Loading...
BCC Minutes 12/04/2007 S (GMP Amendments) December 4, 2007 TRANSCRIPT OF THE MEETING OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS Naples, Florida, December 4, 2007 GMP AMENDMENTS LET IT BE REMEMBERED, that the Board of County Commissioners, in and for the County of Collier, and also acting as the Board of Zoning Appeals and as the governing board( s) of such special district as has been created according to law and having conducted business herein, met on this date at 9:00 a.m., in SPECIAL SESSION in Building "F" of the Government Complex, East Naples, Florida, with the following members present: CHAIRMAN: Jim Coletta Tom Henning Frank Halas Fred W. Coyle Donna Fiala ALSO PRESENT: Marjorie Student-Stirling, Assistant County Attorney Joe Schmitt, CDES Administrator Randy Cohen, Comprehensive Planning Director Page 1 ., .~ AGENDA December 4, 2007 9:00 a.m. School Concurrency Amendment Transmittal Hearing 2005 Cycle Amendments Adoption Hearing Jim Coletta, Chairman District 5 Tom Henning, Vice Chairman, District 3 Donna Fiala, Commissioner, District 1 Frank Halas, Commissioner, District 2 Fred W. Coyle, Commissioner District 4 NOTICE: ALL PERSONS WISHING TO SPEAK ON ANY AGENDA ITEM MUST REGISTER PRIOR TO SPEAKING. SPEAKERS MUST REGISTER WITH THE COUNTY MANAGER PRIOR TO THE PRESENTATION OF THE AGENDA ITEM TO BE ADDRESSED. COLLIER COUNTY ORDINANCE NO. 2003-53, AS AMENDED, REQUIRES THAT ALL LOBBYISTS SHALL, BEFORE ENGAGING IN ANY LOBBYING ACTIVITIES (INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO, ADDRESSING THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS), REGISTER WITH THE CLERK TO THE BOARD AT THE BOARD MINUTES AND RECORDS DEPARTMENT. REQUESTS TO ADDRESS THE BOARD ON SUBJECTS WHICH ARE NOT ON THIS AGENDA MUST BE SUBMITTED IN WRITING WITH EXPLANATION TO THE COUNTY MANAGER AT LEAST 13 DAYS PRIOR TO THE DATE OF THE MEETING AND WILL BE HEARD UNDER "PUBLIC PETITIONS." ANY PERSON WHO DECIDES TO APPEAL A DECISION OF THIS BOARD WILL NEED A RECORD OF THE PROCEEDINGS PERTAINING THERETO, AND THEREFORE MAY NEED TO ENSURE THAT A VERBATIM RECORD OF THE PROCEEDINGS IS MADE, WHICH RECORD INCLUDES THE TESTIMONY AND EVIDENCE UPON WHICH THE APPEAL IS TO BE BASED. Page 1 December 4, 2007 ALL REGISTERED PUBLIC SPEAKERS WILL RECEIVE UP TO FIVE (5) MINUTES UNLESS THE TIME IS ADJUSTED BY THE CHAIRMAN. IF YOU ARE A PERSON WITH A DISABILITY WHO NEEDS ANY ACCOMMODATION IN ORDER TO PARTICIPATE IN THIS PROCEEDING, YOU ARE ENTITLED, AT NO COST TO YOU, TO THE PROVISION OF CERTAIN ASSISTANCE. PLEASE CONTACT THE COLLIER COUNTY FACILITIES MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT LOCATED AT 3301 EAST TAMIAMI TRAIL, NAPLES, FLORIDA, 34112, (239) 774-8380; ASSISTED LISTENING DEVICES FOR THE HEARING IMP AIRED ARE AVAILABLE IN THE COUNTY COMMISSIONERS' OFFICE. 1. Pledge of Allegiance 2. 2007 Growth Management Plan Amendment Transmittal Hearing: A. 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] 3. 2005 Cycle Growth Management Plan Amendments Adoption Hearing: A. CP-2005-2, Petition requesting an amendment to the Golden Gate Area Master Plan (GGAMP) and Golden Gate Area Master Plan Future Land Use Map (GGAMP/FLUM) and Map Series, to expand "Wilson Boulevard/Golden Gate Boulevard Neighborhood Center", to allow medical/ medical related uses and professional office uses, for property located at the Southeast comer of Golden Gate Boulevard and 1st Street SW, in Section 9, Township 49 South, Range 27 East, consisting of 7i:. acres. [Coordinator: Tom Greenwood, AICP, Principal Planner] B. CP-2005-6, Petition requesting an amendment to the Golden Gate Area Master Plan (GGAMP) and Golden Gate Area Master Plan Future Land Use Map (GGAMP/FLUM) and Map Series, to create the "Golden Gate Parkway Page 2 December 4, 2007 Institutional Subdistrict", to allow for the expansion and continued operation of the David Lawrence Center and the Church of God, and, to allow additional institutional and related uses, for property located on the north side of Golden Gate Parkway, specifically Tracts 43, 50, 59, and 66, Unit 30, Golden Gate Estates, Section 29, Township 49 South, Range 26 East, consisting of 16.3i:. acres. [Coordinator: Michele Mosca, AICP, Principal Planner] C. CP-2005-9, Petition requesting an amendment to the Future Land Use Element (FLUE) and Future Land Use Map (FLUM) and Map Series, to create the "Corkscrew Island Neighborhood Commercial Subdistrict" for property designated on the Future Land Use Map as Rural Fringe Mixed Use District, Neutral Lands, to allow up to 70,000 square feet oflower order retail, office and personal service uses, for property located at the northwest comer ofImmokalee Road and Platt Road, in Section 27, Township 47 South, Range 27 East, consisting of 8i:. acres. [Coordinator: Corby Schmidt, Principal Planner] D. CP-2005-13, Petition requesting an amendment to the Future Land Use Element (FLUE) and Future Land Use Map (FLUM) and Map Series, to create the "Collier Boulevard Community Facility Subdistrict" for property designated on the Future Land Use Map as Urban Mixed Use District, Urban Residential Fringe Subdistrict, to allow up to 368,000 square feet of church- sponsored institutional and residential uses, and allow non-church sponsored residential uses at 4.5 dwelling units per acre, offering 150 of up to 296 affordable-workforce and market rate housing units to persons involved in providing essential services in Collier County, for property located on the east side of Collier Blvd. (CR-951 ), one-half mile north of Rattlesnake- Hammock Road (within the First Assembly of God PUD site), in Section 14, Township 50 South, Range 26 East, consisting of 69i:. acres. [Coordinator: Corby Schmidt, Principal Planner] E. CPSP-2005-14, Petition requesting amendment to the Future Land Use Map (FLUM) and North Belle Meade Overlay Map, part of the Future Land Use Map Series, to re-designate Rural Fringe Mixed Use District Sending Lands to either Neutral Lands or Receiving Lands, for 20 properties located within Section 34, Township 47 South, Range 27 East, and Section 3, Township 48 South, Range 27 East, and Page 3 December 4, 2007 Sections 13 and 29, Township 49 South, Range 27 East, and Sections 15 and 21, Township 51 South, Range 27 East, consisting of+283 acres total. [Coordinator: David Weeks, AICP, GMP Planning Manager] F. CPSP-2005-15, Petition requesting an amendment to the Transportation Element (TE), to add new Policies 3.5 and 3.6, introducing Thoroughfare Corridor Protection Plans (TCPPs), Transportation Corridor Preservation Maps (TCPMs), and associated tables and ordinances, to provide for the protection and acquisition of existing and future transportation corridors. [Coordinator: Nick Casalanguida, Transportation Planning Director] G. CPSP-2005-16, Petition requesting an amendment to the Future Land Use Map series map titled Collier County Wellhead Protection Areas, Proposed Wellfields and ASRs Map. [Coordinator: David Weeks, AICP, GMP Planning Manager] H. CP-2006-4, Petition requesting an amendment to the Golden Gate Area Master Plan (GGAMP), to modify the Conditional Uses Subdistrict, Special Exceptions to Conditional Use Locational Criteria provision, to allow a church as a special exception to locational criteria, for property located on the south side of Immokalee Road and i:.300' east of Oakes Boulevard, in Section 29, Township 48 South, Range 26 East, consisting of2.6i:. acres. [Coordinator: Corby Schmidt, Principal Planner] 4. Adjourn INQUIRIES CONCERNING CHANGES TO THE BOARD'S AGENDA SHOULD BE MADE TO THE COUNTY MANAGER'S OFFICE AT 774-8383. Page 4 December 4, 2007 December 4, 2007 MR. SCHMITT: Commissioner, you have a live mike. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Ladies and gentlemen, good morning. Welcome to the Collier County Commissioners' growth management amendment 2005 adoption hearing. We're going to begin this meeting like we begin all meetings, with the Pledge of Allegiance. Please stand. Commissioner Halas, would you lead us. (The Pledge of Allegiance was recited in unison.) COMMISSIONER FIALA: May I say, happy birthday to Lotus, or is this not the right time? CHAIRMAN COLETTA: I'm sorry. We didn't hear you, Commissioner Fiala. Happy birthday to who? COMMISSIONER FIALA: Lotus. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. Happy birthday, Lotus. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Thank you. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Thank you. Any other commercial announcements? Please, continue. MS. MOSCA: Good morning, Mr. Chairman, Commissioners. For the record, my name is Michele Mosca with the county's Comprehensive Planning Department. Item #2A RESOLUTION 2007-342: PETITION CPSP-2007-7 - ADOPTED The first item on your agenda today is petition CPSP-2007 -7. This is the transmittal hearing for the public school concurrency, Growth Management Plan amendments to the Capital Improvement Element and Intergovernmental Coordination Element, new Public School Facilities Element, and interlocal agreement. These plan amendments require four public hearings, two transmittal, and two adoption hearings. The first transmittal hearing Page 2 December 4, 2007 was before the Collier County Planning Commission on October 18th and was continued and completed on November 1st. Today this board will review the school concurrency documents and then vote to transmit or not transmit the petition to the Department of Community Affairs, or the DCA. Should this board recommend transmittal, the DCA will review the petition and then provide their Objections, Recommendations and Comments Report to staff approximately 60 days after receipt. Based on the DCA's report, staff will revise the school concurrency documents if needed and then present the petition again to the Planning Commission and the BCC in early -- in the early part of next year for adoption. Before I address the school concurrency amendments and the Planning Commission's recommendations, I would like to provide a brief history and overview of the statutory requirements for the implementation of the school concurrency program. In 2005 the Florida legislature in Senate Bill 360 enacted legislation requiring the implementation of the public school concurrency program. The implementation of this program requires coordinated planning among the county, the municipalities, and the school district. This program is intended to ensure that adequate school capacity is available at the time of residential impact. Pursuant to state requirements, Collier County must adopt a school concurrency program that is internally consistent with the county's Growth Management Plan no later than March 1, 2008. The general statutory requirements for school concurrency include: The adoption of the consistent public school facilities elements by local governments. The element must include provisions for the application of concurrency. This can either be district-wide or less than district-wide; a uniform level of service; adequate school capacity for the five-year and long-term planning periods; coordination of the school development with residential development; Page 3 December 4, 2007 options for proportionate share mitigation; and provisions for supporting infrastructure concurrent with development. The statutes also require local governments to update their interlocal agreements to ensure uniform concurrency system throughout the district. Local governments and the school district must agree on a level of service standard. This is similar to the establishment of level of service standards for other public facilities such as roads, water, and sewer. Local governments must also agree on concurrency service areas; maximum utilization of concurrency; annual adoption of the public schools capital facilities program; option for proportionate share mitigation. This could include land or monetary contributions to add capacity; and implementation procedures. Finally, Florida Statutes requires the local governments to amend their Capital Improvement Elements to include provisions for incorporating the school district five-year financially-feasible public school capital facilities program and the level of service standards, and then amend the Intergovernmental Coordination Element to include provisions for coordination. Today staff is requesting that this board approve for transmittal the interlocal agreement, the Public School Facilities Element, and amendments to the Capital Improvement and Intergovernmental Coordination Elements. The Collier County Planning Commission's recommendations are contained in the resolution exhibits, which are the same as the county and district staff recommendations except as noted in the executive summary beginning on page 4. And then, Mr. Chairman, I can begin by answering questions. That concludes my presentation. But I can begin by either answering questions or we can address specific documents. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Why don't we go ahead with Page 4 December 4, 2007 questions, then that may lead us to specific documents. MS. MOSCA: Okay. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: We'll start with Commissioner Henning. COMMISSIONER HENNING: I have specific questions on the documents. MS. MOSCA: Okay. COMMISSIONER HENNING: How did they figure the needs? Did they go by total population of the county? MS. MOSCA: The methodology for determining the student generation rates or the level of service standard? COMMISSIONER HENNING: No, generation rates, thank you. MS. MOSCA: The student generation rates -- actually what I'll do is I'll have -- district staff is here. They can present that item, only because it's somewhat technical, and I'd prefer that they give you the full detailed information on that. So if I could have someone from district staff discuss the student generation rates how they were derived. Thank you. MS. MILLS: For the record, Jean Mills, one of the consultants for the School District. The student generation rate, which is used in measuring the number of students per housing unit for the calculation when concurrency begins, is done -- has been adopted or has been generated from each one of the -- the students in housing units across all of Collier County. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. So it wasn't by population. It was by the number of units? MS. MILLS: Actual students in each type of housing unit. We went to the property appraiser. We've got all the students who attend Collier County public schools. We matched their addresses against the property appraiser's information for housing types. So we actually matched up the number of students who were Page 5 December 4, 2007 living in and attending schools who lived in single-family or a multifamily or whatever configuration we show in our data and analysis. It is spelled out in the data and analysis, and it's also -- again, I just want to point you to the back of the interlocal agreement, the methodology for determining the student generation rate, we call SGR, is also there. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. That should be in the data and analysis, correct? MS. MILLS: It is, yes. COMMISSIONER HENNING: What attachment of the data and analysis would someone find that? MS. MILLS: Well, it's in -- I don't have the data and analysis with me. MS. MOSCA: Commissioner Henning, in may-- MS. MILLS: It's in the bottom. MS. MOSCA: -- it's in the local agreement under Appendix B. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, I wanted some more detail besides the formula. So you're using it by unit, and then you break it down between single-family and multifamily? MS. MILLS: Yes. COMMISSIONER HENNING: What -- how many -- how many students per multifamily per housing did you allocate to that? MS. MILLS: Well, every single student who lived in a particular type of housing unit. I'm looking right now in the interlocal agreement, Appendix B. I'm looking for that because it is all spelled out there. Okay. Here we are. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Page what? MS. MILLS: Ifwe look on -- in Appendix B, school district student generation multiplier, you will see in table 2, on page 46 of my document. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, it's in the interlocal agreement, correct? Page 6 December 4, 2007 MS. MILLS: It's in the appendix to the interlocal agreement, right. In the data and analysis, it's on page 15. The text begins on page 15. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Do we have an example we could put on the viewer? MS. MILLS: But have you table 2? COMMISSIONER HENNING: I have a whole bunch of information. MS. MILLS: Table 2. COMMISSIONER HALAS: We're not in the same book. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Yeah. I have -- I have table 2, housing types and school types. MS. MILLS: Students by housing type and school type, correct? COMMISSIONER HENNING: Correct. MS. MILLS: Okay. There we show the students per single-family, multifamily, condo, mobile home, and government housing. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. So it's .16 -- .16 for single- family? MS. MILLS: For elementary single-family. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Right. MS. MILLS: And we measure-- COMMISSIONER HENNING: So you have .3 per -- so you're taking in a factor of res -- part-time residents and so on and so forth? MS. MILLS: The students who are attending schools were counted in the housing units they lived in. When you do the concurrency measurement, you measure per school type, per housing type. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. So you did it real-time data? MS. MILLS: Yes. COMMISSIONER HENNING: What you have in school and Page 7 December 4, 2007 what's on the ground? MS. MILLS: Exactly. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Now, what did you calculate for the private schools? MS. MILLS: Private schools don't enter into the calculation. Every year you look again at number of students that are attending. The school district does this adjusting every year when they do their -- their up -- projection updates. They get information from private schools, and then they begin looking and seeing how that factors in. If there were significant impacts, that would be reflected in new -- in new data, and every year that data is updated. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. I think there's two private schools coming on-line in the near future. That's not going to have an impact on the needs for the public school system? MS. MILLS: Well, we don't know yet. We have to wait and see when they come on-line. But this student generation rate was measured against the 2006 students who were in the -- in the housing units per grade level. So it's about as current as you can get. COMMISSIONER HENNING: It's about as accurate as can you get. MS. MILLS: And it's definitely an accurate standard. We have used it around the state. COMMISSIONER HENNING: And how long you been using this data around the state? MS. MILLS: Well, we've been using it since concurrency has been mandated. This has been the standard that we have used with our other -- other jurisdictions. COMMISSIONER HENNING: So it really hasn't been tested because this is a new mandate from the state? MS. MILLS: No, not yet. It is a -- locally derived, though, basis, so you do have -- it's not a generality. It's specific to Collier County. COMMISSIONER HENNING: I understand. But you're using a Page 8 December 4, 2007 statewide standard that you developed? MS. MILLS: Yes. COMMISSIONER HENNING: And you're applying it to Collier County? MS. MILLS: Uh-huh. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. MS. MILLS: Yes. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Thank you. MS. MILLS: You're welcome. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: I don't see any other questions -- COMMISSIONER FIALA: I-- CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Commissioner Fiala? COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes. While you're up there. Does this include charter schools? MS. MILLS: It does not include charter schools at this time, though charter schools are reviewed also. You see, the charter schools that we have here are charter schools that don't lend themselves to be shared among the county. For example, in Marco Island. Marco Island has -- it would be a transportation issue for Marco Island charter to come over to schools on the mainland. The mainland schools have plenty of capacity. Charter schools, by statute, are only suggested. It says may be used for capacity for -- to measure school concurrency. So until or unless there is an absolute need to measure, charter schools are not included. And generally speaking, charter schools are not included in other districts either. COMMISSIONER FIALA: But yet the charter schools -- excuse me. I'm sorry. But yet the charter schools are supported by the school system; is that correct? MS. MILLS: Yeah. They're a public school. COMMISSIONER FIALA: But not in the county? MS. MILLS: But they're not in the county. Page 9 December 4, 2007 COMMISSIONER FIALA: Okay. And how many private schools do we have in Collier County? MS. MILLS: How many private schools? I don't know. This is public school concurrency. COMMISSIONER FIALA: I know that there are thousands of kids that go to them when -- MS. MILLS: That probably is true. That probably is true. But each year -- the way the system works, each year the school district updates its enrollment data and its projections data. And so when there is any kind of a change, an up-tick or a downturn in the enrollment, it is examined across all facets, many facets, including private school attendance, charter school attendance, whatever issues impact school attendance. That is taken into consideration. COMMISSIONER FIALA: I'd like to ask this question, but I don't know whether to ask you or Michele. MS. MILLS: Okay. COMMISSIONER FIALA: I would think by not including any of the charter schools or any of the private schools yet including all of those children in the population count, that would skew that count tremendously; don't you think? MS. MOSCA: The private schools actually are not -- the students that are enrolled in the private schools are not counted in the calculation; however, I believe that the charter school students are calculated in that population count for public schools and, perhaps, the -- someone from the district might want to comment on that as well. COMMISSIONER FIALA: She said they were not. MS. MOSCA: The private school students are not calculated -- MS. MILLS: Correct. MS. MOSCA: -- in the public school figures. COMMISSIONER FIALA: But the charter schools are. MS. MILLS: And the charter schools are. They're -- they're not counted for school concurrency. They are not part of the school Page 10 December 4, 2007 concurrency because they are not going to be utilized. Their level of service is not a reliable stable source. By statute, charter schools -- just to give you a real quick lesson on charter schools by statute. Charter schools, students mayor may not attend, mayor may not stay in the system. They can flux -- they can fluctuate. They can go in and out of charter schools at will. So there isn't a stable sense that you can get an enrollment count there. You get an enrollment count from your -- from your schools that are your -- public schools, your normal public schools with their boundaries or their special -- your special attendance schools. MS. TREY ARTHEN: And in might add something. Susan Trevarthen for the consulting team. We're here with the school board. When we talked about that data being based on 100 percent sample of the actual student population, I think that's the key point to fix on in relation to these questions, because what that means is, we're only starting with the population that is actually enrolled and sitting in a seat in a Collier County school board operated school. And then we're comparing that to the kinds of units that those students live in. And so if it's the type of unit that tends to have more elderly or empty nest or, you know, student populations without young children, whatever, then the data would reflect that because we're starting with only those people who are actually sitting in and being educated directly by Collier County School District. And that methodology, while it's being used by us, is pretty much used by everybody who works on generation rates, not only for concurrency, but for school impact fees which have been around for 10 or 15 years. So it's a fairly stable and established methodology that most people follow in trying to best approximate. Because we're predicting here. We're in the business of predicting, and we all know we're not perfect at predicting population growth. But this gets as close as you can to estimating your impact. Page 11 December 4, 2007 COMMISSIONER FIALA: Thank you. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Commissioner Coyle? COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yeah. I would like clarification concerning some of the disagreements between the school board and the county on a number of issues. Let's start with the school board review interlocal agreement issue. It appears that there are things we are not agreeing on, but we are agreeing that if we do not have an interlocal agreement negotiated between the school board and -- excuse me -- Collier County government, then we will file an action in the Circuit Court of Collier County seeking a declaratory judgment to resolve the dispute. Tell us more about that, and why are we in that kind of position? MS. MOSCA: I can -- I can give you the information from the beginning, and then I'll defer to County Manager Mudd. In the beginning when the staffs were working together, both the school district staff and county staff, we believed that the school board had to adhere to our Land Development Code regulations as well as our Growth Management Plan. As a result of several discussions, we were at an impasse. There's some disagreement, either it's in conflict or interpretations of various chapters, specifically chapter 163 and 1013, Florida Statutes. Again, we were at an impasse. So it rised -- it actually rose to the level of senior management where they met and discussed the issue and came up with some alternative language. And with that, I'll have to defer to either County Manager Mudd or Mr. Schmitt. MR. MUDD: I'm right behind you. Good morning, Commissioners. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Good morning. MR. MUDD: Jim Mudd, County Manager, for the record. In this particular item, the SBR, when we first came up with the Page 12 December 4, 2007 interlocal agreement, it was a -- it was a long process. We sat down with school staff, our staff, and basically came out with an agreement that everybody could live with that satisfied the Florida Statutes in that regard. We got to a point in time where there's probably some things in the SBR the school board doesn't like. We wish there was more in the SBR, but it was an agreement that was made, and we basically adhered to it. And it was one where the school side of the house said, hey, look it, we understand the SBR. We will try to negotiate another one with you. We understand the difficulties we had last time doing that. But what happens if we don't get the SBR done before the expiration of the current one that's on the records? County's position was, well, then you'd fall under the Land Development Code. And school board says, no, I believe the Florida Statutes exempt us from that particular regard. So as we stood at a standstill between the two organizations, I looked at superintendent, superintendent looked at me and said, okay, we will negotiate an SBR, an update, and we will do it in good faith. And if we can't, then, school board, you go to the court and we'll go with you, and we'll have the judge decide what the state law is in the regard for schools, the SBR, and/or them falling under the county's Land Development Code. And whatever the judge decides, we will abide by it. And I said, okay. It was pretty -- it was pretty calm. Nobody got mad in that particular issue. And it's a way to decide. But we will, in good faith, try to negotiate another SBR between staff. I believe that can be. But if it doesn't, there's a fallback position, and the fallback position is, as it reads in your executive summary, the school district shall file an action in the circuit court of Collier County seeking a declaratory judgment to resolve the dispute. COMMISSIONER COYLE: And ifthere is no interlocal Page 13 December 4,2007 agreement, you're asking us to include in this document a statement that the school board will be subject to the county's Land Development Code? MR. MUDD: No. The Planning Commission said that particular item. The agreement that I negotiated with Superintendent Thompson was the fact that, if we don't have one after a good faith effort, the school will go to a judge and decide what the Florida Statutes say about the school. And part of this problem -- and I just want to put this in some kind of context. And this is -- and this is kind of strange, but we are where we are: School concurrency, school-- how do you determine what the school population is when you need to build a new one, how do you build a school, how do you review a school, how do you do your permitting, all done by a separate set of statutes from -- in Florida Statutes. Then you've got the county where you go through the whole thing for our DCA. Well, they've got a DCA up there in the schoolhouse, and they basically run as a stovepipe, and they don't meet anyplace, and all of a sudden we have a Florida law that says we have to have concurrency at the bottom level. We've got the two bureaucratic agencies at the state level that don't talk to each other, but then when it gets down to where the rubber meets the road at the counties, everybody has to come into an agreement and make all of those rules and regulations come together. It makes it a little bit difficult. It's a little odd, but we're working through that process. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay. Now, with respect to the Capital Improvement Element, there is some difference of opinion about the financial feasibility of opening school 0 and school triple E. Now, it's my understanding the school -- the school district has agreed to hold off on triple E but is going ahead with opening school 0, and Page 14 December 4, 2007 that will possibly result in our financial feasibility -- the financial feasibility of our Capital Improvement Plan being in jeopardy. Is that essentially true or not? MS. TREY ARTHEN: It's actually the other way around. COMMISSIONER COYLE: The other way around, okay. MS. TREY ARTHEN: That 0 has been out -- MR. MUDD: 0 has been out. Triple E is in. COMMISSIONER COYLE: 0 is out, triple E's in, okay. MR. MUDD: I think you're not correct. And let me -- you're correct in a statement, from what you read, you're correct, if you take at the -- if you take it at the very high end. And when I say the high end, if you go with the Cadillac. If you're saying that when a school comes in that the county has to give an urban cross-section that accesses the school then -- and it has to happen when -- before the school opens up, then staff is basically telling you you're locked in. But the Land Development Code doesn't say you need to have an urban cross-section to the road that goes to the school. That's kind of become our standard in Collier County because we do things a little bit differently here, and we try to do it very -- very nice for our school kids, for our schools, and for the community at large. There's nothing in our Land Development Code that says, you need to do an urban cross-section to start with. It's all based on volumes, peak hour, that kind of business on what you supply. There's nothing that precludes the school -- when they build a school, they need to have a construction access road. You've got to have it. You can't get the trucks in and out or the laborers in and out at that particular site. There's nothing that precludes the school from using that construction access road upgraded as long as it meets our Land Development Code for a while until we can get it financially feasible in our five-year plan. And the superintendent and I have talked about this to a certaine Page 15 December 4, 2007 extent. There are -- there are agreements already on file with the county and the school district whereby they have built a road and we've told them we will pay them back two years, three years in that particular issue, or they've become partial owners of a traffic light. And we believe that we can do that, and we will work those particular issues out. But there's nothing that says you need to have an urban cross-section, two-lane, four-lane road going to a school the minute it opens up, especially if it's out in a remote site. And so there might be a year or two where it has a single surface type treatment on the road, it isn't a full what we call an urban cross-section, but that doesn't mean it won't happen in the future. But there might be a couple of years where we have an offset between when they come on-line and when that road shows up in our five-year plan. And I believe we've -- there's way to negotiate through those, whether they be interlocal agreements on that specific road, road segment, whatever. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay. So bottom line is if triple E is built as planned and as scheduled, it will not endanger the financial feasibility of our Capital Improvement Element? MR. MUDD: Yes, sir. And what I will also tell you is triple E might slide in the school schedule, okay, but right now, based on the rules that they have in place, they have to keep triple E in, okay, but they update their school on a yearly basis just as we do. And if there's -- school enrollment population doesn't come up to what it was last year for reasons unknown to me at this particular time, it might slide a year or so. And in this particular case, it might not be an issue at all. And I believe their attorney can help us on that particular regard. But that's what I've been led to believe as we've gone through this conversation with the superintendent and his staff. Page 16 December 4, 2007 COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay. Let me ask a question then of the school district representatives. To what degree is the enrollment level of triple E in any way dependent upon the farm industry economy and the number of migrant workers with school children or illegal immigrants? MS. TREY ARTHEN: While I ask school district staff to come up and help with the details of that, I just want to say the -- what the county manager explained is basically the way we see it as well. He did a good job of pointing out that the school district is subject to lots and lots of thousands of pages of statutes that are different, and DOE is in charge of that. And if a need is appearing in the population data, by law they must show this school and the year that the need is created. He's correct that there is some belief that EEE might slip, because as we know, we've had a downturn in the population growth this year but just as you're struggling to hit that mark perfectly with your population projections, you know, we also have that struggle. So it is very possible that EEE would slip. And generally we agree that this is not a matter of automatic inconsistency and we can work it out. Now, in could ask school district staff to address the particular issue ofEEE. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay. MS. HINES: Good morning. Linda Hines as part of the team for the School District. Regarding triple E specifically, the anticipated service area of triple E, the reason why the school district is considering the construction of triple E and the schools that it would relieve in the future when it comes online are not areas that have high immigrant population, farm population, those types of what we would consider to be maybe transient populations. Weare in the process of looking at enrollment projection updates right now. And as stated before, there is that possibility because of Page 17 December 4, 2007 what's happening throughout the State of Florida with declining enrollments, enrollment that's not growing at the rate that it had been in previous years, development-related issues. There is that possibility that the timing of it will be pushed back. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Good. Thank you very much. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Commissioner Fiala wanted a little clarification on Commissioner Coyle's question. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Where is triple E? MS. TREY ARTHEN: The exact location of triple E? Have we determined it yet? COMMISSIONER COYLE: It's in the east. MS. TREY ARTHEN: I don't want to get it wrong. MS. TAYLOR: It is in a position to relieve Palmetto Ridge High School, which is in the Orangetree area, and Gulf Coast High School, which is on Immokalee Road. It is off of Yanderbilt Beach Road, and that is the issue with building a driveway access road and that kind of thing, which we have in the past coordinated these types of issues with the county and we would do so in this case as well. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Thank you. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Commissioner Coyle, do you have another question? COMMISSIONER COYLE: No, I've finished. Thank you very much. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Commissioner Henning, then Commissioner Halas. COMMISSIONER HENNING: I'm not quite done with the recommendations yet. I still have more questions on the process. Who is going to be reviewing and approving the school board's CIE? MS. MOSCA: The school board -- COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. MS. MOSCA: -- will be approving their own Capital Page 18 December 4,2007 Improvement Program, and we're required by statute to adopt their CIP into our Capital Improvement Element annually. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Without any questions, we need to adopt their CIE? MS. MOSCA: Well, the statutes require that we, the county, as well as the school district, coordinate our plans. That means coordinating for infrastructure necessary to support schools as well as for shared sites and so forth. COMMISSIONER HENNING: But that's not only schools, as I read this document. I could be wrong. It's also ancillary facilities, too. MS. MOSCA: That's correct. COMMISSIONER HENNING: So we might have a -- another administration building or a bus barn that's a part of the CIE? MS. MOSCA: Part of their Capital Improvement Program, yes. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. This could get a little dicey. You know, we've got two separate boards, and you know the contentious issue with the school administration building, and then we had some opposition about bus barns in the Orangetree area. MS. TREY ARTHEN: Through the chair, in might? You're far from the first local government to say, hmm, this is a little different. Most concurrency facilities, the CIE associated with these facilities, is something that you're in control of and you're paying for. So this is one of those wags in which those two silos that the county manager talked about are, by statute, being forced to come together. So when this issue has come up in other discussions and been discussed at length with DCA and DOE, what they have said is, basically this isn't a job and a responsibility that's very close to the core constitutional responsibility of the school district, which is to provide a free and adequate public education for all child -- all children in the county who want it. And for those kinds of aspects of the system that are very close to the core responsibility of the school district, both agencies have Page 19 December 4,2007 sure that growth -- there's enough classrooms for growth; am I wrong? MS. TREY ARTHEN: That is true, and a private development would not be tested against the adequacy of a bus storage facility or the adequacy of an administrative facility. In that private development review process, they would be tested for whether there's an actual seat in a school for each student that they're generating. COMMISSIONER HENNING: So why are we putting the ancillary facilities in the CIE or in this document? MS. TREY ARTHEN: I think the simple answer is that in Tallahassee they didn't get to that level of detail, but that the school district is required to put all of that in the five-year CIE and the people who wrote the statute said, this five-year CIE shall be adopted into the counties. I mean, we can certainly follow up on that further with the state agencies and see ifthere's any leeway. But at a minimum, we do need to show all of the facilities that are serving students in your document. COMMISSIONER HENNING: It's my perspective, as sitting up here for seven years, it's better to not put so much in writing for DCA to approve and give us, the local government, a little bit more wiggle room. MS. TREY ARTHEN: And I understand that perspective. I also represent local governments as another part of my practice. But this is not something where anything is off of the radar. These five-year plans that include all of the capital facilities both in actual student housing facility or a bus facility or some other kind of ancillary facility, they're required to be public, they're required to be published in the five-year plans, they're on websites at state level locally. It's out there. So it's not like leaving it out will change anything, is the only part I want to make you aware of. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Commissioner Halas? Page 21 December 4, 2007 sure that growth -- there's enough classrooms for growth; am I wrong? MS. TREY ARTHEN: That is true, and a private development would not be tested against the adequacy of a bus storage facility or the adequacy of an administrative facility. In that private development review process, they would be tested for whether there's an actual seat in a school for each student that they're generating. COMMISSIONER HENNING: So why are we putting the ancillary facilities in the CIE or in this document? MS. TREY ARTHEN: I think the simple answer is that in Tallahassee they didn't get to that level of detail, but that the school district is required to put all of that in the five-year CIE and the people who wrote the statute said, this five-year CIE shall be adopted into the counties. I mean, we can certainly follow up on that further with the state agencies and see ifthere's any leeway. But at a minimum, we do need to show all of the facilities that are serving students in your document. COMMISSIONER HENNING: It's my perspective, as sitting up here for seven years, it's better to not put so much in writing for DCA to approve and give us, the local government, a little bit more wiggle room. MS. TREY ARTHEN: And I understand that perspective. I also represent local governments as another part of my practice. But this is not something where anything is off of the radar. These five-year plans that include all of the capital facilities both in actual student housing facility or a bus facility or some other kind of ancillary facility, they're required to be public, they're required to be published in the five-year plans, they're on websites at state level locally. It's out there. So it's not like leaving it out will change anything, is the only part I want to make you aware of. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Commissioner Halas? Page 21 December 4,2007 COMMISSIONER HALAS: As I read through the documents, I was somewhat disturbed on some of the requirements that are placed on the county here. I think that one of the reasons that we went after the school board a couple of years ago in regards to addressing their impact fees, they have an obligation to make sure that impact fees follow the trend of what it costs to get work done here in Collier County . I don't know if you were involved in that process or not. But the end result is that I believe that the school board, school system here in Collier County -- in fact, all school systems -- have an obligation to the citizens in regards to who's going to provide the infrastructure and how it's going to be paid for. The school board goes out and buys property at a remote location. There may be a road there. There may not be a road there. Now you want that to be put in our five-year CIE program because now you've decided that you want to build a school there. I have a problem with that. If the five-year road building program is not in our CIE, then I think it's the obligation of the school board to address that issue. They need to put the roads in and they need to put the infrastructure in, such as sewers and whatever else it takes to build this plant, this educational plant. I don't believe that it should be in the confines of the county's CIE to take care of that particular issue. If you want to build a school and it's not in our five-year CIE plan as far as getting a road out to that point, then I think that that's your obligation. I also feel that -- the other thing that bothers me is compatibility of where you're going to put this school in regards to what's going to be located there so that we have some compatibility with the surrounding area. If it's going to be all residential, you're not going to have -- I don't think you're going to -- it's going to be compatible to where you can put a stadium and all the lights up to necessarily take care of -- Page 22 December 4, 2007 accommodate a football stadium. So I think there's some problems there. I also feel that the -- I don't care what you do on the perimeter of your property that the school has as far as landscaping, but I do have a problem with the school board not following the county's LDC in regards to buffering requirements for landscaping. That being said, I hope that I pretty much covered everything and that -- I think that we can work together on a five-year CIE plan, but you're not going to put us in a pickle here whereby we have a lot of obligations to address in this over-2,000-square-mile county and then saying -- coming to us and saying, oh, by the way, we're going to put a school in and it's going to be five miles from anywhere there's any utilities. You have an obligation. Thank you. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Yeah. And in may -- and I want to give you a chance to respond to it, and also staff. MS. TREYARTHEN: Sure. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Both forms of government, the school board and the county commission, have obligations to our citizens that we share equally, and there's got to be ways that we can work together to be able to reach accords. And I'd like to be able to hear from you and then from our staff as far as what Commissioner Halas just said. It's a big concern for all the commissioners. How is this being addressed? MS. TREY ARTHEN: Well, I understand the point of view that's being expressed. And what I would add to it is that Florida Statutes addressed this issues of how far school districts need to go to provide infrastructure to support the school, and they talk about that infrastructure that's contiguous to the site. It's a question of degree, and your school district has been providing a large amount of infrastructure for schools out in that area of the county, as I understand it. School district staff can provide greater detail on specific schools if desired. But I know they've been Page 23 December 4, 2007 building various utilities and other things where they weren't readily available. And as your county manager pointed out, your code does not require an urban cross-section road to serve this area. And what was motivating, apparently, this concern about the financial feasibility was the cost of building that level of road as opposed to what would be a road that would just allow the school to function. On the compatibility issues, I don't -- we're talking five or six years into the future. I doubt that a decision has been made yet as to whether there would be a stadium or what the light provisions would be, but there are things that you can do. And I'm sure the school district would be amenable to talking about any kind of shielding or limitations on where the light falls if necessary. You asked about buffering, and it's my understanding -- and what staff is reminding me is that, as well as the buffering is covered in the SBR, and we've been honoring that agreement and doing what's required by that agreement. So you've been getting the standard buffering, and the lighting standards have also been addressed as new schools are being built. I believe those were all the points that you had raised. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Michele, would you care to comment? MS. MOSCA: Well, basically what Susan said is true. The SB -- we're relying heavily on that school board review interlocal agreement. That provides for all of the shared infrastructure agreements, buffering, et cetera. We also have a policy within the Public School Facility Element that allows the county to impose reasonable standards when it comes to addressing buffering compatibility with adjacent sites. We also have a requirement for high schools and the placement of high schools, and that it requires a conditional use. And with that conditional use, we would impose specific standards, such as the Page 24 December 4, 2007 attenuation of lighting, noise, et cetera. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Now, you're referring to section 12.2 where it states, the local government may not deny the applicant, that it may impose reasonable development standards and conditions in accordance with section 1013.51(2)FS, and consider the site plan and its adequacy as it relates to environmental concerns, health, safety, and welfare and the effect on adjacent property. Can you explain for the listening public exactly what that statement means as far as giving them a level of comfort, and also my fellow commissioners? MS. MOSCA: Mr. Chairman, if you wouldn't mind, I'd like to defer to legal staff. We discussed this issue, and I think that she's probably more equipped to-- MS. STUDENT-STIRLING: Yes, excuse me. For the record, Marjorie Student-Stirling. This language comes from Florida Statutes, and it hasn't been defined or anything by case law, that's where we talked about the provision of going to court to see whether -- what land development regulations would have to be complied with. But it would be my opinion that that language encompasses the full type of standard that you would see in our Land Development Code. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. So the short of it is, that if we get down to a push or shove, that the school system would have to meet the health, safety, and welfare of the public, but who makes that final determination? Would they have to hold with our Land Development Codes as they're drawn up, or would it have to be something that would be re-drawn up to meet their needs? MS. STUDENT-STIRLING: It's my opinion that it would be the Land Development Code provisions and what might be in the SBR when the school district comes in with their site planning process. And it will be things like setback, buffering, things of that nature. Just what you would see in a typical development. Page 25 December 4, 2007 CHAIRMAN COLETTA: And this goes through a long process to get to that, which includes the Planning Commission. And if I remember correctly, the school board has a representative on the Planning Commission? MS. TREY ARTHEN: Yes, they do, pursuant to an earlier statute. I think it was 2002. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. So we more or less have got this part of it covered. And so there is a -- there is rules and regulations in place that require you to comply with reasonable -- reasonable Land Development Codes as they exist today; is that correct? MS. TREY ARTHEN: Basically. The only thing I would like to clarify though is that the statutes definitively, in our view, do not say full and absolute compliance with the code and the plan. They say, this kind of language that is qualified and, therefore, it's not necessarily that you need to write a second code. It's more that you have to apply judgment using the statutory standards as to whether the existing code provisions as written apply. That being said, today these issues are already resolved by the SBR. And as you heard your county manager saying, as the superintendent has said, everyone is, in good faith, fully expecting to renegotiate or lengthen or replace that agreement with something similar. It's simply a last-ditch fallback that we have identified because of the level of uncertainty. It's not like you can go to Florida Statutes and it gives you a really precise yes-no answer. And a declaratory judgment, we discussed it. It's not an extensive litigation. It's a -- not an extensive factual showing. It's pretty much, here's a point oflaw, Judge. Just tell us what we'll do, and we agreed we'd follow whatever the judge tells us. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Anything from the County Attorney's Office to add to that? Page 26 December 4, 2007 MS. STUDENT -STIRLING: I just wanted to clarify a point you had made about the schools coming back for review by the board. Some may, if they have to go through the conditional use process; others may not, because under the SBR, it would be site plan review that would be handled by staff. Again, it's our opinion that reasonable development standards in this general language mean everything absent a specific exemption in Florida Statutes. And there are some exemptions that address landscaping as well as Florida -- the building code for the schools, and that's where we have the disagreement. But as Ms. Trevarthen stated, we're going to work collaboratively on another SBR, I believe, to try to work out these issues. But it's my opinion, unless there's a specific exemption, the school must comply with all of our regulations. And that's also supported by 380.04 where -- which defines development, and public schools are not exempt in that definition. