capital funds. And I was just surprised that there would only be two instances where capital funds would be applicable, as opposed to the presentation that you gave which seemed to be so many things that you would like to do. I was surprised. Does that mean that you have determined sort of the strata of where these things belong? Because if we're dependent upon operating funds, aren't we somewhat limited? Page 126 November 1,2007 Of course we're limited in capital, too, but might be able to make a case for capital with a hard effort. MR. WILEY: This is intended from the position of the committee putting this together as essentially a first cut effort of where we think the funding is coming from. Ultimately it will come down to when it gets to implementation that decision is being made by the Board of County Commissioners. This is just our thoughts of which side of the funding issue would be supporting it. So we're not being definitive of where this is definitely coming from. This is just where we think it's probably coming from here. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: That goes back to my earlier question about a master plan, which leads to a timeline against various things. In the absence of those, I guess you're waiting for them to bless it so you'll develop a plan, or -- MR. WILEY: With the development of the watershed management master plans, that's already funded through the Board of County Commissioners over the next couple years. There is funding established for that. And that's capital dollars for that particular effort. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: And will there be new fees associated with these or are these all contemplated as ad valorem or whatever taxes? Besides MSTU, which we have stricken now and we've suggested to you that they be whatever taxation format that you choose. MR. WILEY: Right. The imposition of new fees may come about, but again, that's a decision that will be made at the budget level by the board and the county manager, have to go through the budget process. We're not envisioning that, although it seemed like it's a whole lot of additional work. The majority of what you see here is stuff that's already going on, it's just never been documented and Page 127 November 1,2007 coordinated into a single point of recognition. So there's not a generation of a lot of additional fee expenses for the operating fees and the staff that are already out there doing the work. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I'm very happy I asked that question because I like the answer that I received. MR. WILEY: The capital side of it could be quite substantial, but again, that's where it falls into the AUIR and the improvements, primarily through the stormwater management department. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Thank you very much. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Any other questions on the remainder of the book? Any other questions? Anybody in the public wishing to speak on this issue? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Wiley, thank you. I think now you're looking for a recommendation from us as this moves forward. Brad? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I'll make that motion. Is that what you're looking for? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Sure. I was going to ask, just for clarification, the only part of this book that I think is relevant to the planning commission at this time is the pages 50 through 53, which involve the GMP goals and policies. There's a lot of other stuff in here, but it's either incomplete or not fully defined at this time that I think will come out of a further refinement of the LDR. So my recommendation for a motion would be that we recommend approval of the GMP goals and policies as we have modified at this meeting. And that's the part of the book that we'd be recommending approval on. Is that consistent with what you would need from us, Mr. Wiley? MR. WILEY: Well, we would need your recommendation for Page 128 November 1,2007 the Board of County Commissioners to consider this as the floodplain management plan for them to adopt and incorporate into the hazard mitigation plan. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, the part that you're going to adopt and incorporate into codified language, though, is the goals and policies of the GMP. The history and all that, I certainly can't debate that with you. But what -- is that -- MR. WILEY: That goes into Chapter 7 of the county's hazard mitigation plan. This whole document basically goes into that as Section 7. It's called the floodplain management plan. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Why would a -- I know bureaucracy thrives on way too much paperwork. Why would we need to restate the history of all this stuff into this plan when the only succinct part of it that is really necessary to operate by are the GMP goals and policies that have been discussing here today? MR. WILEY: I don't disagree with you from that standpoint. It's just that we are required for the floodplain plan to address all these issues, be complete on its own for us to send it to FEMA for their reVIew. So that's -- and then we -- the way we did it within the hazard mitigation plan was a way to incorporate it into a single unified overall document that FEMA allows. We could have this as a separate freestanding document, but we chose to not. We chose to coordinate it, because you have to address flooding in the county's hazard mitigation plan anyway. So the document gets thicker and thicker. We have the thickest section in the hazard management plan now by incorporating this in, but that's -- I'm just simply saying we need to have the Board of County Commissioners accept this as the floodplain management plan somewhere along the line, and usually we get your recommendation recommending that they consider it for adoption. So if you want to only say the goals, objectives and policies, I Page 129 November 1, 2007 suppose you can. Ultimately the board has to look at adopting the whole plan, though. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Murray? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: This document, ifit were given to us in totality, would be 800 and some-odd pages long, wouldn't it? MR. WILEY: Yes, sir. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: So you're really basically asking us if, on your idea, to agree to approve 800 and some-odd pages, most of which we didn't review. MR. WILEY : Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well-- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Well, Mark, why don't we use -- we could do two motions, really. One is we could accept this, which doesn't mean we've approved everything, as the floodplain management plan and make that recommendation. And then since we did spend pretty focused time on the goals and the objectives to achieve the goals, we could make that a separate motion. MR. WILEY: And that's fine. I just want to make sure that through the planning commission we do get a vote recommending that the Board of County Commissioners accept this and adopt this as the floodplain management plan in its entirety. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Which is an element of the mitigation plan. MR. WILEY: Which it will become Chapter 7 of the hazard mitigation plan, yes, sir. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I think it's important that there's a distinction made between what we're reviewing as a working document and what we're reviewing as a text document for support. MR. WILEY: Yes, sir. CHAI RMAN STRAIN: Your text document for support part of this is everything but the goals and policies. The working part of it is Page 130 November 1, 2007 the goals and policies. And I have no problem with the goals and policies based on the corrections we made here today. And that's fine. And I have no problem with the text part of it being entered into the record as a basis for the floodplain management, if that works for where you were going? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I do like the word accept. In essence, compared to anything else, this is the one we accept, so -- even though it does inherit a lot of information, that would be common to any floodplain management plan. MR. WILEY: It is a requirement for all of them, yes, sir. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Brad, to try to iron this out, you're suggesting two motions. One would be to accept the text of the document as the basis for the floodplain management plan, we recommend to accept the text. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I would say as the floodplain management plan. The word basis I don't think helps. What Bob has to do is show FEMA that it went through all the local planning agencies. MR. WILEY: Yes, sir. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And that the basis means there's an allusion to something else. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. So accept the text of the floodplain management plan. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Right. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Recommend to accept text of the floodplain management plan and then to recommend approval of the GMP goals and policies as modified at this meeting. Is that -- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: We could actually stop at the first amendment, because what we've done for Robert is we've run through and word tweaked what will ultimately come back to us anyway when it's trying to get into the GMP. And at that time it Page 13 1 November 1,2007 would be a time to make a motion on that. We did service by reviewing it and by reviewing that area. So I would just say -- I think what Robert needs to walk out of here is just the motion to recommend accepting this as the Collier County floodplain management plan. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Is that your motion? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: That's the motion. MR. WILEY: And incorporate into it the amendments you made today. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: As amended by today's meeting. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Is there a second to the motion? COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: (Indicating.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Midney seconded. Any discussion!? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: All those in favor, signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Aye. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Aye. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: All those opposed? COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Aye. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Oh, oh. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Three to three. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Why would you be opposed, Mark? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Because 871 pages to me as a management plan, especially when I don't know how those pages are going to now react to the changes we suggested today to the goals and Page 132 November 1,2007 policies, concerns me. 871 pages, I mean, I read -- I didn't read every single page. I went through every page. And I can tell you, there are pages there just of e-mail addresses. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And some pages have one e-mail address and that's the whole page. I mean, I went on -- there's probably 100 pages of copies of the LDC. I don't know if it's the latest version. I don't know what version it is. I don't know what it incorporates. I don't mind accepting that text as backup to the goals and policies that we reviewed, but from my perspective we only reviewed the goals and policies, and that's all, under any circumstances, as far as I'm going to go as far as recommending approval of it. I don't mind recommending the text as acceptance for the floodplain management plan, but I don't want the BCC to think that the action plans and the implementation language that might exist somewhere else in those 871 pages is being bought off on today. I'm buying off on the meat of your work product, which is the goals and policies. I think you did a good job and I think it's cleaned up really well. That's all I think is really needed out of this. You have a need to have a whole plan put on record, and I have no problem with that either. Put this plan on record. But personally I can stand to the public and say when they come down and complain, look what you've done to us, well, wait a minute, we looked at these, nobody else was here, we did the best we could but those pages are the ones we focused on and finished with. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: But one thing, Mark, is we used the word accept, not the word approved. So I think, you know, the word accept -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: We're not approving anything. Page 133 November 1,2007 COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Right. But the word accept doesn't mean that everything in there is perfect. It means that of all the documents in the county, this is the one that you accept to be the floodplain management plan. Bob can't go away from here with a locked vote on whether this is a good plan or not. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I'm not suggesting he leave here yet with a locked vote. I'm suggesting we talk it out. Mr. Kolflat? COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: Yeah, but you can't accept something you haven't received. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, you did receive -- did everybody receive the disc with the 871 pages on it? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Yes. And I went through that whole disc. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: This disc, Tor, it was in -- that should have been in the folder, that had the bulk of the document on it, 800 of the 871 pages. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: But in fairness, what that bulk of that stuff is is just backup material. It listed all the people who were on committees, it listed all the people that got certified mail, it listed the mitigation meetings, it listed backup material. So I don't think there was any policy or anything that was in that disc that is not in this book. Is there, Robert? MR. WILEY: No, there isn't. And even the changes that were made today on the goals, objectives, policies statements, I don't really envision that even within the action plan that it will really make substantial changes to how those action items are implemented. Because they reflect back. And so if we changed and removed the word ensure, something like that, it really still -- I don't think of something off the top of my head that is affected in a major negative way. The intention of the Page 134 November 1, 2007 action plan is still there to give direction for what the county's program intends to do over the course of its life until it's revised agam. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Mark, can I try another motion? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, before you do, let me throw an example out to -- maybe it will help your motion. In the action plan under budget almost every instance it says staff time and advertising fees. Okay, that doesn't tell me how much you're spending on that particular item. And if you go through the multiple pages that produced the action plan, they all say that. I'm not saying that's bad, I'm just saying, that's an open checkbook. And right now I don't know why we would want to do that until we get further into the process understanding how these how these goals and LDRs are written. MR. WILEY: Well, actually it's not an open checkbook. This itself does not create any funding at all. This is the direction that, as a part of the implementation efforts, we foresee it would be affecting this portion of the county. When we put the floodplain management plan together, we have to show how we intend to fund the things. We had to come up with a funding source. If it's activities that are already staff-generated or already going on, that's why we covered it this way, because that's the way we're already covering through operating of fees and some situations with the capital program with the capital fees. So we're not -- by these statements, we are not saying we're allowed to spend "X" number of dollars. That is totally way down the line for implementation purposes. This just gives the overall general direction for FEMA to see that we're not saying we have an action item but it's never been funded and never will be funded. That's what we're trying to make sure they understand. We had to come up with a Page 135 November 1, 2007 statement somehow. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Brad-- MR. WILEY: It had to remain generic. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Mark, isn't that similar to when we do LDC amendments, you know, the fiscal costs is they'll note staff time or stuff like that? They don't give us the dollar amount. Actually, they usually note nothing. But when the people do it right, they note staff time. So they're not specific to the dollar amount either, and we make plenty of decisions like that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Brad, I would suggest you break it up into two motions. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Well, try a motion. You go ahead, make the motion. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I recommend we -- I make a motion we recommend to the Board of County Commissioners that they approve the GMP objectives, goals, policies, as modified at this meeting, as a part of this element. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Second. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion made and seconded. Is there any discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: All those in favor, signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: Aye. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Aye. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Aye. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I'll vote aye for it. But Robert, do you walk out of here with a floodplain management plan? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I'm not done yet. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Oh, okay. Page 136 November 1, 2007 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I said break it up. That gets us past the most important part of the document, which is the working elements. And by the way, we're going to run into the same thing in the school concurrency. There are only four sections of that book we really needed to focus on, but we're certainly not going to sit here and approve the data backup to school concurrency. I don't expect us to, because we can't debate it. I can't debate the historical backup to the floodplain management plan. I think it's fine and I think it makes up his plan. And I would therefore make a recommendation that we accept -- we recommend the board accept the text provided for the floodplain management plan. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Text provided. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The text provided. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: That's fine, I'll second it. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Isn't that the same as the first motion we failed -- that we -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No, because you said the word basis was objectionable to you, so I purposely didn't put that in there. We basically are accepting the text for the floodplain management plan. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Move on, that's good. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Any other discussion? Anybody. (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: All in favor, signify by saymg aye. COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: Aye. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Aye. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Aye. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Aye. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye. All those opposed? (No response.) Page 137 November 1, 2007 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Wiley, you got two recommendations. I hope it works for you. MR. WILEY: Thank you, sir. It will. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I'm looking forward to the return, because that's when we'll actually get into the nuts and bolts of this whole thing. You guys did a good job, and I appreciate all the effort you went through to involve the community. I'm sorry they didn't become involved. They should have. But then again, when this happens and they learn the lesson, they can't say they weren't -- didn't have a chance to tell you. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Only the grandchildren will learn the lesson. MR. WILEY: As the committee has asked us to do, keep going in this year and we expect if we do that in the right way, we'll get more participation. Especially when we can show them what was accomplished from last year's work. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I would agree with you. Good luck, sir, and thank you. Item #8E PETITION CPSP-2007-7 Okay, the next item on the agenda is the continuation of a discussion that occurred two weeks ago on Petition CPSP-2007 -7. It's the creation of a new public school facilities element, capital improvement element and intergovernmental coordination element. Last time we met we went through the interlocal agreement in total. Staff has distributed to us their synopsis of that meeting in regards to the changes recommended. There are some missing items in there. Page 138 November 1,2007 If there's no problem with procedure, I'd like to go into the other elements that we need to review and then come back and clean up any pieces before we make motions on the package. That way we're looking at everything comprehensively. Does that work for you guys? MR. CO HEN: Mr. Chairman, for the record, Randy Cohen, comprehensive planning director. Staff would concur with that as well and recommend that. Because all the items are inextricably intertwined. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Good. Then I think the document we would be moving to is the public schools facility element. And it's labeled on the tab PSFE in your book. Is that the one that you all had thought was the next one? MR. De YOUNG: That's correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Good. We're all on the same page so far. COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: PSE? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: PSFE. It's the -- looks like it's the fourth tab back. You see it? MR. DeYOUNG: For the record, David DeYoung with Kimley-Horn and Associates. MS. TREV ARTHEN: And Susan Trevarthen, Weiss, Serota. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Randy, could you please turn on the thing that makes this so I can hear? Somebody has to talk, then I'll know. MS. TREV ARTHEN: T-R-E-V-A-R-T-H-E-N. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, I think the way we proceeded last time was after -- we just take each element page by page, and those that we have questions, we ask, and you guys proceed to tell us where we're lost or how we can get back on track. Page 139 November 1, 2007 Does that work for you today? MR. DeYOUNG: Yes, sir. MS. TREV ARTHEN: We'll do our best. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And the PSFE starts on Page 2, effectively, with any written matter. Once everybody gets to Page 2 in the beginning of the top of the page, it starts with goals, objectives and policies, public school facilities element. So if you're all there, we'll just go page by page. Are there any questions on Page 1 of this particular element? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I have some. Let's start -- we might as well start the debate up about the level of service. We heard last time that FISH has a built-in buffer for certain school elements. And we also discussed last time that the Florida Statutes require the maximum extent possible in regards to the level of service. Ninety-five percent is not the maximum extent possible. And I know we touched base on it, and I'd like you to explain again on this particular element why we shouldn't be using 100 percent. MR. DeYOUNG: Try to clarify as simply and quickly as possible. There are several different ways to measure school capacity. One of those is using FISH, Florida Inventory of School Houses capacity, which is dictated by the state. That is a number that gets assigned to spaces in a school -- permanent spaces in a school and gives you a total number of students which could be housed within a facility. If you said FISH is 1,000, then 100 percent of that would be 1,000 seats. With regard to another version, it would be program capacity. Now, program capacity is the actual number of kids that are actually in those classrooms based on the program that's being held in that classroom. An example would be English as a Second Language. A Page 140 November 1, 2007 classroom that normally at an elementary level, which is, for K through two, 18 students might not hold 18 students because that special program only allows for eight kids to be in that classroom. So there's a 10 student differential between -- in that classroom between what's allowed by FISH and what's allowed by the program that's being held in that classroom. When we adjust the FISH, or adjust the level of service to 95 percent, what we're doing is we're taking into account the fact that schools, especially elementary schools, have programs in them where the seats -- all the seats in a classroom or that could be put in a classroom are not there, because that classroom is being used for a use, a special program that requires less seats. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. I understand what you're saying. And just for the record, the FISH in regards to high schools has a 10 percent built-in buffer? MR. DeYOUNG: The reason that there's a percentage difference built-in buffer at high schools is because of the movement for students between classrooms. All the classrooms are not being used -- can be -- kids can be in different rooms at different times, whether it's Phys. Ed or some other use, cafeteria, and those classrooms can be allocated. So they put a buffer in for FISH for that reason. At elementary school they do not have that buffer, the kids are in the classroom the full day. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: In the middle school they have a buffer? MR. DeYOUNG: There is a five percent buffer. MS. TREV ARTHEN: And I just wanted to add, we have some data that we received from the recent numbers on this year's enrollment and capacity. And, for example, in some of the schools within the school district, the FISH might be 1,005. But the program capacity might be only 960 kids. So that's like the cumulative impact of here's a learning disabled Page 141 November 1,2007 classroom, here's English as a Second Language, here's other kinds of special programs that for various reasons we cannot have 18 kids in the room even though class size and FISH would presume that we have 18 kids. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, I understand what your argument is. But it also brings into play another argument. Are you familiar with your impact fee study? MS. TREVARTHEN: Generally. MR. DeYOUNG: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. What percentage use do you think that's based on? And I know, I can tell you, but you may not believe me, so I'm going to ask and see if you know it first. MS. TREV ARTHEN: I haven't looked at it recently enough. I wouldn't want to quote a number. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: It's 100 percent. I've done the back calculations, because you don't state it that way, you state the total amount of square footage available, the number of students in the system and then your multiplier ends up you're multiplying by 100 percent, not 95. And that's fine, there's nothing wrong with that, except that if you take the level of service you're starting to deal with here in your PSFE, you've taken that and mirrored it in the ClE. Now, in the ClE you've got to use the same level of service in the 1.1.5 section that you utilize for your impact fees. Well, now you have a disparity between what you've utilized for your impact fee study and what you're proposing to place in the CIE. Are you guys planning to change your impact fee study? MR. DeYOUNG: At this time I don't believe that the school district is planning on changing impact fee study for schools. Just for clarification, are we talking about the student generation Page 142 November 1,2007 multiplier that's used to calculate the impact fee, or are we talking about individual capacity? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I'm using the level of service capacity that you've got at 95 percent. And what the impact fee study did was provide total square footage of the schools and the number of students. And instead of using -- and basically if you divide two of those out, they're utilizing 100 percent of the square footage available, not a lesser number. Now, I don't know, if that doesn't seem to be a student multiplier, that doesn't seem to coincide exactly. I don't know how it coincides, but I do know that the CIE says -- Randy, you should be familiar with the issue because I brought it up last Friday. I'd certainly like to understand where you're coming from on it, because the language in the ClE is very clear. Impact fees shall be consistent with the adopted level of services in 1.1.5. Doesn't say maybe. It doesn't say, as Mr. Tindale wanted to argue, that well, that's flexible. No. Shall is not flexible or -- I think it's will. Either word is not flexible. And if we adopt this or this is adopted at a lesser level of service than your impact fee study, then I want to know if there's a problem. And if it is to be adopted at a lesser level of service, does that mean your impact fee studies for the past number of years have been wrong, or are you going to redo them? What's the outcome of that? Does anybody have an answer? Randy? MR. COHEN: Commissioner, your point's well taken, and the county attorney can reflect on this a bit. The ClE in this particular document have to be internally consistent with one another in the comprehensive plan. You're probably also aware that our board adopted the school impact fees as part of our -- was it part of the uniform adopted impact fee ordinance? I believe it was. Because impact fee ordinances I Page 143 November 1, 2007 think had not been adopted in over 10 years. It's important that when we go through this document that we remain, because these issues are going to come up throughout, that we remain internally consistent. So one of two things has to happen when we run into a situation like this. Either the impact fee study would have to be redone accepting a different level of service, or this document would have to reflect the FISH capacity that's in the impact fee ordinance. That's the disconnect that exists right now. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Are you familiar with the impact fee ordinance that I'm talking about? Have you seen it? MR. COHEN: I've seen it. I haven't looked at it in quite a long time. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. I've reviewed it and made an assumption. You guys are the professionals that really wrote it with Tindale, Oliver, whoever was the expert at that point. If I'm right, it needs to be corrected. If I'm wrong, you need to correct me. So I need somehow to get a reading on this. And I don't know how to do that right now here today, but it's something that I think you all would want to address before it goes to the Board of County Commissioners. MR. DeYOUNG: Well, I think there might be some disconnect from what we're trying to say and what's in the impact fee ordinance. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Good, then let's -- MR. DeYOUNG: The public school facilities element and the level of service, which we also have, we're going to go through that in a little while, that's put in the CIE are identical. The impact fee, that takes a per student calculation. And it's not just based on the schools themselves, but it's based on all infrastructure improvements, the cost of land, to come up with the calculation per student for the impact fee per household. So, I mean there is definitely a difference. And that's why I Page 144 November 1,2007 brought up the conversation about the student generation multiplier and the way you calculate. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, let me tell you what I got. On Table 1 on the impact fee study on Page 6, it provides the school type, elementary, middle and high, the total square footage for each school, the number of student stations in each school, then the level of service per square foot of student station. And it provides the level of service that's there. And if you multiply -- if you divide those back to see if they use 95 percent of the total square footage or 100, they used 100 percent of the total square footage to determine the number of student stations and then established a level of service based on that 100 percent evaluation. To me that seems like 100 percent usage. And that's what I'm trying to say. IfI'm wrong in that 100 percent of the square footage to utilize a number of student stations divided by that produces your level of service, it seems everything is based on 100 percent. And I'm not trying to tell you now that your 95 percent is wrong from a perspective of my knowledge. I'm just trying to make sure you're consistent with the other studies that are out there. MR. COHEN: Mr. Chairman, what I would recommend, obviously we can't do this here today, but as part of your motion when you get to that point in the future today that -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Boy, you're optimistic. MR. COHEN: -- that the consultant get with our impact fee manager and the consultant as well, too, and work out the differences with respect -- if there are differences, with respect to the document you see today and also the impact fee ordinance. And then we'll move forward with the board with that recommendation. If there's a problem, we'll point it out. Ifthere's not, we'll leave just it alone at that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Fair enough. But I certainly-- MS. TREV ARTHEN: I think we would agree with that Page 145 November 1,2007 approach. I'm not 100 percent sure that they can't be harmonized. But we didn't participate. I think that was more of a county document MR. COHEN: That's correct. The document was produced by Collier County. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, the worst thing we could have happen is adopt something that is inconsistent and that you get to a point where it involves a challenge and we lose the challenge because of that. So all I'm saying is let's get it on the same page. And if you guys could do that. What I would like to do -- I'd certainly like to know the results of that, though, Randy, when you get -- MR. COHEN: Yes, sir, and we'll report back to you on that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. On that same page. This is back to the impact fee study in a way. You talk about Policy 1.1.2 and you're establishing the CSAs on less than a district-wide basis. Throughout the Florida Statutes, I keep finding a recommendation for the district-wide application to begin with, and then after five years when we've got more fine tuned to go into the individual CSAs. Now, we're going back to the impact fee study, because the impact fee study, and I can read you the paragraph that says it, the appropriate impact fee district for public education facilities is countywide. So the impact fee study was based on a countywide, not that that is wrong. I just kind of want to understand the discrepancy between the two. MS. TREV ARTHEN: I think those really are very different. The reason the impact fee looks at county-wide is it is a unitary county-wide school district and it makes a lot of sense to do it that way. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I agree. MS. TREV ARTHEN: The CSAs have a different purpose in terms of timing development with the availability of actual seats. Page 146 November 1, 2007 And while you read the statutes correctly, I'm not aware of a single county in the state that has seriously thought of doing county-wide. They work together, you know, and start this process at the stafflevel, and as people start to look at the implications ofthat, which means basically you could have 20,000 seats, and even if there's a child who needs a seat in Everglades City and the seat's available up at the northwest end of the county, that would be good enough for purposes of concurrency. And most people think no, that's not really the way the world works, and we don't want to assume that this seat up on the coast in the northwest corner is going to serve this child in Everglades City. So this debate has been had everywhere, and I would say the closest one I'm aware of is Walton County, which is very small and rural, and they have three districts, that's the fewest number of districts that I'm familiar with. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I would assume then that the advantage to going district-wide is that you can have a -- it's more easy to prove concurrency, because you have tight areas and less than tight areas. MS. TREVARTHEN: You would basically have a very -- it would have to be a lot more extreme facts to have mitigation occur. Even the really large overcrowded urban school districts, often if you add it up county-wide, they are okay. The problem is the seats aren't where the kids are. It's a mismatch. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Any other questions on Page 2? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ifnot, let's move to Page 3. Any questions on Page 3? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Give me a second. Oh, I've got a question. You use the word conj unction in multiple parts of this document. What does that mean in your terms? Page 147 November 1, 2007 In, for example, Policy 1.1.4, the county, in conjunction with the school district and municipalities. Does that mean they all have to be in harmony and agreement? They all just review it? Do we -- yes? MR. DeYOUNG: They all review it in conjunction with each other. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: What if someone disagrees during that review process with a particular element of it? MR. DeYOUNG: Built into the end of the interlocal agreement is a negotiation process. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So the ILA kicks in when this-- MR. DeYOUNG: The ILA is the base for this, really. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Under -- yes, go ahead, Mr. Murray. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I'm just going to say, under Policy 1.1.3, under B, the sentence concludes with all the relevant factors. How far are we exploring this? Are we satisfied with the term other relevant factors? Do you see where that is? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes, I do. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I'm really asking you I think in this context how far we want to poke this thing. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: A lot of this is language right out of the Florida Statutes. That's why it's a little hard to -- COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Well, it's underlined, so I wasn't sure. It's proposed by the school district. MS. STUDENT-STIRLING: I talked to DCA about this language, and it's worded that way because one size doesn't necessarily fit all. And there may be factors related to one facility that's not in others, so that's written that way to take into account those factors that may relate to one particular school and not another. It's just to give you -- you know, they can't up-front imagine every scenario, so that's why. Page 148 November 1,2007 COMMISSIONER MURRAY: And I can appreciate that. What is the cure for that ultimate, the ILA, the interlocal agreement, should there even be an issue rising to that level? MS. STUDENT-STIRLING: Yeah. And I think perhaps as we go through this and apply it, we'll probably learn what those factors may be and so we could cure it. But bearing in mind that this is dynamic, and school building and so on is a dynamic process, so it's probably always changing. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I appreciate that, and I appreciate the qualification of it. Then I know enough where to stop. Hopefully. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Any other questions on Page 3? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ifnot, we'll move on to Page 4. Questions on Page 4? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Objective 1.2, the last line starts with the adopted level of service standard established for each school type as measured within the CSA. Is that the measurement process that's provided in the ILA? MS. TREV AR THEN: Yes, that's the process of looking at each individual application and how it impacts on the CSA. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: On the bottom, 1.2.2.B talks about the residential development that has approved functional equivalent of a site specific development order as of the effective date of the school concurrency program. I can't remember, did we work out the effective date? I think there was a question that Margie was going to resolve for-- MS. STUDENT-STIRLING: Yes, it's going to be March of 2008. And when we come to the LDRs questions, I'll talk about that too. But I spoke with DCA on this. One thing I do want to mention, because we had this issue about Page 149 November 1,2007 ORIs, and it's coming up, I pointed out to the DCA the conflict in language for vesting for ORIs that exists in 163, and then the vesting language that exists in the House bill. So they referred that to their legal staff. And I will be hearing -- I have not heard back from them yet, and I expect to be hearing back from the legal staff on that point. So I think that's something we need to deal with by the time we get to the board. MS. TREV ARTHEN: And that would be paragraph F. That was jumping ahead to paragraph F. MS. STUDENT-STIRLING: It's under the exemptions, and that's where we're -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: In regards to dealing with that, are you saying DCA did not agree with the exemptions for ORIs? Or did they MS. STUDENT-STIRLING: There are two provisions in the law. The growth management law says that DRIs -- and DCA's interpreted that to mean they are exempt from -- and new compo plan or amendments, that preexisting ORIs are exempt from that. But House Bill 360 contains language that is not found anywhere in the Florida Statutes. Just comes at the end of it and talks about the ORIs that exist as of the effective date of this law. Not when the local government implements it, but this law can be exempt ifthe developer does certain things. So there's a disconnect between how generally DRIs have been dealt with for the growth management law and then this new language in the House Bill 360. So that is what DCA representatives are taking to the legal department to give us a read on how this really should be handled. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. On Policy 1.1.2.B, again, where it talks about any new residential development that has a final plat or site plan approval. At some point when we had other changes to the Page 150 November 1, 2007 code, developers would rush into the county center and get their things date stamped so they get in before the code went into effect. I'm assuming that we had allowed that to happen, because if someone's already been in the process for six or eight months or three months or whatever it is, to now kick them back all the way over again because we have to have this language kick in might be difficult. Because this wouldn't kick in unless they seems to have their approval. So if people that are in the system right now that are trying to get through it, this goes into action, they have to stop, go back through the process that you guys are instituting and then they can go through the process -- then they can get back out again? MS. TREV ARTHEN: You're correct that B does not represent the pipeline that's currently being reviewed and thought about. It only represents those things that are approved prior to the effective date of school concurrency. And that's the way this has been him implemented elsewhere as well. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But is that the way that's required by Florida Statute? MS. TREV ARTHEN: I think that if you wanted as a local government to be more strict and look at dealing with some sort of zoning in progress declaration prior to approval -- but really what you're talking about is vesting the pipeline, whether or not they got to approval. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, it says uses exempt from the requirements of school concurrency. And here's where my concern IS. First of all, we don't have any acknowledged or any foreseeable concurrency problem with the schools. Everybody that's in the system right now is going to be out before the end of 2008 under probably the worst case scenario. So there's really no reason for them to be held up in the system Page 151 November 1, 2007 any longer because we've implemented this since the time they submitted. It seems kind of unfair to go back now after they've gone through so many months and submittals to say oh, we've implemented a new rule, you've got to come back through again, when the net effect of their coming back through is nil, it's zero because we don't have a concurrency problem. So why wouldn't we want to let this process apply only to those after the date of effectiveness that have submitted. Prior to that date if they've submitted and got date stamped, they're in the process, they're okay. MS. TREV ARTHEN: First of all, I'm not 100 percent sure that every single school will be completely clear in year one. I would stand corrected on that. I don't recall offhand. But second of all, you could just flip that around that it's not going to stop them, it's not going to result in a denial, it's just going to be a matter of doing the review, which is not a lengthy review, you're just talking a little bit of extra time for them to be reviewed and affirm that the capacity is available. I think the general rule is that the law that's in effect at the time that they are approved should apply. And so if concurrency is in place, it's March 2nd, and they're being approved on March 2nd, generally they should be subject to that requirement and not vested from it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Margie, in the past can you recall how we've done this? Do we have a regular way we do it? MS. STUDENT-STIRLING: Mark, what you're talking about was the outgrowth of the final order from -- you know, the '99 final order where if you're going to call it a vesting provision was written into that. And that was further back in the process for when you submitted instead of when you got your approval. And then the county kind of grabbed ahold of that in some Page 152 November 1,2007 subsequent provisions it wrote in its land code to vest projects. And so that's how that came about. I don't know that -- I don't think we necessarily have to use that again here. That was an outgrowth of that other process. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. And Mr. Schmitt, I know that you're -- probably don't want to get in the middle of this fray, but I was just curious as to where your department might stand on this issue, if you have one at all. I guess you made the misfortune of staying here this afternoon. MR. SCHMITT: In regards to -- in regards to this, it would really not take effect until we issued a Land Development Code from the standpoint of when we would identify a date for submittal. And normally, like any other, a change in the building code or any other type of forthcoming code, we do allow for something that comes in to be under the previously existing code at the date that it came in, and we usually allow for some kind of implementation period. For exactly what you said, there's people out there right now who have been working for months either developing plans for submittal or rezonings, and normally there's a date established. That's long been a policy both in the building department and in the zoning department. But this is the GMP, we would -- that kind of specificity would be at the LDC -- no, Randy? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: This one's got the language-- MR. COHEN: Yeah, what would happen here, actually, if that policy was written the way that it was written, you would actually have to have an approved site plan or plat. So if we're going to do it from the standpoint of trying to give them some time because they're in process, this is the place that we would have to do it. MR. SCHMITT: Well, what is the -- okay, I'm reading the language. But the date would be on or after 1 March, 2008. Page 153 November 1, 2007 MR. COHEN: Correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But see, how many SOPs and final plats that are in the process right now could you commit to these people to have done? And those that didn't get done, say they're even one week away from being finalized by your staff, they'd have to come back under this process -- not that they shouldn't. I'm not saying the process is wrong for anybody in the county. In fact it's a good process. We need to have school concurrency. But in the end result with those people that have been in and trying to get through the system, and there's no concurrency problem, we're going to be holding them up even more for nothing. MR. SCHMITT: I'm just thinking about this, because, frankly, this is going to require something in addition to during the process, but it's not going to change the plan. It won't change an SOP, it will not change a building plan. It is a requirement to submit the supporting material for concurrency. And now that I read this the way I read this, it says I have to do it effective upon implementation. So I will have to tell them you're going to have to submit now the following information. But I'm thinking now because of specificity as to what they're going to submit, we still have to develop as part of our LDRs. We know there's going to have to be the concurrency -- I forgot the word. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I think the rest of the process is in the ILA. But I'm just now -- I think what we need to do is amongst this panel decide what we really think is fair in regards to submissions. Brad? Thank you, Joe. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Well, Joe's right that the building code issues. But the code's been on the street by state regulation for six months prior to. So I think the secret really would be to make it official and give it a certain time, which gives people a chance to learn how to work with the requirement. Page 154 November 1, 2007 So you could make it, you know, how many days after it becomes promulgated probably would be smart. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Margie? MS. STUDENT-STIRLING: DCA has advised when I spoke with them that as soon as this thing is effective, we have to start to implement it. And we should really be having our LDRs ready to go and be able to be adopted very soon after that. And that was in discussions with them. So they're looking towards having this thing ready to go by March. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But Margie, I don't think there's any way that, from what I've been hearing, that we're going to have the LDRs available by March. MS. STUDENT-STIRLING: I understand that. And we advised them that, what was it, Michelle, we said maybe a period of 90 to 120 days that it would take at the earliest to get the LDRs? MS. MOSCA: For the record, Michelle Mosca, comprehensive planning staff. We have written into the ILA and other documents one year. But because we have many advisory groups -- that is because we have the many advisory groups. But we're probably looking at six to seven months but needed that additional flexibility. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So what happens to people that -- in March of 2008? Say someone comes in in April 15th we don't have the LDRs in place, what happens? MS. MOSCA: The guiding document, and someone can correct me if I'm wrong, is the interlocal agreement. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. That is your gap document then. MS. MOSCA: I would say yes. MS. STUDENT -STIRLING: And the compo plan, as well. I Page 155 November 1, 2007 would say ifthere's a delay in adoption, then the ILA would be the guiding document, then the compo plan. We did this before when we originally did the plan. Those parts we could implement right away without LDRs, we did it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. MS. TREV ARTHEN: And Mr. Chair, I would like to echo what Margie has said, that DCA has been very, very clear on this. That they basically said if you need to revise your LDRs, that's your problem. You have a due date. This thing needs to be effective by your due date. And in reality the regulated class has had three years of notice. This was enacted in 2005. And there was an extended period for us to do all of this work to get it together. So it isn't similar to something where, you know, in November an individual local government dreams up a new program and two months later out of the blue people are stuck with it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. Page 5, are there any questions on Page 5? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Under Policy 1.2.3, now, this one may be automatically resolved by the gap document. Says the county through its land development regulations and in conjunction with the school board shall establish a school concurrency review process. Do we need to put something there that says during the interim period before the LDRs are adopted that the ILA is going to be in effect? MS. TREV ARTHEN: I think by operation oflaw you can do that. I don't think you need to cull it out. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Any others on Page 5? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Page 6? (No response.) Page 156 November 1, 2007 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: We're going to get through a page without having a question. Page 7? Any questions on Page 7? MS. MOSCA: Mr. Chairman, I have an addition to Page 7. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes, ma'am. MS. MOSCA: Would be Policy 1.2.6, remove the reference to 180 days and insert one year. And that would be consistent with the interlocal agreement. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Do you have any problems with your side? MR. DeYOUNG: No. MS. MOSCA: And also again, on Page 7, Objective 1.3, remove beginning in and insert by December. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: By December? MS. MOSCA: Yes. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, any other questions? Mr. Murray? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: In this document that we received today it says something here on Page 7. Is it the same Page 7,3.1? No, can't be. MS. MOSCA: That's the ILA. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's the ILA. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Sorry, I didn't pick up on that. Okay, thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Policy 1.2.5. Why don't we strike that? MS. TREV ARTHEN: 1.2.5? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah, top one. Why would you need that policy? You're going to be issuing -- nobody can get at COA without you issuing an SCADL. So why wouldn't you -- why would you need a policy for COAs on top of it? Page 157 November 1,2007 MS. TREV ARTHEN: Because there's a time gap, and there's also the possibility that you would deny for another reason. And if you do, the school district needs to know that to say, okay, that project's not coming. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So if you issued an SCADL, and it wasn't used, the county would just hold it and not issue the COA and not tell you, or -- MS. TREV ARTHEN: I think this is just a process to ensure coordination of all relevant information. It's like a little bit of a tag team. It starts at the local government and then it goes to the school district for review and then it goes back to the local government to give the final resolution to the applicant. So this language just generally provides for coordinating that information. MS. MOSCA: Mr. Chairman? CHAIRMAN STRAIN : Yes, ma'am. MS. MOSCA: If! may ask the consultant, would it be more appropriate in the LDRs? This would be more difficult to change in the public school facility element. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Why wouldn't we do that? MS. MOSCA: So if we needed to change the process at all, would there be an objection to that? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's more of an implementation type action. It's after it's been issued, then you'd be notified. MS. TREV ARTHEN: Do you recall if this is a minimum requirement for the element? Some of the things are a minimum requirements, and that's our concern. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: It just seemed like a process -- even if we get in -- if we put it in the LOR and we find out there's an easier way to do it, it certainly would be easier to change there. MS. TREV ARTHEN: Could we leave it that we would follow up, and if it's not legally required, to leave it there, that we would put Page 158 November 1, 2007 it in regulations? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I think that's fine. I certainly wouldn't want to take it out if it's required to be there by law, but, okay. Are there any other comments or questions? Who said well? Anybody? Somebody that's not there. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Somebody hiding under that-- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Oh, I didn't see him from here. You pointed, there was nobody there. Okay. Page 8? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Any questions on Page 8? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Policy 1.3.1, under your third line, it's actually where the language starts in blue, it says construction that changes the primary use of the facility. I'm just wondering who determines that trigger. MR. De YOUNG: That's a good question. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: If you have 50 percent of the -- say you've 100 percent facility right now. Fifty-one percent of it becomes -- instead of a student housing, it becomes a gymnasium or a bus depot and the other half of it still has classrooms. How does -- is the facility primarily changed then? MS. TREV ARTHEN: Well, I think at the outside that would be a very sort of obvious change. And I think some of this other language, if you go on, it's more about just changing capacity, and that's more likely to happen more often. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Wouldn't the trigger -- it wouldn't be a primary use, the trigger would be a change in the capacity or something of a -- MR. DeYOUNG: Okay, I just got the answer from the school district. And the answer is there's elementary schools, middle schools, high schools and ancillary facilities. The change would be Page 159 November 1,2007 from one of those primary uses to something else. That would be a change in the primary use. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: What if you change from a high school to a -- what's between a high school -- next one down, middle school? MR. DeYOUNG: Middle school, yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So you had a facility that was entirely middle school and you split it up half high school and half middle. Is that a change in the primary use? MR. DeYOUNG: Yes, that would be a change in the primary use. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: What if you had 10 percent changed to high school and 90 percent changed -- left at middle school. Is that a change in primary use? MR. DeYOUNG: I suppose it could be considered a change in the primary use. These are the types of things that are discussed with the staff working group, as outlined in the interlocal agreement. So any change in the use of the facility would be discussed by the staff working group. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, then maybe we should say that, construction that changes any use ofa facility, instead of primary use. MR. DeYOUNG: I think the purpose of this was to limit it to a major change in the facility that could affect concurrency. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I agree with you. But since you won't tell me what a major change is, you're making it hard to define what it is. Primary doesn't tell me major. Major doesn't tell me what percentage it is. So how do we define that so we avoid a conflict down the road? You could go in and change classrooms around at a percentage of, say, five, seven, 10, 15 percent. Fifty percent, you could say well, that's not a major change, that's not a primary change. But in the eyes of other people it might be. So what percentage then, what number can -- how do we fix this Page 160 November 1,2007 so we have -- MR. DeYOUNG: The end of this policy talks about a five percent increase in student stations. So I guess you would have to say it would be a major change in the primary use, which would be from elementary to middle, and an increase, that would be a major change, or an increase in student capacity greater than five percent. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Mark? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes, sir. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: I could give an example. Right now we're housing a significant proportion of our eighth graders in Immokalee Middle School at the high school. Would that qualify? MS. TREV ARTHEN: Like moving the eighth graders out-- COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: The ones who didn't pass their F-CA Ts and they're really not qualified to go to ninth grade, but the middle school doesn't have room for them over there so there've being housed at the high school but treated separately. MR. DeYOUNG: Well, I think we're confusing another issue, which is on-site and off-site infrastructure needs for a school. And if we're moving kids from the eighth grade to another school temporarily, we're not really changing off-site infrastructure. Now if you change the primary use ofa middle school to a high school and all of a sudden you need to accommodate parking for high school students, that would be a change in the use of a facility. I think what we're trying not to do here is get mixed up between what's going on inside the school that doesn't impact on-site and off-site infrastructure and what does. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, maybe the best way, and you referenced the second line that talks about a greater than five percent increase. Why don't you simply say that construction that changes the use of a facility, stadium, construction, or construction that results in greater than five percent increase. Take out the reference to pnmary use. Page 161 November 1, 2007 If you have construction that changes, anything that creates greater than a five percent increase in student capacity, you've got a trigger. MS. MOSCA: Mr. Chairman? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes. MS. MOSCA: This actually is statutory language. I understand that it's difficult to define primary use. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Well, you know, next time that happens tell me early. If it's statutory, we can't change it. I didn't know that, so that's fine. I don't necessarily agree with it, but there's nothing we can do about it. Policy 1.3.2. Why in the world would you want to wait until you commence construction before you kick in this particular paragraph? Why wouldn't you want to do that when it's first identified? MS. TREV ARTHEN: Well, as I understand it, especially for some of your school facilities out in the eastern portion of the county, there can be a quite lengthy early process that is much -- short of committing you to building an actual school on a particular piece of dirt. All the other regulatory systems that the school boards deal with, the environmental reviews and so forth. So I think this was an effort to try to identify a time that's closer to when you really know that the school is going to be built and where it's going to be built. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah, but then you guys are going to come in and say wait a minute, you can't turn us down to bring all these off-sites and all these other issues here. We already bought the land, we've owned it for years. That's the wrong time to approach the county on a need. You ought to approach the county on need before you buy the property or when you're in early negotiations with it. MS. TREV ARTHEN: But if they already own the property and they've owned it for decades prior to this, there's no way that you Page 162 November 1,2007 could have accurately assessed the need for improvements that far ahead of time. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Do you think this only applies then to existing purchases -- existing properties? MS. TREV ARTHEN: No, that's just an example. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Does it apply to new purchases as well? MR. DeYOUNG: Well, there's an entire process for -- when a school district is purchasing a new piece of property for a new school, it goes through an entire process with county staff, through that staff working group, again, for the review of the facility. And so the county and the school district or the city and the school district, depending on where the facility is or is going to be, should be negotiating these things from early on in the process. I think when we say prior to the commencement of construction is we are just verifying that it will take place at a minimum prior to the commencement of construction. That a school won't start construction and then come in to talk about the needs for off-site and on-site infrastructure. MS. TREV ARTHEN: There's also the issue that sometimes the school board will project that they need a school of a certain size, but as they move closer to the actual provision of the school, they'll find that maybe it hasn't grown as much, the demand is not there, and maybe the school is going to be smaller or larger, which would directly be relevant to this negotiation on improvements. So you want to be closer to when you really know this is what level of school and how many seats are going to be there. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: If you've got property right now, then you know all those properties need to be serviced. You should know, Clay, in your master plan, when you intend on developing those properties, or at least the best you could right now. Why wouldn't you want to come in to the county with those Page 163 November 1, 2007 right now and sit down and try to coordinate with them based on the language in this paragraph instead of waiting to just before you believe you're ready to go into construction with those facilities? MR. DeYOUNG: The school district does do that. And in fact, part of the map series for the public schools facilities element is the future locations, existing and future locations of school sites, especially the ones identified in the five-year capital plan. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, well then we can leave the red language that's struck in. I guess we're both saying the same thing. That's all I'm trying to get at is let's leave in the red language and take out the commencement to construction language. MR. DeYOUNG: I think, as Mr. Hardy just said to me, the school district has a five-year capital plan, but there's also a 10 and 20-year plan which future schools are identified. The schools may not have sites yet, but they are identified in the 10 and 20-year plan. So we wouldn't want to preclude, you know, the ability to talk about other school sites. I think that's why when a new school is identified in the capital improvement plan has been struck from this. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, when the new school is identified in the school district's plan, period. Any plan. I don't care if it's a 10, 20, 30-year plan, but as soon as you recognize that a school needs to be identified, from that point forward you ought to coordinate with the county and not wait till the commencement of construction. MS. TREV ARTHEN: But we are. There's a whole planning and coordination process that takes place. That's not what this is about. This is specifically about getting down to the final answer on improvements. And doing that years and years and years ahead of time makes no sense because the facts are going to be so different by the time the school is actually built that the background -- we're all limited in how good we are, whether we're the county or the school Page 164 November 1, 2007 board in terms of projecting the future perfectly. So when you get this large time gap, it's going to be problematic. I think what we'd like to see generally as governments is to try to make it be as close to accurate as possible. And that time gap creates a real level of uncertainly. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Well, I think I understand where you're going with that. And at this point our court reporter needs a break, so we will take a break and come back here at 2:45. (A break was taken.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. MR. COHEN: Mr. Chairman, you have a live mic. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. We left off on Page 8. If there's no more questions on Page 8, maybe we ought to -- oh, there is one question on Page 8, I'm sorry. I hate to have this question. Policy 1.3.3, second line, starts with the word redevelopment of existing schools, and it says to ensure compatibility. And don't you mean -- wouldn't that be to the greatest extent possible? MS. MOSCA: Mr. Chairman? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes, ma'am. MS. MOSCA: No. It would -- well, I guess it would be to the greatest extent possible, but -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I don't like the word -- just like we did in the floodplain. And the word ensure is so -- MS. STUDENT-STIRLING: How about determine? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah, it's so difficult to deal with if you can't do it. MS. STUDENT-STIRLING: How about determine? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: To determine, maybe that would work. Does that -- yeah, determine. How's that work for you guys? MR. DeYOUNG: Determine, verify. MS. TREV ARTHEN: I like determine. Page 165 November 1, 2007 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, let's put determine in there, then. That's in agreement with everybody? COMMISSIONER MURRAY : Yeah. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Good. Page 9, any questions on Page 9? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Your policy 1.3.5. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: C. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I know that the schools are used for emergency shelters. Why would you guys be involved in our evacuation zones, routes and shelter locations? Basically you're -- they are there wherever you put a school. MR. DeYOUNG: This policy is here because it's required by the statutes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Oh, I knew you were going to say that. MS. MOSCA: Mr. Chairman, if! may, 9J-5 Florida Administrative Code .025 reads: A policy addressing coordination with adjacent local governments and the school district on emergency preparedness issues. So it's general language. I think we -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, then that's good. MS. MOSCA: -- could address A, Band C. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, then why don't we just say that the county in conjunction with the school district will address emergency preparedness issues, and leave it like that. Just mimic 9J-5 and not go into these details. Because, honestly, for you guys to be involved in our evacuation zones doesn't make any sense. That's transportation and emergency operations, and routes as well. MR. DeYOUNG: I think the rest of the policy is just giving examples of how you would be coordinating. I don't think it does anything more than that. If you want to take those out-- MS. TREV ARTHEN: It's okay to take it out. Page 166 November 1, 2007 MR. DeYOUNG: -- you can take it out. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, I think it should come out. MS. MOSCA: Mr. Chairman, for clarification, are you reciting 9J-5.025? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes. Just take 9J-5 and drop it in there and let the LDRs work out the details. Okay, I think that's it on Page 9. Make sure I haven't missed anything. I know I have. Page 10, policy -- any questions on Page 10 of the commission? (No response.) COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I couldn't see anything. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I don't have anything on 10. I think that takes us to the end of that first document, with the exception of all the backup tables. Well, no, there aren't any. There are some backup tables in the original version sent to us. That gets us through the PSFE. Anybody have any questions on the document as a whole? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Why don't we move on to the capital improvement element. And in between, there's a lot of data and analysis. I'm assuming that's provided -- you all provided it. I don't think it's -- it's more pure data, so I'm not sure what it matters. I don't think we can debate those issues, so as far as I'm concerned, the language that we can talk about is more on the capital improvement element, which would be next. So if everybody agrees, we'll move on to that. That's two tabs back from where we just left off, gentlemen, so -- ClE starts with an index, a little "i", but we have Page I, which is the introduction of the ClEo Then we get into Page 2, which are your policies. Any questions up to Page 2? (No response.) Page 167 November 1,2007 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Page 3? I have a question on Page 3. You have your item C towards the bottom. It defines a significant impact. Now, I've done multiple word searches on the CIE and some other segments of our GMP, and I can't figure out why we defined this as a significant impact, because I can't see where it comes into play. Do you know of any? Maybe it's more a compo planning question since you guys didn't write our GMP in this regard. It goes to the extent to start defining significant impacts, Randy and Michelle, and I can't find anywhere in the GMP where we referenced again the word significant or impact. So I'mjust wondering what the purpose of this is. Basically it's saying that any generator then is a significant impact. What does that mean? MR. COHEN: Well, when you read the first part of the policy, it's very apparent that it's looking at a very large development from the perspective of generating, one, either population that would be three percent greater than the county at that time, or at the same time generating three percent of the volume of traffic that exists in the county at that time. So that portion is in essence itself defining with -- at that point in time. I'd have to look at the school part of it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Randy, it's probably harmless to add it here. I just couldn't figure out how it then applies to any other part of the code. I couldn't find where we address significant impacts elsewhere in the GMP, and that's why my question. Because I'm wondering, okay, if we're going to add this in here and it now becomes a significant impact when you reach a certain threshold. MR. COHEN: I think the perspective is whenever we get a very large development that comes on in, that it would trigger this particular component right here and give it additional scrutiny. Page 168 November 1, 2007 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But in order to give it additional scrutiny, you have to have something else in which to scrutinize it too. There's no other reference as a significant impact. Well, I guess it's irrelevant in regards to how this fits in there, because if it doesn't apply anywhere, it doesn't really matter. I just couldn't figure out the significance of adding it in there. And I thought if there was one it would be nice to know what it is. And before we go too much further, Chris Thornton has been patiently sitting in our audience waiting to talk on an element in the PSFE. And Chris, I apologize for not catching you before we moved to this page, but we're not very far past it now, so why don't you go ahead and identify yourself and tell us your concerns. MR. THORNTON: Thank you. I'm Chris Thornton with the law firm of Cheffy, Passidomo, Wilson and Johnson. I appreciate this opportunity to address you today on your proposed public school facilities element. My comments are directed to -- basically I have two suggestions for inclusion in the -- in your considerations. One would be with respect to the exceptions, in 1.2.2 of the PSFE. It's on Page 4 of your document. And it looks like since it's underlined, you did add -- and this to do with the exceptions. This is projects that are going to be exempt from school concurrency. You added approved ORIs. And what I'm going to suggest to you is that you have projects, at least one that I know of, that are in the county that have come through for rezone that are not ORIs but that have committed land for school facilities. And so I would request that you include an additional exemption in 1.2.2 of the element to exempt -- and I've given this language to staff a couple of days ago, so they've had it. But basically it's to exempt as a new paragraph sub G in 1.2.2.G any rezoning containing a residential component approved as of the Page 169 November 1,2007 effective date of the school concurrency program in the Growth Management Plan, wherein the rezoning contains an obligation to conveyor otherwise provide land or facilities for public schools. And although this -- I think the language would have countywide application, and I'm aware of one project, Sable Bay, and the client I'm representing today is CDC Land Investments, Inc. But the Sable Bay project originally came through as a DRI and made commitments to address school concurrency and capacity for schools, but then was subsequently determined not to be a DRI. And so the project includes a large site for a school. And the MPUD document commits that developer to providing that school site. And so although it is not a DRI, it does have commitments to provide school -- land for schools. And so we would request that you include an additional exemption to school concurrency. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Marjorie, is there any concerns with that? MS. STUDENT-STIRLING: Yes, there is. I've spoken with Mr. Thornton about this, and I've also forwarded the language to the DCA for their comment. I offered to Mr. Thornton that in the DRI section we might include language that not only would include DRI approval, but where DRI had been initially approved and by operation of law was no longer a DRI because of the change of the statutory thresholds, that we might include it there to take care of his issue. I think there could be some problems with whatever may be donated or paid or committed to be donated or paid at the rezone level, and then it may not be sufficient to catch school concurrency. So I think we have a concern that, yeah, you donated that, but it may not be sufficient for school concurrency, it might include other things that are not included in concurrency and so on. And we have talked about this with representatives from DCA and they are looking at the language. Page 170 November 1, 2007 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, if some property has been donated as a result of the rezone process, wouldn't they at least -- and if your concern is the value of the property versus the concurrency mitigation or value that may be required when they came through for the concurrency element, wouldn't they at least be getting credit for that property's value against impact fees? MS. STUDENT-STIRLING: Well, this looks like it gives them a pass, just an absolute pass. MR. THORNTON: I don't see any provision for the credit in the current proposal -- MS. STUDENT-STIRLING: I don't think it's a prop share. There's a thing about prop share in there and credits there. But it looks to me that -- and our concern is that you're looking at different things at that time period and, you know, how it would all fit together could be problematic. And again, I do have it with DCA, so. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, Margie, he's got a very good point. I mean, the whole purpose of exempting DRIs is presumably because they've provided some contribution to the school system at the time they were approved. So even if it isn't a DRI -- and by the way, the fact that it was at one time and is not now just because of a threshold change doesn't change the facts of the issue. We have rezones in Collier County that if they've provided school facilities and school properties, how are we treating them in regards to crediting them with the -- to the extent of their contribution? MS. STUDENT-STIRLING: I have not seen -- and my recollection anyway, other than DRI projects where there've done that. There may be some, but in my recollection, standard PUD rezones or site specifics don't do that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Did this project go through the full DRI process and afterwards it just was downgraded because of the Page 171 November 1, 2007 threshold change? Is that how it occurred? MR. THORNTON: I'm afraid I don't know all the details. I know that -- MS. STUDENT-STIRLING: I think so. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I remember it came through here, and I thought it went through the full process. But I don't know where it ended up. Chris, would Margie's language, adding it to F in the manner that she spoke, wouldn't that cover the-- MR. THORNTON: It sounds like they would address the particular issue at Sable Bay, but I don't know that that's the only rezone project that's come through the county that during the rezone process gave up land for school facilities. And those projects don't appear to have -- so they come through rezone, they give up land and now that they go to get a plat, they don't give any benefit or credit from having done that at the rezone stage. MS. STUDENT-STIRLING: Well, I think they get impact fee credits for it. So they would get that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Even for a past contribution? MS. STUDENT-STIRLING: Yeah. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Because I mean, look at your well sites, as an example, and parks and recreation's extractions for additional park areas. They're not getting -- nobody's getting any credits for those. So I don't know if that statement -- I don't know if they'd automatically get impact fee -- MS. STUDENT-STIRLING: I don't know either, I mean, that was just a thought. And this, as I said, it came in our office, I think, like a couple of days ago. So we've been trying to react to it and have had discussions with DCA about it and they are going to, you know, give us their take on it. MR. COHEN: Mr. Chairman, might I suggest a few things. I think at this point in time, you know, absent certain information, it's Page 172 November 1, 2007 very difficult to answer Mr. Thornton's question. I think Ms. Student-Stirling needs a response back from DCA in order to assess what her recommendation would be, whether it be an addition to F or a new G. Two, I think it would also be incumbent on us as a staff to go out there and assess what other actions may have been taken by this county where there has been a donation of land to see if where there are some other pieces of property that would be affected. The major concern, obviously, on my part is the DCA issue, though. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, either way, this panel could recommend that some language be considered for provisions of land contributions in addition -- outside the -- those addressed under a DRI. Meaning if someone in a rezone process contributed land, or just a new zoning process, there be some consideration. Go ahead, Brad. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I think they've been wanting to chime in real quick. Maybe that will save-- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Go right ahead. MS. TREV ARTHEN: Mr. Chair, I agree with what your county attorney is saying about this. I've been informed by school board staff that they believe, I mean, they don't have all the records here, but they believe that Sable Bay did receive an impact fee credit, and that would normally be the way that this would be handled. If the land is donated at the time that it comes due for them to pay their school impact fees they would receive a credit for the value of what they've already donated. And that's why this is not a proper place to exempt, because, this goes back to the discussion we've had previously about how impact fees are just fundamentally different from concurrency. And the land donation is really just another form of satisfying their impact fee obligation, if you want to look at it that way, because it is eligible Page 173 November 1, 2007 for the impact fee. It is a structural participation in the provision of schools. Concurrency is not about that. Concurrency is about you're here before me today. Do I have a seat for that child or not today. And you may have paid your school impact fees, but I may not have the seat for that child. It's a timing issue. So just like for roads, you know, there might be dedication of right-of-way, but I don't think that would automatically exempt you in the county for having a concurrency review for roads. They're different kind apples and oranges. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I understand. Go ahead -- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: The point I was going to make is you could give a land for a high school and it's elementary schools is the problem. So there's a lot of different ways to look at that. Does the county ever get donations -- first of all, if you had a donation of land, wouldn't the school board be aware of it and be factoring that into their plans? Or you're saying the land is not yet donated, it was only -- MR. THORNTON: They might factor it into their plans, but any applicant who comes through the rezone process and through that process makes commitments for land and does not have any plats or SDPs yet and is sitting on a project that's ready to go and now is going to come in the door have to go from the beginning through school concurrency and won't have any assurance that they'll receive any concurrency benefit for the mitigation that they've already provided. And I understand that the exemption that I'm proposing is basically an acceptance of the proposition that that mitigation satisfies fully the capacity, the lack of capacity ifthere is a lack. But sometimes some cases might have overcompensated, some cases may undercompensate. It would be difficult to know, looking in Page 174 November 1, 2007 the future, whether you've over or undercompensated. That's why I'm proposing basically that the property be vested. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: At this point I would leave it. My inclination is to let the county attorney find out from DCA the status of those projects that were once DRIs that have been downgraded. And if it falls under the exemption that we have in here, fine. If it doesn't, I think you're going to have to live with the impact fee credits. At least that's what I would think at this point. I think school board staffs comment that you have to -- concurrency is a different issue than impact fees, you're absolutely right. Sable Bay is a huge project. It was approved awhile back, but it could be years before it actually gets on line. There might not be concurrency at that time. And to vest them without a DCA in place or something like that right now I think would be difficult. MR. THORNTON: Are you talking about -- I don't know if! understand fully what Ms. Student-Stirling was saying. Are you talking about the possibility of adding language to the DRI exemption that says this exemption also applies to projects that were approved as the DRI but are no longer ORIs? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes. MS. STUDENT-STIRLING: That's what I was considering. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. What was your second point, sir? MR. THORNTON: The second point is tangentially related to the public school facilities element, and it's probably something you've already covered, but while I'm up here, I hope you'll let me address the issue. It has to do with the student generation rates, that they're, basically, the tables that are in the interlocal agreement and in the data and analysis. And those, the data and analysis concludes with a table that makes the prediction, an assumption of what the student generation Page 175 November 1,2007 rate is going to be for different types of projects. There's five types of projects: single-family, multi-family, and those are fixed numbers that I do understand will be updated every now and then. What I'm recommending is that similar to the way you handle your transportation concurrency, that you're going to have projects that come through that are not going to generate the students that your flat, fixed, one size fits all student generation rate is going to generate. You might have a project -- in my mind when I think about this, I'm thinking about a project -- think in your mind of a project that you know is not going to have very many children. And pick -- a multi-family project is not going to have very many children. But they're going to be stuck with the -- for concurrency purpose, the flat rate that applies countywide for all multi-family projects. And so in transportation the way you deal with that in your comprehensive plan and your TIS guidelines is to allow the applicant to propose alternative transportation generation rates. If you're not going to use ITE for transportation, you have to justify and support a lower traffic generation rate for purposes of transportation concurrency. Similarly, I would suggest that the same reasoning should apply to school concurrency. If the county can be assured by my application to you for an alternative student generation rate that my project will produce less than the one size fits all rate, why not at least create the possibility for somebody to propose different student generation rates. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The issue of different rates did come up at our meeting two weeks ago. But anyway, Mr. Schiffer, go ahead. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: No, finish, Mark. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. And what we were told is that that rate was already generated, utilizing the fact that not all facilities Page 176 November 1,2007 in this county and not all residential districts in this county have the same number of students. For example, you have senior facilities where they don't have students at all. You have developments that are more of a second home nature. I guess from a countywide perspective, all those were collected together and the student generation rate was like a weighted average of all ofthe facilities that we currently had in the county, which is why they felt it was a fair number to utilize across the board as a standard, rather than getting into individual arguments on each project. Is that a close statement to where you guys were last week, or two weeks -- MS. TREV ARTHEN: That's a good summary, Mr. Chair. And the only thing I would add to it is it's relevant to the fact that the constitution requires uniformity of these things. So everything we do in school concurrency is a little bit different from road concurrency because we're in this environment of a constitutional requirement of uniformity. So no student generation rate that I'm aware of, and lots and lots of counties have them, have that, even though it's very common for a road impact fee or something like that to have it because of uniformity. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Did you have a comment, Brad? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And we did think about that. And the point that might be tough is that that could change, too. You're right, multi-family might not have it. But over time the economics of that building might be such that it's full of children. So -- because I was thinking even at the last time when you -- when a project comes on line and you drop the potential of it and you go to the actual number generated, that that would be a point to almost achieve what he wants. But you can't be assured that the next year or 10 years from now it's not a huge generator of population. So Page 177 November 1, 2007 it's kind of like traffic again is we'll probably have phantom children out there. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Chris, I don't think you'll win too much in that argument today, but we'll certainly look into your other one for you. MR. THORNTON: Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you, sir. Appreciate your time in waiting here today. You're one of the few members of the public that even bother to participate in these actions, and they are going to have huge impacts in this county, so we appreciate it. Thank you. Back on the CIE, we were talking on Page 3. We're now on-- Page 4 and Page 5 have no changes to them. Neither does Page 6. The next page in the CIE that have a change are Page 7. MS. MOSCA: Mr. Chairman? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes, ma'am. MS. MOSCA: I have a change to Page CIE 7. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. MS. MOSCA: And it would be under A-8, public school facilities. And we're suggesting removing enrollment/ for all three items, A-8, I, 2 and 3 to make it consistent with the other documents. That would be the public school facility element. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So it would read 95 percent ofCSA FISH capacity? MS. MOSCA: I'm sorry, another change; 95 percent ofCSA permanent FISH capacity. We're also going to add in permanent. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: How does that sound to the school experts? MR. DeYOUNG: That's fine. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Are there any other questions or issues through Page 7? (No response.) Page 178 November 1, 2007 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, then we got Page 8 with the financial feasibility. Are there -- I don't think there are any changes. Yeah, there's a couple of small changes on Page 8. Michelle, on Policy 1.2.5, it says the county shall not provide a public facility, nor shall it accept the revisions of a public facility by others if the county is unable to pay for the subsequent annual operating and maintenance costs of the facility. How does that fit with what we're changing here for schools? MS. MOSCA: Well, where staffis suggesting may be an exemption for public school facilities, or an exception, rather. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So you're going to add some language to 1.2.5 to make an exception to -- MS. MOSCA: I believe we would have to. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Now, I'm sure the school people would object to that because now the county doesn't pay for your buildings, right? MS. TREV ARTHEN: Well, I think that's the point that we have, just the factual point, Mr. Chair. I don't think this is applicable. Because it's not a county-provided facility and you're not accepting it. Usually that refers to like somebody builds a road and they turn it over to you and you accept the ownership and maintenance of it. We don't turn public schools over to you to run. So I think it's not a policy that's relevant to this issue. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, Michelle -- I need our staff to agree so we don't have a disagreement, so somebody's got to say yes or no to -- MS. MOSCA: Let me just have a moment to read it again. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: While she's reading it, Policy 1.2.4 adds schools as public facilities. That's what threw the curve. So if you don't mean them to be public facilities, then maybe we ought to be not adding it in there. Because it also comes into problems from other parts of -- Page 179 November 1, 2007 MS. TREV AR THEN: Yeah, I think this was recommended as an addition. But it may be that it has inadvertently gotten mixed up in solely county facilities. So we would be glad to work with your staff and if it doesn't fit there, just take it out. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I'm just curious to know today, so -- and if you look at the objective, it talks about providing public facilities, and it also talks about ad valorem taxes and intergovernmental revenues to pay for them. And again, I think you guys got your own system and -- MS. TREV ARTHEN: I think you're right. And I don't know of any statutory requirement for that particular policy to address -- ones that talk about testing concurrency, of course. MR. COHEN: Mr. Chairman, we'll work with the school board and school board consultants with review of 1.2.4 and 1.2.5 with regard to your concern, and if it's not necessary we'll remove the items that have been inserted. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Page 9. There on 1.2.7, public schools have been added again. And again, on Policy 1.2.8, because they were added in 1.2.7, if for any reason the county cannot provide revenue sources identified as needed funding for specific projects within the adopted schedule of capital improvements. It's just the county again. So I want to make sure that the county isn't getting inadvertently hooked under some kind of basis to all of a sudden fund schools when -- by the end of these policies. MR. COHEN: Well, Mr. Chairman, in 1.2.7, we actually do collect the impact fees for the school system. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Do we have any liability there then under Policy 1.2.8? MS. TREV ARTHEN: I don't believe so. But you would want to hear from your county staff on that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Well, would you guys continue Page 180 November 1,2007 to look at the rest of those policies after you look at Policy 1.2.4? And we'll just leave it there. MR. COHEN: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Any questions through Page 10? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And then we've got Page II. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I have a -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Go ahead, Mr. Murray. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I think I have a question, because I have a notation there. I need to read it again. Okay, I think it has to do with under Policy 1.4.1.A, which is the consultant's language, and it speaks -- the word on the third line down is specifically. And my question is are there others? In other words, you've included something specific. Are there others that are omitted, or this is just all there is? MR. De YOUNG: Those two tables summarize the capital improvement program and the revenue sources of the school district which demonstrate financial feasibility. So those two tables specifically do that for your -- COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Okay, that's the intent of it. MR. DeYOUNG: Yes. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Okay, thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: On Page II, Policy 1.4.1, there's a beginning -- there's a sentence that was added as A. The beginning date. Is the effective date December 1st, 2008? Is that when it was being -- MS. TREV ARTHEN: Yes. It's a separate statutory date. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Under the Objective 1.4 on top, it refers again to the county. County shall coordinate its land use planning and decisions with its plans for public facility capital improvements. I just want to make sure that it's not supposed to have the school Page 181 November 1, 2007 system in there somewhere by the references that we've previously had in some of the other policies. Did you -- Michelle, you're following that? MS. MOSCA: Yes, I am. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, it's just something you need to check. And I don't want to ask you to go further with it today. Any questions on Page I2? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Policy 1.4.4. Michelle and Randy, this one says the county shall determine prior to the issuance of final site development plans that there is sufficient capacity in Category A. Is the county really the one doing that, or is the school board providing that information to us and we're accepting it? MS. MOSCA: Mr. Chairman, I believe that through the SCADL, then we will in fact as the county make that determination. And the consultants can correct me ifI'm wrong. MR. DeYOUNG: That's correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Under Page I3? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Then we're on Page 14. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I have a question. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Go ahead, Mr. Murray. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Okay, under Policy 1.5.4.A, my note is: Confused. That's my note to myself. A, necessarily facilities and services are in place at the time a final site development plan, final plat or building permit is issued or. And I guess maybe I was getting toward midnight reading, but that confused me relative to the preceding sentence. Let me just have a moment here to look at it again. If anyone of the following standards or concurrence is met. Never mind, I'm not as confused. Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Page I5? Page 182 November 1, 2007 (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Page I6? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Page I7? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: What happened? I jumped to Page 28. MS. MOSCA: Mr. Chairman, those are actually the County CIP tables, so we're moving from CIE 16 to CIE 28. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Yeah, that's what I have. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I'm sorry, you're right. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Oh, and I do have a question on 28. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Go ahead, sir. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I'd like to understand. I know that the consultant has been using by reference, and I'd like to understand the implications of that. What is it that you're intending, by reference? I think I know, but I want to be sure I know what you know. MS. TREV ARTHEN: DCA has a pretty precise understanding of what this means. And so what it means is on an annual basis, because this is a document that changes every year, you're going to be saying something like, you know, the December 2008 version of this document is hereby adopted by reference. And what it frees you from is literally adopting it all into the text of your plan, when it's really not something -- a lot oflocal governments feel kind of uncomfortable taking somebody else's plan and putting it word-for-word in the middle of their plan. It also means that you don't have to check and make sure it really is the one that was adopted. So for review purposes by DCA and others it's clear that your intent was just to adopt whatever was adopted as of December, '08. Page 183 November 1,2007 COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Okay. And I do thank you. That's what I understood. So that -- but if DCA did have a problem, would they come to the county or would they come to the school district? MS. TREV ARTHEN: And you've hit the sort of nub of school concurrency. We're sort of bound together on this. But this is clearly an aspect where the school board is, you know, sort of taking the laboring role. And so they would definitely be involved in addressing any concerns about financial feasibility. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Would make sense. MS. TREV ARTHEN: Yeah. They have to be. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Okay. So by reference then, I understand it in its context. Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: We're onto Page 29. Any questions on Page 29? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Let's see ifI have any. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Michelle, on B of Page 29, about the fifth line down, it references Policy 1.15. It should be 1.1.5. And then it says of this element are to be maintained at the end of the five-year planning period. Don't you have to maintain them throughout? MS. MOSCA: Well, we have a staff edition, we discussed this with the consultant, we're going to change the wording to within. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Within the five-year plan. Okay, that works, too. Under A up above it says, not including public school facilities. I thought they will be coming under the AUIR process. Maybe not the same time as ours, but aren't they going to be in that -- MS. MOSCA: My understanding is that they are not part of our AUIR process. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So they are -- but we are going to be reviewing them. They'll just come in later? Page 184 November 1,2007 MS. MOSCA: We have included a review of the district CIP within the ILA appendices, specifically Appendix D. MR. COHEN: And what's transpiring, Mr. Chairman, is the schedule of the adoption of the school board's CIP. It doesn't run parallel with the AUIR because of the budget years. However, when we get to the time for review and adoption of the CIE, we'll have all the information in hand from both the review at the AUIR and the CIP. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Page 30, last page. Any questions on Page 30? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The way that one reads, number three, talks about the geographic boundaries of the CSAs. Really that's not limited to the geographic boundaries of the CSAs, because we can use adjacent CSAs. So do we need to clean that up? Because by referring to the actual geographic boundaries, it's a little more definitive. MS. TREV ARTHEN: And I understand your point and how it could be read that way. However, the whole statute is structured that way, that it's applied on the CSA and then separately they say, oh, by the way, if you need to, you can shift -- COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Go for the next. MS. TREV ARTHEN: -- to the adjacent. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So you're telling me this is language-- MS. TREV ARTHEN: It sort of follows the structure of the statute. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Staff, are you guys fine with that? MS. MOSCA: Staff has no objection to the language as proposed. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That gets us to the end of the CIE. Chris, I'm not going to try to forget you again. If you have anything, just come on up. You're the only one in the audience, so Page 185 November 1, 2007 feel free to walk up here at any time. This is such a hot ticket in this county. Okay, the next element, and I think the final one, is the ICE. MS. TREVARTHEN: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: This one didn't have a lot of changes. Randy, I had asked for a document, and unfortunately it didn't get to me. It doesn't mean I'm still not interested in it. Mike Bosi was going to mail it to me, so that's probably what happened, the mail is not as fast as the -- MR. COHEN: Well, it could be just Mike Bosi, though. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No, Mike's pretty good. MR. COHEN: I'm just kidding. Which item? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: On Page I, it refers to the Collier County intergovernmental service delivery agreement report. I just want to make sure I still get that eventually to read. MS. MOSCA: I have an extra one. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Not right now, but eventually. This one doesn't have a lot of changes on it till we get to Page 3. And Page 4 has a little bit more. Are there any requests on Page 3 or 4? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: If not, we'll move to Page 5. (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And we're done with that element. Now, we've had four elements to go over. And we've got papers on different elements to process here today. So let's start with the last one, because that's the easiest. Is there a recommendation to -- is there a motion to recommend approval of the ICE element as proposed in today's meeting to the Board of County Commissioners? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: So moved. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: So moved. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion made by Commissioner Page 186 November 1, 2007 Adelstein, seconded by Mr. Commissioner Murray. Any discussion? All those in favor, signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Aye. COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: Aye. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye. COMMISSIONER CARON: Aye. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: We got past the most difficult one. Now let's get into the CIE. And the only issue I have in my notes from the CIE is in Section 1.2.4, staffs going to take a look at whether or not the language there ought to be removed referencing schools. If it isn't removed, then they're going to verify that the other elements of that section aren't affected by it. MR. COHEN: Mr. Chairman, one thing that I need to clarify. We're going to look at it from two perspectives: Whether it needs to be removed or potentially whether additional language needs to be added to clarify what the intent is. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I agree. Staff, I think you did have some suggestions on that particular item. I'm not sure. Let me look at my notes. Yes, the CIE on yours, Page 29, 6-B. You recommend removing the phrase at the end of it and replace with the word throughout. Isn't that the one we just talked about, now you picked a different word? Within now, wasn't it? MS. MOSCA: Yes, it's within, correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, are there any things in that element -- we've heard from the school board staff presenting this, county staff. Are there any items in there that we need to discuss Page 187 November 1,2007 further? MR. COHEN: I think it's appropriate, Mr. Chairman, that if there are any inconsistencies with the CIP and the CIE, before making a motion on this particular item, that they need to be discussed and thoroughly vetted at this point in time. From a staffs perspective, the CIP for -- that the school board adopted has two schools, and I do have a question for the school board at this time as well, too. It had two schools that were adopted on September 20th in the work plan, both of which would have effects on our CIE, because they would impact roads that do not exist. That being said, there would be a requirement that -- if we added them, there would be a requirement there being no funding source that we would have to fund those roads. That was High School EEE and Elementary School O. We recently received a letter from the school board indicating that they've removed Elementary School 0 from the work plan. My question that I have, and I just got the letter today personally, my question was did the school board take official action on that? I don't know what their normal manner and priorities in how they handle those items. Here whenever we schedule an item for our CIE, it's either, you know, adopted and put in a CIE, and when it's removed it's done by the board as well too. So we received a letter from Mr. Hardy indicating that would transpire. From staffs perspective, whenever we have an internal inconsistency between what would be in the adopted document into our plan by reference, which would be a CIP, and the CIE, we don't move forward until we rectify that situation. In this case, how do we pay for the road that's going to serve High School EEE, and how are we going to finance the road that's going to serve Elementary 0 if their board has not officially removed Page 188 November 1, 2007 it from that work plan? So we have a major concern there with respect to funding, because we do not have in our five-year window adequate funds to pay for roads like that. And obviously it's going to trigger the necessity for those roads, and if an outside developer was to come on in and see that we adopted a school by reference, you know, and included that in there, they're going to say build the road, Collier County. And I don't think we want to be in the position where we have to expend millions and millions of dollars building a road just for a school. I think there are some solutions that we can reach with respect to that possibly in the interim as we move forward; maybe some type of interlocal agreement, you know, looking at new numbers with respect to population and also the trends that have transpired as to whether or not -- and also the enrollment figures whether or not that school is actually needed three years out. It is possible we can do that inbetween transmittal and adoption and come to some type of an agreement. But right now from a professional prospective, we as comprehensive planning staff have some major problems with that internally inconsistent situation that exists as a result of the adoption of that work plan. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you for pointing it out. And we will try to resolve it and see where we've got to go. MR. HARDY: Alvah Hardy for the school district. The work plan that the school district submits to the state is a living document. We've already spoken with the DOE. They use it as a snapshot in time for their reporting to the state legislature on 67 districts. It's a document that we have Internet access to and we're modifying it at this point in time to remove Elementary 0 from the five-year, sixth year to the eighth year so that the school will not Page 189 November 1,2007 appear in the plan at all. High School EEE I will repeat is in the sixth year of the plan. And the concurrency trips for school concurrency are the first three years of the plan. So I'm not sure I understand the issue at hand. MR. COHEN: Mr. Chairman, their sixth year would be our fifth year. They show an expenditure of over $90 million in their year three, which is our year two. If you recall our board's policy with respect to expenditures with regard to when we start construction or enter into a contract in years one or two, in essence you better have in place your other facilities. In this case we don't. So as I said, that's one of those boundaries where our budgets kind of cross each other. But they would be opening that school in probably September of our fifth year. And we do not have that road planned whatsoever in the fifth year, or is there any identification of it in the long-term plan, until that need arises. There's a further conflict also as we move forward. You're not going to see it in this year's AUIR with regard to the decrease in population as much as you're going to see it in next year's AUIR. And when I talk about that, I talk about that with respect to all of our public facilities. As we run into a situation with COs actually declining, the last -- this year's AUIR is going to reflect a higher number because we had some additional COs that showed on up from April to April. Well, the following April to April you're going to see a lot different numbers. So there's a concern on the population side as well, too, wherein the necessity of facilities goes down. With that also comes another concern. When we have less development, less demand on facilities, what ends up transpiring is we get less revenue that comes into the revenue stream that can pay for stuff. In conjunction with that, we have things transpiring at a state Page 190 November 1, 2007 level, which is putting an extremely difficult burden on local government in order to pay for things. And until we get a good handle on how to do that in the office of management budget, the county manager's office, when we're dealing with a school that's going to come into a system and there's no way to pay for it or no agreement in place to pay for it, is extremely difficult for this staff to recommend that you take action on that in a positive manner. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, so it looks like Elementary School 0 is resolved in the sense that it's going to be removed from the five-year -- the CIP. Is that the issues in that-- MR. HARDY: The only thing I can add at this point is that the county manager and the superintendent of schools discussed this issue and to my knowledge they resolved it at their level. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: They're not voting on this today, we are. MR. HARDY: That's fine. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Let me get back to the problem. There was a problem with Elementary School 0, and that is now resolved because it's removed from the five-year plan; is that a fair statement? MS. TREV ARTHEN: Well, neither one of them, according to the school district, are in the five-year plan. But the county is treating a year six school as in year five, and it is moving to year eight. That's what Mr. Hardy was -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So 0 is resolved. MR. COHEN: Well, for the record-- MS. TREV ARTHEN: We believe they're all resolved. MR. COHEN: For the record, what I need to do is have a question answered. On September 20th a budget was adopted by the School Board of Collier County. It included both Elementary School 0 and High School EEE. As far as I know, no changes have been made to that budget. Both of those items were funded within that time period: Page 191 November 1, 2007 High School EEE in year three, which is our year two and 0 in year six, which is in year five. So when you say they've been removed, I haven't seen an action taken by the school board to remove them. I've seen a letter from Mr. Hardy that indicates that Elementary School 0 has been moved out to eight. That's just a letter from Mr. Hardy. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Randy, in order for this panel to go forward in any manner, we can either accept or not -- provide a recommendation of -- well, first of all, Marjorie, this is a GMP element. Do we have to posture this in a manner that's a positive recommendation in order for the BCC to act on it, or even a negative recommendation or no recommendation? Now, remember, I believe we're sitting by statute -- MS. STUDENT-STIRLING: This is the -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- as the LPA in this regard. MS. STUDENT-STIRLING: --local planning agency, and the statute says that you shall, you know, make recommendations. I don't know, though, that you could carry that so far as to say that if you have a problem with something that you can't say there's a problem and we need to do something about it. I talked with DCA about this issue, too, and their response was that there should be enough time and procedures built into the ILA to take care of a problem like this. Because the statute contemplates that the school district and the local governments will come together on these things and there shouldn't be a problem. I mean, that's the way the statute's written. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I think the most difficult document we're going to have to discuss today is going to be the ILA, because there are some issues that I think are going to be contested when we get to it. Now, we have to get to it. I don't know what order IS necessary. But in regards to the CIE, if we have problems with two Page 192 November 1, 2007 schools, one that seems to be resolved, and we stipulate that the CIE from this panel is contingent on the resolution of those two issues being resolved in order for our positive recommendation, is that a way we can proceed, or do we have to have the definitive answers now in a manner to go forward? Because basically, Margie, I think it's the CIP the drives the issues in the CIE that are at contest. If we have a CIP that has been told to us is going to be problematic for Collier County and the CIP is incorporated into the CIE -- MS. STUDENT-STIRLING: Correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- and we therefore cannot incorporate it if we know that this problem occurs, what's our alternatives here today? MS. STUDENT-STIRLING: DCA, I posed this question to them. The statute doesn't provide any alternatives other than an interlocal agreement where there's ample coordination and so on to work this out. And DCA response was make sure that the interlocal agreement has sufficient amount of procedures with a sufficient amount of time to work it out. And I guess failing that there are provisions in the ILA for alternate dispute resolution. But unfortunately the statute doesn't say, well, this plan trumps that plan or anything like that. Because the idea is everyone is to coordinate and come up with a solution legally. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, this has been going on for quite some time. MS. STUDENT-STIRLING: I understand. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: There doesn't appear to be a solution, unless you guys have one to offer. MR. COHEN: Mr. Chairman? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No, let the -- MR. DeYOUNG: I just wanted to add one thing in terms of the Page 193 November 1, 2007 five-year capital plan and the difference in timing between the two documents we're talking about today. As we said, both documents are live, both documents are amended each year. And of course the school district's responsibility now is to achieve and maintain an adopted level of service standard. And as they project their student enrollment each year, ifthere's modifications and variations to that, they're going to make changes to their five-year capital plan. At the current time they had shown a need for an elementary school and a high school. Those schools have slid, just as roads to be improved have slid out in your capital plans, and I think what can be said is, you know, each year the school district is going to be looking at its population, student population projections in determining what schools it needs and where those schools are needed. It is built into the interlocal that the county and the school district will coordinate prior to the commencement of construction off-site and on-site improvements. And I think you have to have time to let the process work. The school district needs to show to the state that it's financially feasible and it's meeting the adopted level of service of schools, and they're doing that based on current population projections and student population projections. If Mr. Cohen is right and population is decreasing, student population is decreasing in hand, those schools may be moved out again out into a further year. And as Mr. Hardy said, the school district is really only committing in its five-year capital plan to the first three years of that five-year capital plan. So even in years four and five, those are planning years. And if anything, it's putting the county on notice, and it should, that there is going to be a future need. I don't think there's any need at this time for a high school that's in year six of the school districts, not even in the capital plan, but year six of their planning process, and then if Page 194 November 1, 2007 you want to talk about construction, won't even be built -- will be two years after that, most likely. So 2008 before it even opens, having this hold the process up at this time in terms of what is ultimately going to be the necessary process in accordance with state requirements and guidelines. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, you said the key words, though, you're putting the county on notice. That's what I think we're concerned about. MR. DeYOUNG: Well, I think when I say-- MS. TREVARTHEN: Of the eventual need. It could be 10 years -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But see, say you come in in your year six, and maybe it's our year five, and we don't have the roads heading in that direction by the time you get to that point. You have put us on notice this year that you're going to need us there in that year. We don't have the funds from the development going up in the growth in that area. How are we going to make that happen? MS. TREV ARTHEN: But we also have five opportunities to resolve this problem. In the next -- there's five annual updates before we even get here. I mean, I think in a real sense it's very hard to understand how this is -- as we might say as attorneys, there's no live case or controversy there. It is outside the scope of the school board's five-year plan, it's a future problem, not a current problem. MR. COHEN: I need to correct the record here, because I'm hearing year six, year eight. I sat in the school board meeting on September the 20th where a work plan was presented to the Collier County School Board on the consent agenda when -- in the work plan. And I have it here. In year three, which is our year two, over $90 million budgeted for High School EEE and in your year six, which is our year five, over 30 million, maybe $40 million budgeted for Elementary School O. Page 195 November 1,2007 Now, from my perspective where I have to incorporate or my county has to incorporate a working plan, which you said is not a static document, it's something that goes over time, has there been any action taken by the Collier County School Board that has changed that work plan? Because I haven't seen it. I've gotten a letter from Mr. Hardy that says that School O's been moved out. But now I'm hearing that certain schools are moving out. What I've asked your staff to do is to revisit the numbers, if possible, to take a look at them from the perspective based on declining enrollment, declining population, to see if those schools were actually necessary in those years. I think that's a vital thing that needs to transpire. I've been told that it's a work in progress and they really won't know till March, April, May, whatever the case would be as to when that need may transpire. What I do know is that -- what I sat in on was a meeting where specific years weren't discussed -- well, they weren't discussed but were actually adopted by the Collier County School Board. If that's changed by staff or there's a recommendation to change it by staff, I know the normal process here is that we adopt it and go through our board channels. I don't know if that's transpired with the board. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Randy, let me cut to the quick here. MR. COHEN: Go ahead. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And I understand where you're going, I appreciate your explanation. Basically we have a CIE that is dependent on a CIP. The CIP that's in front of us today, we have conflicting testimony on concerning its viability. County staff feels that it's going to put us in a position that we may have an obligation that we can't meet based on the revenue stream that could be coming in from the projected population. The school board has a position that over the next five years Page 196 November 1,2007 things will change and that may not be the case. But either way, the CIP has it in it. And the CIE that we may adopt is contingent on that. MR. COHEN: Even if they move High School EEE out to year six, which is our year five, we have a financially -- we have an inconsistency with their plan. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right, I understand that. And that's where I'm going with my next question to our legal staff. Margie, can we even contemplate recommending adoption of a CIE that is now testified to be inconsistent with the CIP that's -- MS. STUDENT-STIRLING: This is what I would do. I would consider all of it that you can recommend approval on on that point. I would put a caveat, and I think what we do is we send it up to DCA that way. Because I've been told by them, you guys have to work this out. You should have plans that get you well ahead of the curve on this. And the statute doesn't contemplate what to do if you can't, other than the alternate dispute resolution process, which can be lengthy, referenced in the IL -- in the existing ILA that we have and also the proposed. So that's the only thing I know to do, put that in there as a caveat, say we've reached a deadlock here and what our concerns are, and then see what we get back on the ORC. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. So what you're recommending is that we could go forward with a recommendation of adoption subject to the various changes we would -- MS. STUDENT-STIRLING: Correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- speak about. MS. STUDENT-STIRLING: And then mention-- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Except that the references to High School EEE and Elementary School 0 in the school CIP are not at this time part of that adoption recommendation. Page 197 November 1,2007 MS. STUDENT-STIRLING: Correct. And we need to express very particularly what, you know, the problem is with our plan and its financial feasibility with that in the school plan, and put it squarely before DCA. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, but the financial feasibility to due to the lack of other infrastructure elements that would be going there, which are not really in the school plan, they're just not in our plan at this time. MS. STUDENT -STIRLING: Correct. That would be the roads to serve the school that is not in our plan and may cause us severe financial difficulty to move something else out and substitute it with that or raise additional money to do the roads, as well as what's already in there. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: County staff, is that a means to an end? MR. COHEN: Yes, sir. And what I'd also recommend, in between the transmittal hearing that's transpiring right now and the adoption hearing, I think there's some opportunity with the staffs in both governments to look at the differences that exist. Maybe look at some numbers that are out there and maybe we can work out and rectify those differences as well, too, before coming back for an adoption of a public hearing. I think that opportunity exists, and I think we should, as both governments should, pursue the avenues to get there, if we can. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Well, then, I would be suggesting then for this panel to consider a recommendation of a transmittal of the CIE with the staff stipulation that -- with the stipulation that Items 1.2.4 be reviewed by county staff for whether or not we need to include the reference to public schools in that policy. Ifwe do, how that then needs to change other policies within that same section of the CIE. And that also we find that due to financial feasibility with the lack of service facilities in the county's Page 198 November 1, 2007 plan that the schools CIP for High School EEE and Elementary School 0 not be accepted at this time. Is that sufficient, Ms. Student? MS. STUDENT-STIRLING: Yes, I think so. That it not be accepted and that we also note when we transmit to DCA, unless it's resolved before then, that this is an issue that we have received an Impasse on. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And that we would note to DCA that that's an outstanding issue and an impasse issue. MS. STUDENT-STIRLING: Ifwe don't-- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ifwe don't resolve it by the time of transmittal. Is there a second for that motion? COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: I'm make a second. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: That's fine. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Adelstein made the second. Is there discussion? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I just had a question. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I've been trying to follow this and I think I have, but it seemed to me that the interlocal agreement was, according to what I read anyway, was the place where these things -- that they force it to come to a determination. School district's talking DOE, we're talking DCA. What do we expect from the DCA when we send it in this way? What do they do except likely tell us go to your interlocal agreement? MR. COHEN: Mr. Murray -- COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I'm sorry for being ignorant, but I'm -- MR. COHEN: Let me go ahead and -- because I've had conversations with both DCA and DOE. Michelle and I had a conversation with Mike McDaniel with regard to the inconsistencies. Page 199 November 1, 2007 And first of all, one of the things that he told us is when they transmit, you know, the public schools facilities element, they don't have the staff up there to review it to see whether or not it's internally inconsistent with other aspects of your comprehensive plan, and it's your duty as a county to do that yourself. And we've taken that upon ourselves to do that. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Okay. MR. COHEN: And my question to him, and this is paraphrasing, because I don't remember the exact question, but I asked him that if we included a school in our -- that was in the CIP and adopted the public schools facilities element and I used High School EEE as an example, that was in their year three, which is our year two, and we did not have that road program, would we be responsible for building that road? His response was you're technically correct. Okay. So I think it speaks for itself. When we talk DOE, okay, we get back into the situation with conflicting statutes that chapter 163 conflicts with Chapter 1013, and again, DOE in a conflict with DCA. And that's something that all needs to be rectified at a certain level. So we find it problematic. But the word from DCA is that you have to be internally consistent. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Well, I concur. And I concur with the Chair the way he's described it and with Marjorie's statements, so I would vote for that certainly. It just seems to me we're staving off something that probably is going to end up being resolved in the interlocal agreement. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I think to further debate it here today, we can't resolve it. So I think this is the best way to get it passed us to a point where someone is going to be forced to -- MR. COHEN: I think we need to get to a point where as a matter of protocol that in part of the LIA that we don't get into situations like this in the future. And I think that's the intent where Page 200 November 1,2007 we need to go. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Any more discussion on the motion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: We've still got five people here. All those in favor of the motion as stated, signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Aye. COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: Aye. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion carries. Now, we've got to go into two other items. I think we can finish up this afternoon, but we need to take another break. We'll be back here at five minutes after 4:00. (Recess. ) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. MR. COHEN: Mr. Chairman, you have a live mic. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, welcome back to this lively meeting. Before we go too far, I'd like to poll the members. I know Brad hasn't got too much of a concern about time frame. It's late enough, I don't mind going till we finish. But Mr. Kolflat, I know you've got time constraints in the evening. COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: I'd like to be home before the sun goes down. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: What if it's cloudy out? COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: That's 7:00, by the way. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Adelstein, are you -- what's the latest -- COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: I'm fine. Page 201 November 1, 2007 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Murray, anything? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Anything you want to do. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. And I think it then falls back onto Cherie', and we'll all give her evil looks because she has to leave at 5:30. So at 5:30 we'll do as best we can to wrap this up by then. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: That's a good idea. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That means you guys just need to agree on everything and stop disagreeing and we'll make this a lot faster. So we got past the capital improvement element and we're now into the PSFE. Now, let me read my notes for that. First of all, there were a couple of items changed by staff. I think everybody was in agreement with what's on the handout sheet in staff changes. MR. DeYOUNG: That's correct, we were in agreement. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I think the following items are important to be considered in the PSFE. One is that they determine the consistency between the impact fee study and the PSFE and CIE level of service. And that is something that is the 95 percent to 100 percent discussion. We talked about it, someone needs to resolve it before it goes to the board, that that inconsistency between those documents gets resolved or how it has to get resolved. The effective date that needs to be entered into the PSFE for this whole process is in March of '08. Policy 1.2.5, there was an omission there that needs to be checked. Let me see what that one was so I can recall. MS. TREV AR THEN: I think what we said is if it was legally required we would leave it in, if not, we would take it out. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, that's correct. So Policy 1.2.5 will be verified whether or not it needed to be there. Policy 1.3.5, that was going to be modified by removing Items A, Band C. And we're going to add the 9J-5 language verbatim. Page 202 November 1, 2007 And Item 1.2.2 was going to be modified possibly as a result of Margie Student's response from DCA to implement additional language into Item F concerning downgraded DRIs. And there was one other issue I just found out about from Chris, and he basically said that the PSFE had for exemptions six items, but the ILA had five listed, and that item C was the item that wasn't listed in the ILA. I'm not sure if staff is aware of that. And that is the amendment to previously approved development orders. That does not increase the number of dwelling units or change the dwelling unit type. That's another exemption that apparently didn't get -- Chris didn't think it got carried over in the ILA, so we can go back and check that. But if that is a -- well, let's just check it right now. Do you know -- I see everybody is turning pages, so -- MS. TREV ARTHEN: I think in the interest of time we could all agree that that is a provision that works in both documents, and if it's not in both documents, we'll make sure it is. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. So the verification of that item will be taken care of. And that falls under Policy 1.2.2 will be consistent with the ILA. MS. MOSCA: Mr. Chairman, I have one other item, when your CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes, ma'am. MS. MOSCA: -- list is complete. Same as we have with the CIE, there's a map that indicates the opening of combo School EEE, and that's on Page 13. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. MS. MOSCA: We'll need to address that somehow. Consistent with the recommendation from the -- with the ClE. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So the PSFE will also be contingent on whatever methodology is worked out in regards to High School EEE Page 203 November 1, 2007 and Middle School (sic) 0, as previously stated on the ClE. MS. MOSCA: Actually, Mr. Chairman, 0 is not listed on that map, so it would just be EEE for the-- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Just EEE? MS. MOSCA: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, before we make a motion-- COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Wait, don't you have -- on Page 7 you had a couple of changes? MR. DeYOUNG: There was also a change to Policy 1.3.3 to take the word ensure out and replace it with the word determine. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Go back to Page 7. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I didn't get into the smaller ones. Since you guys were in agreement as we went along, I assumed those would be made. I wanted to make sure some of these that were more broad or more encompassing, like removal of complete sections, that we just reiterated that. Mr. Murray? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: No, that's fine. As long as we understand, like 1.2.6, one year instead of 180 days. Those are the kind of things you're talking about? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I wasn't going to include that. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Not a problem for me. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Those were minor text changes that both parties agreed to as we went along. I didn't write them down, they seemed -- I think the record's clear on them. MS. MOSCA: Mr. Chairman, they're also on the summary sheet that was provided to all the commissioners. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: All the changes we made here today? MS. MOSCA: All of the changes that had I mentioned as -- COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Okay, that's fine. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Now, from a staffs perspective, the Page 204 November 1,2007 stipulations that I reiterated on the PSFE, are they clear enough or you want them stated again? MS. MOSCA: No, they're clear. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Everybody satisfied? Then I'd like to make those stipulations in the form of a motion to recommend transmittal -- COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Second. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- the PSFE. Seconded by Mr. Murray. Is there any further discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: All those in favor, signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Aye. COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: Aye. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion carries. Okay, that gets us back to the one that we started with last week, and it is the interlocal agreement. And Michelle, you were kind enough to supply a list of items that came out of that meeting. I have gone through your list. I have some issues with it only for clarification, and some additions. And let's start with your number nine on the list. Now, I've got a series of your list on this issue, but I think it's all number nine on all the pages that I've got. This says Page 25, Section I4.1(C-5). I think section I4.I(C-5) occurs on Page 29. MS. MOSCA: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So that correction needs to be made. Page 205 November 1, 2007 On your page -- you have a correction number 12. I didn't have any problem with your other corrections I through II. Well, I have multiple I through one 11 s. Michelle, I don't know which one you're using to read from, because I've gotten so many. The first words on the one I have up on top says CPSP 2007-7. Are those the very first words on the top of the page with the interlocal agreement changes on it? MS. MOSCA: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Then I am reviewing from the right one. MS. TREV ARTHEN: I think the first page is the meeting changes and then the second page where the numbering starts over is what the county staff had already given you in writing at the first part of this hearing. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, then we've got another one today, so that's kind of what's adding to the confusion. I've got multiple pages of corrections. MS. MOSCA: What I did, when I provided the -- when I sent out the e-mail yesterday, I also mentioned in the e-mail that I would provide hard copy to all commission members. So in the event that you weren't able to print it out, that's just a duplicate. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: How many items of correction do you have in total? MS. TREV ARTHEN: II and 13, I think. MS. MOSCA: Right. On the interlocal agreement, Page I, I have a total of II. Page 2 on the interlocal agreement, I have a total of 13. And that goes over to Page 3. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. Now I think that's my confusion. My second page has 11 restated, which is really 10, and 12 which is really 11. And then I get finally to 13. So I don't have apparently the right pages, or I've got -- I've got to make sure we're Page 206 November 1, 2007 right on this, and let me -- COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: One has blue, red and black type on it. MS. TREVARTHEN: Maybe if staff could just compare physically yours with theirs. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Those are the ones I was using. Okay, that's the one you handed out today. Unfortunately I made my notes on the one from prior. That does make it hard. Okay, we can still use it. Number 12, Page 31, 14.4. Michelle, yours reads, school district has requested the removal of the last sentence. And then district staff is concerned about the reliability of the data with potential daily/weekly updates. The text was revised as agreed to at the 18th CCPC meeting. Does that mean county staff concurs with that? MS. MOSCA: Yes. What's revised, if you look at the first page -- and I'm sorry it's so confusing. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's not a problem. MS. TREV ARTHEN: It's Page lIon Page I that's the actual text. This is basically a change that's in two different places, but it's the same one. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I want to make sure you both concur on the change. MS. TREVARTHEN: Right, we do. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You don't have a problem with it? Okay, then I don't have any other questions. And your items I through 13, I do have a considerable amount that need to be added. Does anybody else have any questions about staffs corrections on Items I through 13? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: No. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Well, then let's go into the other parts of the document. The first one is I2.3.B. We discussed this last Page 207 November 1, 2007 week. I was somewhat surprised at the response, and so I want to make sure we know what it is. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: What page are you on, Mr. Chairman? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: It would be Page 8 -- actually, Page 19 of the interlocal agreement. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: There was language taken out of I2.3.B. The language that was taken out says, the school district, a developer pursuant to section I63.3I64.5FS, shall be subject to the county's comprehensive plan and the Land Development Code as amended for site development plan review. Now, I strongly believe that our codes should be adhered to, and that means the school system, too. I know you don't like that idea and I don't understand why. MS. TREV ARTHEN: Because the statutes don't say that, and the statutes give the right to the school district to not have to obligate themselves to full compliance. Also, as a matter of factual issues here between Collier County and Collier County School District in the past by the agreements that you have in place, that is not currently true. There are certain areas where the school district is given a different or more lenient standard under your own SBR. So this is even more demanding, if this were to be left in, than what we have all been living under. And that's why the school district is not agreeing to that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, but it does say as amended for site development plan review. So doesn't it take into the consideration the amendments that have been made to -- in the process that you now are talking about? MS. TREV ARTHEN: I think the provision says -- at that level the provision says what it needs to say without the remaining Page 208 November 1, 2007 language. And we see the remaining language as, you know, a foothold for somebody to argue that it's full compliance with the code and the plan. And that's not what either party intended, that's not what's in the SBR. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: What part -- go ahead. MR. COHEN: Mr. Chairman, I would respectfully disagree. The interlocal agreement from a professional standpoint, the SBR, when I say interlocal agreement, expires in 2009. I think the language that's there -- that was there originally was intended as a safeguard if the SBR wasn't renegotiated. I know this item was discussed between school board administrators and also with our administrators as well. And that's where you see that new language that was inserted. And I just wanted to call that to your attention. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, but if we were to put the language back in that's been omitted and says it applies in the absence of an SBR, wouldn't that get us there? MS. TREV ARTHEN: No. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Why? MS. TREV ARTHEN: Because you're changing the agreed recommendation by the two staffs, and you're obligating us to more than the statute and more than the SBR, and that's not in the school district's estimation reasonable. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Let's back up to the first item you said. You said we're changing the agreement reached by the two staffs? MS. TREV ARTHEN: Um-hum. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: What two staffs? MS. TREV ARTHEN: This document, everything you've heard today is in the form of a staff recommendation that has been developed by county staff with input and extensive involvement from school board staff and we as outside consultants have helped both staffs to develop this document. That's the nature of what's in front of Page 209 November 1,2007 you and what you're voting on. You certainly are free to make whatever recommendation you see fit as the planning commission. What I'm just referring to is the recommendation of both staffs before you is this language. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. You said both staffs are in agreement. Michelle or Randy, in your professional opinion, are you in agreement with that struck language? I don't care which one of you do it, but I mean, I thought the whole purpose of the two groups coming together was that they would be consistent with our county planning. MR. COHEN: Mr. Chairman, I'll go ahead and I'll address that. Because I've talked to DCA with respect to this item as well, too. I specifically asked Mike McDaniel if the school board was exempt as a developer under Chapter 163. His answer to me was no, they're required to conform to your county comprehensive plan and your land development regulations. I've had a conversation with Ms. Student-Stirling with respect to that, and I believe she concurs with that assessment. And I would-- MS. STUDENT-STIRLING: I do. MR. COHEN: -- like her to talk if she concurs with that as well. She said she did. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Margie? MS. STUDENT-STIRLING: I do. And-- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: We're not getting married, Margie. Let's get more into the issue here. MS. STUDENT-STIRLING: No, it's been my position that the schools need to be consistent with our compo plan and also our LDRs, except where they have building code requirements and SREF (phonetic ). CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, but we do have language in our LDRs that specifically address school site plan review. Page 210 November 1,2007 MS. STUDENT-STIRLING: Yes, the SBRprocess. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. So really, aren't we saying that they'll be consistent with our comprehensive plan and Land Development Code subject to the SBR process, and if that process isn't there, then they would have to fall back on our code. Is that a fair statement? MS. STUDENT-STIRLING: Yes. MR. DeYOUNG: Can we interject something? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Sure. MR. DeYOUNG: I think one of the things that needs to be stated here is that what we're saying is in addition to 163.3164 that will be subject to your compo plan and Land Development Code, and the statutes specifically accept school districts from having to comply with your landscape code. So by accepting this provision, you are going to be basically making us meet all of the requirements of your land development code, in which case you're actually superseding the statutes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Except -- so your issue here now, boiling down to the bottom line, you guys are concerned about the landscape code. MR. DeYOUNG: It's not just the-- MS. TREV ARTHEN: That's one example. It's not-- MR. DeYOUNG: It's an example to say that the statutes -- the SBR's there as the guiding document for the school district and the county to review school sites. The second provision that's here that was negotiated with upper level staff on both sides was in the event that that agreement expires. Now, that agreement doesn't even expire in 2009. Now this document's going to be executed at some point by all parties and continue on. To just wholesale include all compo plan and Land Development Code regulations would be, you know, taking certain provisions out Page 211 November 1,2007 of the Florida statutes that exempt the school district from provisions of your land development code. MS. STUDENT-STIRLING: Mr.-- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Go ahead, Ms. Student. MS. STUDENT-STIRLING: I'm going to read the statutory section. And one of the difficulties we've always had is there's a little exemption provision in here about the Florida Building Code, and what that really means and iflandscape is part of that. But I'm going to read it. If the site is consistent with the comprehensive plan's land use policies and categories in which public schools are identified as allowable uses, the local government may not deny the application, but it may impose reasonable development standards and conditions in accordance with 10.13.51.1 -- which has something to do with sidewalks, I'm not sure why it's in there -- and consider the site plan and its adequacy as it relates to environmental concerns, health, safety and welfare, and effects on adjacent property. Landscaping, you know, deals with the uses effects on adjacent property . CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The reference in here to a developer pursuant to Section I63.3I64.F, what is the relevance of having that statement in here? MS. MOSCA: Mr. Chairman, it defines who a developer is. And the school district is considered a developer under 163. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But what difference does it make to the language in the statement? Whether that was in there or not, the language in the statement would remain the same, right? MS. MOSCA: Correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. I know you may not agree with this, but it seems that we could word it this way. First of all, starting with that strike-out language: In the absence of an SBR, the school district shall be subject to the county's comprehensive plan and Land Page 212 November 1,2007 Development Code as amended for site development plan review. Now, that catches -- as long as you have an SBR in place, you guys are covered. If you fail to negotiate one out, well, guess what? You fall back on our plan. MS. TREV ARTHEN: I think we're also overlooking that this language has a remedy in it. The discussion assumes that we will get to the point that the SBR will inevitably expire and we'll be left out there and we have no idea what will happen. After lengthy discussions, this was developed and agreed to. It has a very strong resolution built into it. Let's just make sure we've read this paragraph. It says we're going to go to court and the court is going to tell us in a declaratory judgment action who's right. We're going to cut to the chase and we're going to say whatever the court says we both agree to abide by. So it is not correct to just create this idea that, you know, maybe inadvertently that we got into talking about that oh, my goodness, if SBR expires we're just out in the wilderness and we don't know what to do. We have a solution built in here. It's clear, it's clear when it's triggered, it's not a type of litigation that will take long or be that expensive, it's really just a question of law, and it resolves the issue. And we don't have to keep butting heads over it. And I think that's why it's here before you as a way out of this. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Is the declaratory judgment appealable? MS. TREVARTHEN: Yes, it is. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Have you been to circuit court in Collier County, or are you familiar with circuit court in Collier County? MS. TREV ARTHEN: Many years ago I was. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: What do you think it takes to get through circuit court? Say that you had every roadblock put in front of you. What would it take to get to circuit court? Page 213 November 1, 2007 MS. TREV ARTHEN: Well, I would defer -- I think Marjorie is much more up to date on time frames. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Margie, after discovery, depositions and then various summary -- requests for summary judgment or whatever else occurs, how long do you think a circuit court case would take? And then if it's appealed, how long will that take? And so my concern is it's going to take a long time. I think that's what she'll end up saying. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: About three years. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So what happens in the meantime? MS. STUDENT-STIRLING: It can take a long time. I don't-- the only litigation I do over there is writs of certiorari, and I'm waiting for orders to show cause on some petitions for those for a while. I've been waiting for a while, so -- MS. TREV ARTHEN: But this would be a declaratory judgment. The writ, the procedure itself is inherently slow because the court just gets to take however long it wants to tell you whether to go forward. Declaratory judgments have a clear -- and forgive me, I don't have my rules and it's been a while since I litigated. But it's much more straightforward litigation. And the reason I'm stressing it being shorter is this is not something where we're going to have extensive disputes about facts and witnesses fighting with each other. We're going to go in there and we're going to say we have a very well defined issue of law that we disagree on. Judge, please tell us. There's not going to be two weeks of witnesses, there's not going to be 50 depositions, it's going to be a very narrow we disagree on the law, please help us. MS. STUDENT-STIRLING: It probably would be a summary judgment type thing, and that can proceed more quickly. MR. COHEN: Mr. Chairman, I wasn't going to discuss this, but Page 214 November 1,2007 because we're talking already about declaratory judgments and the fact of negotiating a new SBR, Ms. Mosca and myself on more than one occasion have had meetings with lower level county staff and have been told point blank that they will let the SBR expire in 2009 with no negotiation whatsoever. And I think that's an important fact to know at this point in time. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, you said lower level county staff? MR. COHEN: Lower level school board staff. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Oh, okay. MS. TREV ARTHEN: And if I can address that we had in the room the leading staff from the school district who have committed, and so did leading staff for the county, by the way, to work together in good faith. Marjorie was a witness to this, as I was. And I resent the implication that that has not been -- taken place. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, as long as the school board review remains in place, you guys are covered; is that right? MS. TREV ARTHEN: Well, that's the current status quo and there's not an issue with the status quo. The issue that we're discussing is what happens if and when. And it's a big if. That meeting -- and I would again ask Margie to disagree with me if she read the meeting differently. There was a very strong expression by both parties that we are going to work diligently in good faith to work out the -- whether it's an extension or an amendment to the SBR. But there was an acknowledgement of the reality that there are some issues there. And we wanted to build in that there would be a remedy, despite all the efforts we were not able to come to an agreement. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. I don't think anybody's suggesting we take out your remedy. And I think that if you've got two reasonable managers, you've got County Manager Mudd and you've got your new manager, Mr. Thompson, between the two of Page 215 November 1,2007 them, if they've come to gentlemen agreements on other items in here, that's great. And I think they can continue to. But I think it's the board's responsibility to make sure that they do. And one way to make sure that they do is that we put that language back in as I've previously paraphrased it so in the case the SBR were to drop out for some reason and these two gentlemen couldn't get together on agreement, we have a fallback position, and yes, you still have your court position, you still move forward with your court action. But in the meantime we have a fallback position, and that may put pressure on both parties to work together faster to assure an outcome. MR. DeYOUNG: I think there's a couple of other things that need to be addressed here. And I know you're at 1013.33.13. There is another provision that's not 1013.33.13 or 1013.51. I want to say, and it's off the top of my head, since I don't have the statutes in front of me, I believe it's 10 13 .57 which specifically exempts school districts from local landscape ordinances. It's a completely separate section of the Florida Statutes and this language is in direct conflict with that language that's in the statutes. And I don't think that the school district, I can say, is going to be willing to accept this language. Now, the school district is a signatory to this agreement, just as the county is. And so is the City of Naples, Everglades City and Marco Island. So there's other parties that are going to be signing this agreement and have to agree to the language. MS. STUDENT-STIRLING: I have a suggestion. I just looked in here for 1013.57 and didn't find one. But Ms. Trevarthen or somebody can send me or our staff those portions that they claim, you know, exempts them from our land code. And then we can put in the reference to our land code and list those statutory sections and with the subject matter and say our land code applies except for, and we state the subject matter pursuant to subsection whatever of the Florida Page 216 November 1,2007 Statutes. MS. TREV ARTHEN: But that's not the only issue that's at stake here. And we would be glad to provide the authority. I think the larger issue is that the problem with the statute is you can go on all night with this. She can pull a phrase, I can pull a phrase, I can make it look like. MS. STUDENT-STIRLING: That's true. MS. TREV ARTHEN: You don't have to follow it and she can make it look like I have to follow it. It's a Tallahassee problem that they have written a poorly designed statute that's incoherent and doesn't agree with it, and 163 is over here and 1013, and different parts of 1013 don't agree. You know, it's not -- it just is. I mean, that's the way the law is. And so to assume that we're going to solve this by zeroing in on one piece of all these inconsistent statutes I don't think is useful. MR. COHEN: Mr. Chair-- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And I don't agree with you. And Randy, let me put it to an end right here. I think that I've formulated a statement that I can eventually make in the form of a stipulation. We can see if the rest of the panel wants to go forward with it. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: And I agree with you, Mr. Chairman. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And between now and the time of the BCC hearing, if you guys resolve it further, you can argue the point there and maybe make more headway than you're making here tonight from both parties. I simply -- I don't agree with all the language that's stricken but I agree with most of it. I think it can be cleaned up. I think we can say the following, that in the absence of a school board SBR -- sorry, in the absence of an SBR agreement, the school district shall be subject to the county's comprehensive plan and land development Page 21 7 November 1, 2007 code as amended for site development plan review and subject to the exceptions of the Florida Statutes. W e'llleave it like that and you guys take it to the next level and figure out of you need to argue it there. The other issue we have is I3.8.A. I'll get the page number here in a minute. That would be on Page 26. There's some stricken language in the center. I brought it up at our meeting a couple weeks ago, I'm going to bring it up again. It says -- the following has been removed: Provided such adoption does not affect the local government's ability to maintain a financially feasible CIE for the current five-year planning period. That to me is a critical issue. That's what basically we centered around the previous discussion in the CIE. And until the ClE issue is resolved, I can't see how we can be taking that language out. So that language, as far as I'm concerned, needs to remain intact. Any comments? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I agree. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The other item is 13.7. Looks like we've got to backtrack. Margie, this is where the gap language was going to be inserted. You were going to find out about what -- is that still an issue? MS. STUDENT-STIRLING: I'm trying to look here and refresh my -- oh, the gap for the -- yes, okay. As I mentioned earlier, I talked to DCA, and they believe that we should have our LDRs. I mean, they really said to go once this is adopted. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, we can't have that. So now in the meantime, does the existing language suffice? MS. STUDENT-STIRLING: I think what we need to do is say that we will rely on the comprehensive plan until such time as the LDRs are adopted. And if there's a gap between that because ofa hiccup and somebody challenges it, we'll rely on the interlocal. So Page 218 November 1, 2007 we'll craft some language for that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, and then the last item that I didn't see on the list is a small one, we were talking about it at the first meeting, add a list of acronyms to the beginning of this document. You guys got a whole page worth of new acronyms, and I know it would help Tor and everybody else if we had it, and the public reading it. MR. COHEN: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So let's go back and make sure we've clear. MS. MOSCA: Mr. Chairman, I also have an addition. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes, ma'am. MS. MOSCA: That would be on Page 20. Section 13.2, second sentence. Add after -- add for each CSA after a level of service standard. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: 13.2, is that what you said? MS. MOSCA: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Second sentence? Begins with the word, the parties? MS. MOSCA: Yes. And after level of service standard add for each CSA, to make it consistent with the other documents. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: That's the 95 that you wanted to make it, correct? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, the first one is 100. MS. TREV ARTHEN: I'm not sure I understand that. That's addressed in 13.3. We're just setting the LOS here. And then we get into how it applies to the CSN. So maybe if you could explain what you're thinking. MS. MOSCA: Actually, David and I talked about this. It would make it consistent with the public school facility element, the policy that's listed in there, because it's for the entire CSA. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Michelle, are you doing levels of Page 219 November 1,2007 services for each CSA? You're doing them district wide, aren't you? MR. De YOUNG: I think in the public school facilities, I know it was a little bit different context. But here, I think it's -- you know, the level of service is the same in each CSA, so I don't think it really adds anything in that section there. Because it is explained further in Section 13.3. MS. MOSCA: It was just a point of clarification. I thought it belonged there. If everyone's objecting to it, I'll certainly -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I'm not objecting to it. I don't know if it's necessary. The way that reads, your level of service isn't built around each CSA, it's built around, based on what we've heard earlier, district-wide basis. Because you didn't want to have different levels of services established in each CSA. MR. COHEN: Staff would concur with the petitioner. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Then are we done with correction, changes and additions? Basically we have 13 items by staff that are recommended for approval, along with the change of I2.3.B to leave in the consistency language as was defined a few minutes ago when I read it back to everybody. 13.8.A, leave in the financial feasibility language. Add a list of acronyms. Under 13.7, we will rely on our compo plan and interlocal agreement until the LDRs are adopted as a gap measurement. And then any differences between the exemption language in this document and the PSFE, they will be made consistent. Is that clear for everybody's intentions? Staff? MR. COHEN: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I'll make that in the form ofa motion to recommend transmittal to the Board of County Commissioners. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: I'll second. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Seconded by Commissioner Adelstein. Is there any discussion? Page 220 November 1, 2007 (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: All those in favor, signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Aye. COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: Aye. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion carries. I believe that's the last thing we have to deal with today in regards to school concurrency. I want to thank all of you for your patience. Believe me, it's been probably as trying for you as it has been for all of us. But I do appreciate your time in coming back to spend the time and help us through this. And county staff especially, your thorough review was very much welcomed in this matter today, so thank you very much. Michelle, I know you went overboard in your hours, so I hope that triple overtime paycheck gets to you. MR. COHEN: She's got my wallet right now. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, thank you very much. Thank all of you. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Mr. Chair? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes, sir. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Could the consultants reintroduce themselves? I feel like we've become family after this, but I forgot your name from the first day. MS. TREV ARTHEN: I'm Susan Trevarthen from Weiss, Serota, Helfman. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And I'm David DeYoung with Page 221 November 1,2007 Kimley-Horn and Associates. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay, good, thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you all. MS. TREV ARTHEN: Are you hosting Thanksgiving this year? MR. COHEN: Mr. Chairman, just as a matter of assurance to your board, what we will do, as in most cases, we will order the tape of the meeting as well as the minutes to assure that all of your recommendation are incorporated accordingly. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. I think that would be good for everyone. Appreciate it. Thank you all. And gentlemen, we still have a meeting to finish up here. Hopefully it will be short and to the point. Item #9 OLD BUSINESS Old business. Mr. Schmitt indicated that the 21st is open for this room for rescheduling the GMP adoption hearing, and that would take it off the 15th, which it's tentatively scheduled now, and move it to the 21 st. Is that satisfactory to everyone? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: You say the 15th? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: It's on -- it will be the 21st. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: We're moving from the 14th to the 21 st? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No, from the 15th -- Mr. Murray, it's currently tentatively scheduled or attempted to be scheduled for the afternoon of the 15th. I found out about it early, I requested earlier that we not be schedule for the same day we have a regular meeting because we have seven or eight regular items that same day. And so Joe checked and said that he has the 21 st open for this room. Page 222 November 1, 2007 MR. COHEN: The room is open from 8:30 until 3:00. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Which will be plenty of time for the adoption hear -- COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: Is that November? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The 21 st. MS. STUDENT-STIRLING: It's the day before Thanksgiving. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Day before Thanksgiving. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Day before Thanksgiving? COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: What is the time? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I will not be here. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Guys, one at a time. Mr. Adelstein, just wait a minute. Let's just get one thing at a time. The 21 st is the weekend, Margie, before Thanksgiving, you said? MS. STUDENT-STIRLING: I think it's the day before. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: The day before. MS. STUDENT-STIRLING: So I was just making a joke, if we run over you'll host Thanksgiving dinner, right? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Oh, I see what you were getting at. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: That's right. I can't be here. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: A question. What's wrong with taking the Cocohatchee day the day before? Is it too late for advertising? Because we had the 14th booked. MR. COHEN: It's advertised for the 15th right now. So at that meeting you can continue to whatever date you need to continue to. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, we can't continue the 14th because it's a day -- the advertisement's already been done? MR. COHEN: The advertisement will go into the paper, unfortunately because of the way the Naples Daily News works it will come out in the paper I believe this Sunday. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But can you change the date to the 14th? Page 223 November 1, 2007 MR. COHEN: I wish we could, sir, but it's already -- as far as I understand it, the process, the way it works, it's already type set and the whole bit. But we can ask. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Where's Russell when we need him? But they don't type set anymore. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I mean, the 21st is the Wednesday before Thanksgiving. I mean -- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I can be there, but -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I'm on vacation, but I'll be here. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: But Randy, I think if you could really hustle to see if you could move it to the 14th, that would be the smartest day. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: I can't. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Because members of the committee already assume we're going to be here anyway. It was only today we found out we're not. MS. STUDENT-STIRLING: We've got to do a lO-day ad for the paper. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You've got time. MS. MOSCA: Mr. Chairman, I know I ran into a lot of difficulty when I was trying to continue this meeting. Although it's a IO-day ad, they require a huge lead time in order to get the ad into the paper. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: We still want the ad, just tell them to take the number 15 and -- you made a scriveners error and it needs to be 14. And if they don't like it, we'll take all of our future advertising to the other paper. MS. MOSCA: We certainly can try, but there's no guarantee. MR. COHEN: We can call tomorrow and ask. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I think the way we ought to leave it then is you're going to check on the 14th. You'll get back to us by e-mail. Also, I would recommend you get back to us bye-mail on a Page 224 November 1,2007 quorum for the 21 st, because I can't determine a quorum here today. There's only three people that probably -- Mr. Kolflat, would you make it on the 21 st if we had -- COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: It's my birthday. I'll be here if you all bring presents. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Oh, we would do that. So we have a potential -- Mr. Adelstein, you can't talk out of turn. We have three people who might be he. That isn't enough for a quorum, especially for an adoption hearing. So if the 14th can't be changed, you're going to need to pull the commission on some other days. And I would suggest you start with the 21 st and go on from there. MS. MOSCA: We tentatively have I believe the BCC adoption date December 4th. So we'll really try to push it to the 14th. Actually that would probably be the better date. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Margie, can the BCC adopt this without our review of it? MS. STUDENT-STIRLING: I don't know. MS. MOSCA: No. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You may run into a little dilemma there. MR. COHEN: The answer is no. Mr. Chairman, do you have the room the whole day for the 14th; do you know? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: It was six hours at least plus. So I would believe we've got the whole day reserved here, yes. MR. COHEN: That's a lot of plus. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: We won't need that to get through the adoption, I don't believe, but we're going to need probably five hours or six to get -- we're going to need more than the morning, but not too much more. Page 225 November 1, 2007 MR. COHEN: Well, you're only getting back I think seven or eight of those. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. MR. COHEN: So it's a lot different. And you've seen -- I think six of them you were fairly comfortable with the last time. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, the public's going to be here and speak and -- MR. COHEN: Yes, they are. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- there's going to be a lot of time consumption done that day. So anyway, if you could follow through with that, because we-- MR. COHEN: We will do our best to check and see if we can get that 15th changed to the 14th, sir. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you very much. That would be helpful. Item #10 NEW BUSINESS New business. I got a call from Dick Clasp of the -- he's chairman of the city planning authority. I'm not sure what their official title is. It's like us. It's the City of Naples comparable facility. He suggested having a joint meeting. Apparently there was one done years ago. Staffs from both entities came in with a list of items that may need to be better coordinated and discussed. And Dick asked me if we'd be inclined to want to do that. I told him I'd bring it back to us and he's going to bring it to his group to see what the feeling is. I don't see why we wouldn't. It would be a workshop type system. Does everybody feel -- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I'm good. Page 226 November 1, 2007 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, anybody have any objection to it? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, I'll let him know we're a go ifhe wants to set it up, and we'll coordinate with staff. Brad, you had brought up the issue of the county e-mail. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Yeah. And the question was is that the e-mail -- they have an automatic system that's been archived. I've been wondering where they've been going. But I discovered today that after 60 days your e-mails go into an archive. The lady that was here today did give me a paper on how to go"get things out of the archive, if you want it. So my concern was things were just disappearing behind me. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Public record, can't do that. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: No. But I wasn't taking them off, they were just disappearing. So anyway, that was my question, and it's answered. And if anybody else wants the answer, I have the sheet. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I don't think there's anything else. So is there a motion to adjourn? COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Moved. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: So moved. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion made and seconded. All in favor, signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Aye. COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: Aye. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: We're adjourned. Boy, that was quick. ***** Page 227 November 1, 2007 There being no further business for the good of the County, the meeting was adjourned by order of the Chair at 4:47 p.m. COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION Mark Strain, Chairman These minutes approved by the board on as corrected as presented or Transcript prepared on behalf of Gregory Reporting Service, Inc., by Cherie' R. Nottingham. Page 228