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. And what we're going to do now is go back to Commissioner Halas who brought up this particular subject. Commissioner Halas? COMMISSIONER HALAS: One other area that I'd just like to have some comfort in, and that is, when we're dealing with illegal aliens and their children impacting the public school. Do we get aid, state aid, from them when you make your head count at a certain period of time? And how does that play into the equation as far as saying that they're really not citizens but yet we're educating them here? What -- how do we -- how do we adjust the usage of high schools? MS. TREY ARTHEN: I'd just like to consult with school board staff as to the operating money that is associated with that. MS. HINES: If I could, there is no differential between whether they're considered an illegal resident or a permanent resident in the state. The school district still gets the FTE in the head count. If the Page 27 December 4, 2007 child shows up in school, is registered in public school, the school district gets the FTE, full-time equivalent dollars, from the State of Florida. Secondly, if that child also qualifies on the federal level for free and reduced meals, then there's federal dollars that come into play that flow into the school system for assistance also. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay. Where I'm going with this is, how do we collect -- you're talking about the federal aid is only used -- or the state aid is only used for the operation of the school, and that's not part of the equation as far as building new buildings; is that correct? MS. TREY ARTHEN: Yes. The FTE money is operational money, but -- COMMISSIONER HALAS: Just operational money? MS. TREY ARTHEN: -- wherever those individuals are living, whatever led to the construction of that unit, either it predated school concurrency or would be participating in school concurrency. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Here's the concern I have -- and maybe it's not that big of a concern. I don't know what the head count is of illegal aliens, but obviously it impacts the schools to the point whereby we then have to build more schools because of the head count of these people that are coming into it, and we're really not getting any particular monies to address the building of these particular schools, new schools. MS. TREY ARTHEN: But the way that that would be addressed is by the housing unit that houses the family that has this child that's attending the schools, and so they don't -- it would be someone else who would have built the apartment complex or the housing units or the mobile homes or whatever, and those are captured. And if they were predated, if they've been here for 30 years and they exist, they're just moving into an existing housing unit and they're part of the background growth or population of the school district. If Page 28 December 4, 2007 they're moving into newly constructed units after 2008, the -- at the time the unit is constructed before they move in, they would be tested for school concurrency. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay. So there's no way of tracking this, and the end result is, those people may not be paying taxes here. MS. TREY ARTHEN: There certainly might be an ad valorem question, but I believe Linda gave the correct answer that the FTE, which is state money -- COMMISSIONER HALAS: That's just operational. MS. TREY ARTHEN: -- that is independent that comes from operating and serving that child. COMMISSIONER HALAS: But that's to pay the teachers' salaries, the administrative -- MS. TREY ARTHEN: That's the one thing we can link to the type of student you're describing; otherwise, we follow it in terms of the unit where they're living. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Commissioner Fiala? COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes. More or less just -- I just want to just express a thought, and I don't know what can ever be done about it, but one of the things I've heard is that -- the frustration on our staffs part, whether it be transportation who really -- that's all -- their whole business is constructing transportation, whether it be sidewalks, roads, or whatever, as well as parks and so forth. When they try and work with the school staff to try and make it a better product for all and a safer product for all, school staff doesn't want any part of taking suggestions from them. And our people feel so frustrated. And I don't know why we can't work together, and that's just a statement. You would think that -- we would probably not have half of these problems if we work together instead of turning a blind eye to Page 29 December 4, 2007 suggestions of people that are -- that are educated in this particular field. But anyway, that's just more of a statement than anything else, and so then we have to go through this process. MS. MOSCA: Commissioner Fiala -- I'm sorry. In may. And that's our concern about the SBR interlocal, which does, in fact, expire in 2009, because that really sets the framework for that coordinated effort, the providing of infrastructure, the sharing of the costs and so forth. So I just wanted to also put that on the record. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Thank you. MS. TREY ARTHEN: And in might, through the chair. It's interesting to hear you say that, because I've heard almost the same words from the school district staff where they really feel like they've gone out of their way to try to make things works. I think both groups are trying, and all I can do is give you the cold comfort that you're not alone. All over the state where this new mandate is going into effect, there's a lot of difficulty in bringing together two very different systems. The silos that the manager talked about are real, and they didn't necessarily think through all of the details when they wrote this statute. And this is kind of the front-line people you're dealing with who are struggling to -- you know, the reason they're saying that is because they're operating from a different statutory framework that compels them to look at it this way. And the reason county staff is doing that is they're doing their job, and they're reflecting their understanding of their statutory framework. So I think both sides are coming to this in good faith and trying to make it work, and I would hope that you would not go away with the impression that the school district is unwilling to coordinate with you. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Commissioner Coyle? COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yeah. I would like to follow up on Page 30 December 4, 2007 something that Commissioner Halas raised. I don't want to belabor this too long, but I think for our understanding of the potential impacts, it's relatively important. Do you take a count of the number of students who are here illegally? You do not count. Are you permitted to do that? MS. TREYARTHEN: Not by law. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Is the number of students English as a second language program indicative of the number of potentially illegal residents or students in the school? MS. TREY ARTHEN: I don't know ifthere's research on that, but I do think that there's certainly a problem with equating the two because there's a number oflegal residents of this country who may have need of English as a second language education. COMMISSIONER COYLE: I would agree if those were adults, but not children. And I think -- the school board has reported to me that you spend $45 million a year teaching students to speak English so they can be educated in our schools. That is an important issue for us, and I presume it would be important for you. But it's not germane to what we're talking about today, so I'm not going to get involved in it too much. But I think it's important that we begin to understand this impact. You're already getting unfair criticism from people about graduation rates, and the data that has been released is clearly inaccurate and is unfair to the Collier County schools. But we need to deal with this issue, and we're making an effort on our end to do that. But any information you can provide us that will help us understand the magnitude of the problem would be very helpful. MS. TREY ARTHEN: Well, I'll make sure that school district staff follows up on that. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay. MS. TREY ARTHEN: But you're correct, that's an operational issue, and what we're discussing today is capital facilities. Page 3 1 December 4, 2007 COMMISSIONER COYLE: That's right. But it's taxpayer money. MS. TREY ARTHEN: It is. COMMISSIONER COYLE: It's a lot of money. And if we didn't use it for those purposes, think of what we could do for the children of our own citizens here in Collier County. Thank you. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Michele? MS. MOSCA: Yes. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: The Planning Commission spent a considerable amount of time going through this element. And can you give us an idea of how much time they spent on it and where they went with it and their final conclusions, just so everybody can put it in perspective? And then I'm going to ask Mr. Mudd to come up front, and then ask him what he -- how he analyzes the cooperation between the school system and the government and what this document means before us today. MS. MOSCA: Okay. The Planning Commission spent roughly one-and-a-half days, closer to two days, discussing, deliberating, all of the changes, including the amendments to the elements, the new Public School Facility Element, and the interlocal agreement. And as you'll notice in the executive summary, there were three points of disagreement; I believe it is approximately three points. Everything else, I believe the CCPC was comfortable with the staffs recommendations, both staffs, the district and the county. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: And the three points of disagreement were? MS. MOSCA: The three points of disagreement were dealing with the CIE and triple E and the financial feasibility, the effect on the financial feasibility of the CIE. Also within the interlocal dealing with the SBR, the school board review, and keeping that in place or alternatively having the school district adhere to the county's Land Page 32 December 4, 2007 Development Code and Growth Management Plan. And then the Public School Facility Element just specifically dealt with the -- school triple E. It was placed on the map. So they kind of all link together, except the separate issue is the SBR. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Thank you, Michele. MS. MOSCA: You're welcome. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Mr. Mudd, then we'll come right to you, Commissioner Henning. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Yeah, if we could just deal with each of those issues separately and maybe take a vote. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Let's go to Mr. Mudd, since he's standing here. Maybe he'll help up deal with them too. Mr. Mudd, I know if you have -- you've had numberous meetings with the new superintendent of schools, Mr. Thompson, and I was wondering, how do you feel that we're moving forward with the -- in the cooperation between the school board and the county commission? MR. MUDD: Okay. Jim Mudd, County Manager for the record agam. In my remarks that I had before I talked about all three elements as I talked about the statement, number one -- and this was in answer to Commissioner Coyle's questions. First, you have to talk about, what do we do with the interlocal agreement, the SBR? And the way we got -- the way we came up with a solution was, we were going to negotiate the SBR in good faith, and if we -- all of a sudden we couldn't come to an agreement -- because it is important because it is, so to speak, the Bible that talks about how the staffs work on a new school, may it be a zoning, a site development plan or whatever, or buffering, it's all in that particular interlocal agreement. If we could not come up with another one, an updated one, the school district would go to a judge for a dec. action because there are things that are not clear in the Florida Statutes. And in coming -- in coming fully under the Land Development Page 33 December 4, 2007 Code, the Board of County Commissioners, in treating the school board like another developer, they believe that that is not in keeping with the Florida Statutes -- they, the school-- the school staff, believe that's not in keeping with the Florida Statutes and they believe they have some -- they have some language that says that they do not fall under the Land Development Code. And so that's why we would go to that judge and ask that question. Now, do -- could that judge at the time say, fine, I'm not going to be Solomon? I'm not going to split the baby? I want you guys to go into a mandatory mediation and work this out and come back to me and get it resolved? He could do that. But still in all, we get it -- we get it resolved. So it's a resolved issue and it's not one that's contentious in any way, shape, or form. Triple E and the fact that triple E would somehow tilt our CIE and make it financially infeasible. Well, first I said that triple E might slip, and they are going through computations right now to see if it's going to slip or not. If it does, then it falls out of our five-year window, okay. If it doesn't fall out -- so if it does, we're fine. The chance that it stays in, the comment that I made, there's no -- there's nothing in our code that basically says that it needs to be an urban cross-section. I've had this conversation with the superintendent and with our staff. The Land Development Code is clear at what kind of standards are required as far as the road is concerned, may it be a dirt road, single surface, double surface, fully asphalted, with curbs, without curbs, with landscaping. You know, it's all in there. I don't believe that when you get into a rural setting that your road needs to be an urban cross-section. There's just something -- it's in a rural setting. Does it demand an urban cross-section? Maybe 10 years after the school gets in there that you go through that process. And I believe that the school, in the fact that they built a school with a construction road, that gives you and gives the school a way to Page 34 December 4, 2007 work a road into the process until our CIE can come into place and we can fully go in there and do an urban cross-section to that road at a time outside of our five-year window. I also said on the record that there are interlocal agreements with the school whereby if they did an improved road, the county would give them credit, i.e., may it be fill, whatever improvements that they made to that road, until such time as we could come in and fully get it done, and we would pay them back. And we've got interlocal agreements that do that at specific sites. How has staff been working together? We're working -- we're working it through. And I believe we've also, through our chairman -- he has monthly meetings with the -- with the school chairman, with the superintendent and the county manager, and we work through those issues, and issues between the two organizations at those meetings just to make sure that things are moving forward in a very collegial and cooperative method. Now, let's talk about where the disagreements in CIE and the roads really come from. It's about money, okay. That's when -- that's when you really get things that get dicey. Now, let's talk about Norm Feder's impact fees. Because you would think that this would be growth and, therefore, you could use impact fees. Well, the school impact fees have been done in the past, and we're updating them right now to include this portion. But in the past they have been done, and it's basically the perimeter of the school site and the school is in their impact fee, okay. The accessories to get to the school, i.e., the road for a mile or the sidewalk or the lighting or whatever, isn't in that impact fee. Then we go to Norman's side. Norman, what do you got in your impact fee? Hey, Boss. All my impact fee has to do with volume, okay. The only things I have in my impact fee increase volumes. They have nothing to do about getting to go to a school. And so Norman doesn't have the bucks, the school doesn't have the dollars in their Site Page 35 December 4, 2007 Development Plan. So I've sat down with the school superintendent, Mr. Baker, now Mr. Thompson, Commissioner Coletta, and Chairman Donovan, and we've talked about it. We've all agreed that Norman can't amend his impact fee in order to do that because it doesn't have anything to do with volume, but the school can. So we're going through a recalculation and a restudy of the school to see how far we can legally go, okay, to go outside that perimeter so it addresses some of the access road, the sidewalk, and whatever to that school. And we're going through that process, and the board should see that sometime this spring, the early part of the summer. So I think we've come that far. And then there's going to be a part in no man's land, and that's where we're going to have to sit down with the school superintendent, myself, maybe the two chairmans, if we can't get it worked out, and we're going to come up with an interlocal agreement to figure out how we're going to cost share that improvement to make it right. And I believe we've got an effort where we talk about it. Sure, there's times where their staff doesn't agree with our staff. Hey, that's why we have interlocal agreements, and sometimes that's where it can't get worked at the lower levels. It bumps up into the -- either the manager or the superintendent and/or the chairmans of the boards, and if not, we have a joint session to the boards in order to hammer it out, and we take public input in that process. But I believe so far things have been working out okay. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. Commissioner Henning? COMMISSIONER HENNING: Let's talk about triple E, that's the first disagreement on it, and let's see if we can come to a conclusion. But you're talking about access to the property for them to build the school if they do it within the five years, and we're talking about Page 36 December 4, 2007 YBR extension, correct? MR. MUDD: Yes, sir. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. The other alternative would be 13th Street? MR. MUDD: Yes, sir. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. Which is a narrow, two-lane road. MR. MUDD: Yes, sir. COMMISSIONER HENNING: What would happen if we take the staffs recommendations? Would there be any improvement on 13th to widen the road, put bicycle paths or-- MR. MUDD: Nick's-- COMMISSIONER HENNING: -- would it just stay the same? MR. MUDD: Well, what I've been told in the near term, it might stay the same if that's where they make the access. In the long-term, there would be improvements to 13th and/or another access road that's built in a different -- in a different location. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, whether it's 13th or another access, all those roads are fairly narrow being that they're dead-end. MR. MUDD: Yes, sir. And I would talk about -- you made a -- you made a comment earlier in your question that basically talked about access to build the school, and that's the first issue you have to make. I don't want to get the schools built, and now we have to get access to it for the school buses. We've got to talk about the construction traffic too, and I'm going to turn this over to Nick, because he's more familiar with the specific issue. But you've hit some good points, sir. MR. CASALANGUIDA: For the record, Nick Casalanguida with Transportation. We brought some successful interlocal agreements to the board because we've worked together. One of the recommendations I've discussed with Mr. Hardy and Page 37 December 4, 2007 the school board staff is, we are permitting YBR right now. We expect to have a permit in place by the time they move forward with triple E. Nothing would stop them from going in the right-of-way ofYBR that would acquire and building a local road that connects to Wilson and us providing them credits to that project that they would provide. In other words, if they bring in fill and build a two-lane road. Whatever we can use later as part of our YBR project, they would be creditable for what they've done for us, so that will be my recommendation, and that's an option we've discussed. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, Nick, the facility, the school facility EEE being built, I would think the logical conclusion, it would service the areas of Golden Gate Estates. MR. CASALANGUIDA: Yes, sir. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Is there going to be connections to that road to the neighborhood roads? MR. CASALANGUIDA: I would think in the future in the YBR as we're showing, there will be. But if they do a local connection to the YBR corridor, it would be a connection to Wilson Boulevard. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. So they would most likely take Wilson Boulevard south to the school site. MR. CASALANGUIDA: They would take -- from, say, the Golden Gate Boulevard, they would take Golden Gate Boulevard through Wilson, tie into the YBR extension, take that YBR extension road into the school site would be an opportunity -- COMMISSIONER HENNING: Which would be approximately one-and-a-half miles? MR. CASALANGUIDA: Yes, sir. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Is there any plan to bridge any of those streets off Golden Gate Boulevard to the future YBR? MR. CASALANGUIDA: There's one potential bridge, but most of those would be a canal relocation, straight connection without Page 38 December 4, 2007 bridges. And I think we stop right now at -- 15th would be the last connection. COMMISSIONER HENNING: The last connection to the east or to the west? MR. CASALANGUIDA: To the north, and 13th is not programmed to connect right now in our YBR plans. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. MR. CASALANGUIDA: We had it planned and designed in, but it's not part of our project. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. So basically we're talking about, they can use the right-of-way ofYBR. Okay. MR. CASALANGUIDA: That would be my recommendation. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, I feel a lot more comfortable then with the difference between the staffs recommendations and the Planning Commission. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Commissioner Halas? COMMISSIONER HALAS: Yeah, Nick, while you're there, right now we're only talking about one particular school site. I think what we're trying to do on this interlocal agreement is make sure that the county and that the school board has an understanding of exactly who's going to have the responsibilities, wherever a school site's going to be. We don't have to be concerned about triple E at this point in time. This was just an example of exactly some of the problems that we're going to run into; am I correct in that? MR. CASALANGUIDA: Yes, sir. COMMISSIONER HALAS: So we're looking at the interlocal agreement as something that's going to be long term, and it's my understanding that the interlocal agreement that we presently have with the school board is going to basically terminate in 18 months; is that correct? MR. CASALANGUIDA: That's correct. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay. And we're in the process of, Page 39 December 4, 2007 right now, negotiating a new interlocal agreement for a period of time; is that correct? MR. CASALANGUIDA: We have not started negotiations for a new interlocal at this time. COMMISSIONER HALAS: We have or we haven't? MR. CASALANGUIDA: Not yet. We have not begun that negotiation. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay. But I think staff is looking at, they're going to be working on an interlocal agreement in the future; is that correct? MR. SCHMITT: For the record, Joe Schmitt. Commissioner, you're asking the question about the SBR process. As Michele Mosca said, that expires. It was agreed to in May, 2003. It expires in May, 2009. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Right. MR. SCHMITT: Immediately after we reach an agreement on this, we'll begin the process of the SBR. Please note that the SBR is really nothing more than what I would call a truncated Land Development Code for -- specifically for schools. It just really is a -- kind of a slimmed-down version. It deals with the review process for schools. And some of the issues there, of course, are preservation and some of the other requirements, but those are the things we'll -- I guess, between Mr. Hardy and myself and his staff and my staff, we'll begin to work an SBR process. And as Mr. Mudd pointed out, if, in fact, we don't come to consensus, you all will agree -- that SBR comes to you, that interlocal agreement. If you all do not agree, the issue, as Commissioner Henning noted, comes down to two points, do we go to a dec. statement or do we follow with what the Planning Commission is recommending basically that they are obligated to comply with the Land Development Code and Growth Management Plan. Page 40 December 4, 2007 Of course, the school district staff disagrees with that, and that's where the decision falls in your hands. Do you -- we're comfortable with what -- the recommendation that Mr. Manager -- that County Manager Mudd recommended, that we go to a dec. statement. And I think the Planning Commission was concerned that that was just -- you know, just another added expense and another -- what do you call -- avenue that's going to just drag it out and cost more money, time, and effort. So that was the -- that's the bottom line between the two points. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay. I've got an understanding of that. At that I'll make a motion that we approve the recommendations that's been set forth by staff and the Planning Commission. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Well, I don't think you can do both. COMMISSIONER HENNING: It's one or the other. MR. SCHMITT: You just said both. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Well, by the Planning Commission. MR. SCHMITT: All right. That's-- CHAIRMAN COLETTA: That's a -- COMMISSIONER HALAS: With the -- with the intent that we -- that we look into additional -- that we work with the school board in regards to making sure that they have to make an agreement that if we're going to build schools outside an area, that they're going to have a commitment in regards to providing the infrastructure, sidewalks, et cetera, and also build roads. We're not just talking about triple E. We're -- I'm talking about any of the schools, and that they need to make sure that they follow the Land Development Code. That's something that's going to be, I guess, worked on, but they need to follow the landscaping codes and also compatibility of the surrounding areas. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Second the motion. MS. MOSCA: Mr. Chairman? CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Yes, go ahead. Right now we have a Page 41 December 4, 2007 motion on the floor from Commissioner Halas, a second from Commissioner Fiala, and that's to follow the Planning Commission's recommendations. Go ahead. MS. MOSCA: Now, we have separate documents. Are we addressing each document individually, are we working with the interlocal first and then we'll address the other documents? I'm not clear what the motion included. COMMISSIONER HALAS: I was looking at, we were just addressing everything combined here. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Was that your understanding, Commissioner Fiala? COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes, it was. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. We're going to go to Commissioner Henning. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Yeah, I needed that clarification. So we're doing the executive summary, the interlocal agreement, and resolution. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Public school facility. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Actually the executive agreement pretty much spells out what the -- the following document, so I understand. MS. STUDENT-STIRLING: For the record, Marjorie Student-Stirling. The interlocal agreement is separate and distinct from compo plan amendments. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay. MS. STUDENT -STIRLING: And I think it's better to have the vote -- motion and vote on the interlocal agreement first, and then we typically, when we do amendments to the compo plan -- and it's up to you -- but we typically will take a motion on each element of the compo plan, and there are three here; the new public schools facilities element, that would be to adopt a new element, and to amend the ICE Page 42 December 4, 2007 and the CIE, and that's how we typically do our compo plan amendments. COMMISSIONER HALAS: I remove my motion then and we'll start all over, okay. MS. TREVARTHEN: Mr. Chair? CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Michele, you wanted to add something? MS. MOSCA: Yes, I do. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I also received a handout this morning -- well, actually it was an e-mail this morning from the school district staff. I provided it to everyone. I received it around 8: 15, and I have not had the time to go through it. If we could possibly include it in the motion for staff to address during the time between transmittal and adoption. I just don't feel comfortable going through it right now and agreeing to anything in it. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Well, let's take one thing at a time here. Do I hear a motion? Commissioner Henning? COMMISSIONER HENNING: Can we deal with the disparities through a motion? We have three different things. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: It's your motion, sir. COMMISSIONER HENNING: I'm just -- MS. TREV AR THEN: Mr. Chair? COMMISSIONER HENNING: I'm trying to get the process going before we come to a conclusion. MS. TREV ARTHEN: If! might address the procedural point. What is actually before you is not a final vote to execute this interlocal agreement. It's -- the draft interlocal agreement legally is considered data and analysis in support of the changes to your Comprehensive Plan. So many local governments that I've attended their hearings, they've actually just had a vote on the comprehensive plan amendments and the ILAs in there as supporting data and analysis. Page 43 December 4, 2007 If you wanted to take a vote to recommend transmittal of the draft interlocal agreement at this time separately, that would be appropriate. But I wanted to make sure that you understood what you were being asked to do. What is currently being proposed is -- because it's this two-step plan amendment process. There's not two steps for an ILA. So first we would transmit with the draft ILA, and then when adoption comes, that's when you would be asked to sign on the dotted line with all the other parties and make the interlocal agreement effective. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Margie? MS. STUDENT-STIRLING: Thank you. If! may. I thought the material presented by staff made that clear. I would recommend, as we do for transmittal of plan amendments, that you would vote on transmittal of the ILA, and I thought the staff report made it clear that we are at the transmittal stage here. And since we are at transmittal, it also -- plan amendments require three votes at transmittal to transmit instead of four, like we do when we adopt, and the ILA would require three votes to transmit. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Back to you, Commissioner Henning. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Yeah. I think we all know that process. So the first disagreement is -- let's deal with that, triple E. Planning Commission says remove 2012, the reference of2012, and the school board wants to keep it in. Is that -- is that the understanding? MS. TREV ARTHEN: Yes. The county staff and the school board staff, in their recommendations, have said not to make the change, and the Planning Commission -- actually, I'm being corrected. I apologize. EEE is not in our five-year plan. The only reason you are flagging it is the five-year dates don't match up, as I understand it. And so what is our year six is your year five. So technically it's not even in the school board's five-year plan at this time. Page 44 December 4, 2007 MS. MOSCA: Commissioner Henning? The Planning Commission recommended the removal of triple E; however, if staffs could agree on any issue related to the financially (sic) feasibility of the CIE, that it was no longer an issue, then my understanding is that it would remain in. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. MS. MOSCA: So that would be a policy decision by the board. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, I think the county manager explained it quite well, is, they don't know if they're going to -- EE (sic) is going to come out. It might all come together. And I think that we need to work together to try to resolve these issues as we kick this ball down the road. So I'm going to make a motion that we -- on this particular item, to accept staffs recommendations for transmitting on the issue with triple E. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Staffs recommendations? COMMISSIONER HENNING: Correct. COMMISSIONER COYLE: I'll second it. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: We have a motion by Commissioner Henning and a second by Commissioner Coyle to accept staff recommendations for transmittal. COMMISSIONER HENNING: On triple E. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: On triple E. Any discussion on that? COMMISSIONER COYLE: Just clarification. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Yes, sir. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Are we going to go through separate votes on the items of disagreement and then have a final vote on transmittal? COMMISSIONER HENNING: Yes. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay. All right. MS. MOSCA: Mr. Chairman, the next item relating to -- Page 45 December 4, 2007 CHAIRMAN COLETTA: We haven't voted yet. I'm waiting to see ifthere's any other questions. Seeing none, all those in favor, indicate by saying aye. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Aye. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN COLETTA: The ayes have it, 5-0. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Next one is SBR? Is that correct? MS. MOSCA: That's correct. COMMISSIONER HENNING: And tell it -- give us a short synopsis on that again, please. MS. MOSCA: The staffs recommendation was the alternative language for the dec. action, and the Collier County Planning Commission recommended that the district be subject to the LDC and GMP. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, let me clarify or let me ask a question on the Planning Commission's recommendation. Would that include things like building, landscaping, architectural features? MS. MOSCA: The school district is not subject to the building code, so not the building code, but it would be buffering. There's some exemptions in Florida Statutes for landscaping, but it would require buffering, setbacks, issues dealing with lighting. MR. SCHMITT: Compatibility. MS. MOSCA: I'm sorry? MR. SCHMITT: Compatibility. MS. MOSCA: Compatibility, thank you. Page 46 December 4, 2007 COMMISSIONER HENNING: Right. And we already have that in our present agreement. MS. MOSCA: It's within the existing SBR to expire in 2009, correct. COMMISSIONER HENNING: And that agreement's going to be worked out between '09 and today -- or today and '09. It's going to be readdressed. We can readdress that at that time? MS. MOSCA: Yes. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. MS. MOSCA: We'll begin working on that. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Your motion? COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, I'm going to make a motion to accept staffs recommendations on the SBR. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Staffs recommendations or the Planning Commission? COMMISSIONER HENNING: Staff. COMMISSIONER COYLE: I'll second. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Motion by Commissioner Henning, second by Commissioner Coyle. Now discussion. Commissioner Halas? COMMISSIONER HALAS: No, that was from the last time. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Commissioner Coyle? COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yeah. I just want to clarify something here, that's clarify my second. The point here is that the school board and the county are agreeing to go to court to seek a decision by the judge if we're not able to agree among ourselves. The point is that even if we were to vote on requiring that the school board comply with our Land Development Code, if they disagree it, they're likely to take it court anyway. So we're not solving anything by trying to ram it down their throat. We're going to be going through the same process. Page 47 December 4, 2007 So I think it is a better -- it promotes a better working relationship if we first try to reach agreement under an interlocal agreement, and if we're unable to do so, go to court. So if there's a disagreement, we're going to wind up in the same place no matter which vote we take, so I think this is an appropriate step. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Any other comments? COMMISSIONER HENNING: Yeah, just a clarification for my board members. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Go ahead, Commissioner Henning. COMMISSIONER HENNING: It's on page 4, the bottom full paragraph of staffs recommendations, and Commissioner Coyle articulated that very well. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Fine. Any other comments? (No response.) CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Seeing none, all those in favor, indicate by saying aye. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Aye. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Opposed? COMMISSIONER HALAS: aye. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: And let the record show the vote was 4-1, with Commissioner Halas being in opposition. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. What's next? COMMISSIONER HENNING: There's one more, Michele. MS. MOSCA: Yeah. COMMISSIONER COYLE: It's on page 6, at the bottom of page 6 there is a recommendation by the CCPC that is different from the staffs recommendation, as I understand it. Perhaps you could give us a brief synopsis of the difference in the CCP's (sic) recommendations and the staffs recommendations. Page 48 December 4,2007 MS. MOSCA: Commissioners, we're now moving from the ILA to the CIE. This is a CIE issue. And this issue deals with -- I think Commissioner Henning touched on this. When we have schools in the rural area, let's just use that as an example, and we don't have the necessary infrastructure to accommodate that school, again, we are required to adopt the school district's CIP into our CIE. And the rationale for the CCPC's language is that any adoption of the school district's CIP would not affect the financial feasibility of the county CIE, and that's why they -- the CCPC had directed staff to put that language in that provision. So we would -- we would adopt their CIP provided that it did not affect our financial feasibility of our CIE. Case in point was the triple E discussion. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Commissioner Henning? COMMISSIONER HENNING: Yeah. And I agree with the Planning Commission's recommendations on this. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Is that a motion? COMMISSIONER HENNING: Yeah. COMMISSIONER COYLE: I'll second it. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Motion by Commissioner Henning, second by Commissioner Coyle. COMMISSIONER HENNING: And this will help us actually help the two staffs work together for a common good, and it's all about public service. It's not one is higher than the other one. We need to provide these public facilities for the general public, and we need to do it in such a way that it benefits the public as a whole. MS. TREV ARTHEN: Mr. Chair, if! might respond? CHAIRMAN COLETTA: You may. MS. TREV ARTHEN: Okay. On this issue we understand fully the rationale that you've put forward. It's just that the statutes are not written that way. It's not a conditional obligation. It says, shall adopt Page 49 December 4,2007 the five-year plan of the school board. So for that reason, and to keep the two matters distinct, the school board would oppose the Planning Commission recommendation and does support staff recommendation and understands you will vote as you see fit. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. Now, you're saying that if we approve this and we transmit it, it could be turned back to us? MS. TREV ARTHEN: Well, that is true for a number of reasons. This is a plan amendment that will undergo Objections, Comments and Recommendations review, and this is an item where there's disagreement. And the school district will be in communication with the reviewing agencies, just as your county will, so they will be aware of the lack of agreement. And the statute says there must be agreement on all these issues. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: I understand. MS. TREV AR THEN: And the hard part is, so if there has to be agreement, who gets the veto? Nobody gets the veto, and it's kind of a tension in the statutes of how you resolve that. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. Commissioner Coyle, then go back to Commissioner Henning. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yeah. I think it's exactly for that reason that I think we've got to include this language. You've made the observation -- and I agree with you -- that the legislature did not do a very good job of crafting SB360. And I think this is a situation where the county can be placed in a position of having a Capital Improvement Element that is not financially feasible through no fault of its own. And so if it -- if it is a point of disagreement between the two of us, I would like to make sure that the Department of Community Affairs understands the issue. If they want to overrule us, they will do so. But it's an important statement on our behalf, I believe, that we want to protect the financial feasibility of our Capital Improvement Plan and that we cannot be Page 50 December 4, 2007 placed in a situation where agencies beyond our control can place our Capital Improvement Plan in jeopardy because of the inability to justify financial feasibility. So I think for our purposes it's a good thing to do. It might lead to some disagreement with the school board, but it's sort of like taking something to the court to resolve. Let's take it to DCA. If DCA doesn't like it -- I mean, you'll talk with DCA about it. And if they decide that local governments are, in fact, exposed to having their CIEs declared invalid because of something done by another governmental agency, it opens up an entirely new realm of relationships. And so I think it's something we need to get on and get it resolved together. MS. TREV ARTHEN: I understand. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Commissioner Henning? COMMISSIONER HENNING: Let me -- just correct me if I'm wrong. The process was, you developed the data and analysis and worked through staff for these amendments to go to DCA, then you took it to the school board and they adopted them with corrections or whatever, and then it went to the Planning Commission; is that correct? MS. TREV ARTHEN: Actually, I don't believe we've had a formal vote yet -- correct me if I'm wrong -- at the school board. We had a general series of updates for the school board, but we've talked to them about the drafts and shown them the drafts, and we've gotten questions and feedback. But I don't believe we had a formal vote endorsing transmittal. So what has actually happened is that the staffs have worked together to come up with the drafts and brought the drafts -- because we're at this transmittal stage -- COMMISSIONER HENNING: Yeah. MS. TREV ARTHEN: -- first to your Planning Commission, and Page 51 December 4, 2007 now to you for consideration. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Right. And that was my concern, and my assumption that -- your statement that the school board objects to the Planning Commission's recommendation when, in fact, what you just said is they haven't taken a vote on it. MS. TREV AR THEN: And I understand the distinction that you're drawing. All I can tell you is that the school board administration has authorized me to represent that this is an issue of concern. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. MS. TREV ARTHEN: And we'll see -- just as you're making your vote today, they will make their vote as well. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Right. But I think it's fair to have somebody from the school -- or from the Collier County Board of Commissioners there also, because this is really staff driven. It is not for the people, by the people. MS. TREV ARTHEN: Oh, I think, you're more than welcome. We've already had some joint meetings and really, I think, because it was so -- everybody's schedules and we didn't really get a lot of attendance, we started just having school board meetings. But we could have more joint meetings, we could have whatever kind of involvement you would like. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. And maybe they should have a transcript of this meeting, too. I find the school board and the Board of Commissioners work well together. I find there is a difference of opinion at the staff level. So I think that the two boards, with the chairman's help -- assistance when this comes up is, explain why -- the position of the county on this -- just this one issue. And this is a -- really a staff-driven disagreement and is not so much the elected officials. But -- and it's really -- this statement is really going to help the two staffs to work together, I feel, in coming to a common cause Page 52 December 4, 2007 where, at the end of the day of the adoption of the CIE, is going to work for the best interest of the public. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Let's take it one step at a time. We don't know how it's going to be received by community affairs and where it's going to go from there. You're right, at that point in time we have to personally get involved and make sure that the two boards are leading the wagon down the road rather than the staff. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Right. Here's what I heard is, is -- now after we -- we adopt for transmittal, the staff is going to go to the school board and say, well, we just have one disagreement, and I think there needs to be an elected official there, like yourself, in high character, of telling them where we come from. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. When would this take place? MS. TREV ARTHEN: We would be glad to coordinate through the staffs to be sure of however you want to participate in future presentations. I believe we've coordinated with your staff and made them aware of all the prior meeting dates as well. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Fine, fine. And we'll take that to the next step. Meanwhile, we've done some wonderful things here today in bringing this forward. I want to take a moment before we take the vote just to thank both staffs, both the school board and the county staff and, of course, the Planning Commission, for all the untold hours that have been put into this. Tremendous amount of work went into this before it ever came before us, and a document of this size took a lot of thought. Thank you very much for bringing it forward in the manner that you have. And with that -- oh, Commissioner Halas, I see you have your light on. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Yes. I'm concerned about some comments that were made in regards that it felt that staff didn't do due justice on this, and I feel that I believe there was a lot of research done Page 53 December 4, 2007 by staff, along with the legalities of making sure that us, as the Board of County Commissioners, also basically have a say and that we're doing the right thing for the citizens here, whether it's on the Board of County Commissioners' side or the school board's side. So I hope that people don't feel that staff was -- didn't do their due diligence on this. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Can I clarify? CHAIRMAN COLETTA: I don't think anyone felt that way. Go ahead. COMMISSIONER HENNING: I don't think I said that. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: You didn't. COMMISSIONER HENNING: What I said was, it was represented that the school board feels when, in fact, it wasn't the school board that made that decision. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Yeah. We'll have to wait and see what happens now. It's going to be going before the school board. And I'm sure this will all shake out quite well. Everybody did a remark -- a wonderful job and nobody was putting anyone down. And with that, all those in favor, indicate by saying aye. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Aye. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN COLETTA: The ayes have it, 5-0. And that concludes the school element, right? MS. MOSCA: No. We're just -- I'm sorry. MS. STUDENT -STIRLING: Excuse me. I need to put some things on the table as I believe they deal with the motions that were made. First of all, Commissioner Halas made a motion, a general one, Page 54 December 4, 2007 and I beg your pardon. I don't have my note who seconded it, but I think what we need to do is have that motion amended and vote on the rest of the ILA, because you voted on two provisions in the -- as I understood it, in the transmittal of the ILA having to do with the CIE -- the difference between the Planning Commission and staff and so on. And if I missed something -- COMMISSIONER COYLE: Commissioner Halas withdraw his motion. MS. STUDENT-STIRLING: Okay. Thank you. MS. TREV ARTHEN: And it may be simplest just to move as amended, and they could go to your earlier vote. MS. STUDENT-STIRLING: Okay. Thank you. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Before we continue though, we're going to take a 10-minute break. Be back here at 10:47. (A brief recess was had.) MR. SCHMITT: You have a hot mike. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. Michele, you want to summarize where we are now and where we're going? MS. MOSCA: Yes, Mr. Chairman. We've gone through the major issues. What I'd like for the board to do is to take action on the interlocal agreement as amended, and then the ICE, CIE, and then the Public School Facility Element. So we'll take separate votes on each, again, beginning with the interlocal agreement. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Mr. Chairman, I'll make a motion that we approve the interlocal agreement as amended. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Second the motion. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Motion by Commissioner Henning, second by Commissioner Fiala to approve the interlocal agreement as amended. Commissioner Halas? COMMISSIONER HALAS: Can you stipulate what the Page 55 December 4, 2007 amended portion of it is? MS. MOSCA: Yes. Those would be the items listed in the executive summary that we spoke about, those major issues, beginning on page 4, specifically, the SBR. And that would be the staffs recommended language. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay. MS. MOSCA: And ILA section 13.8A, and that would be relating to school triple E. And that -- COMMISSIONER HALAS: Should we -- COMMISSIONER COYLE: I'm sorry, Commissioner Halas, but you skipped page 6, which was the acceptance of the CCPC recommendation concerning the ILA. COMMISSIONER HENNING: And that's the last one. MS. MOSCA: Yes, that's correct. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay. This would have nothing to do about -- anything about that -- the requirements by the school board in regards to addressing infrastructure, landscaping, or anything at this point in time? MS. MOSCA: That would be specifically with the SBR. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay, okay. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Any other comments? (No response.) CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Seeing none, all those in favor, indicate by saying aye. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Aye. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN COLETTA: And the ayes have it, 5-0. Page 56 December 4, 2007 COMMISSIONER HENNING: Mr. Chairman, I make a motion that we adopt the CIE as amended. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Second. COMMISSIONER FIALA: As it -- MS. TREV ARTHEN: For transmittal. COMMISSIONER HENNING: For transmittal, yes. Adopt it to transmit. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. Motion by Commissioner Henning to adopt for transmittal, and seconded by Commissioner Coyle. Commissioner Fiala, did you have something? COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yeah. So is that including the CCPC recommendation not to accept school EEE? COMMISSIONER HENNING: No. That is the staffs recommendation on EEE. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Does the second agree with that? COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yes, I do. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. Any other questions? Commissioner Fiala, does that satisfy what you wanted to know? COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. MS. MOSCA: Mr. Chairman, if I may? CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Yes. MS. MOSCA: That would also include, on page 6, the CCPC recommendation with the additional language for the CIE. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Commissioner Henning? COMMISSIONER HENNING: Yes, that's absolutely correct. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Commissioner Coyle? COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yep. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. Any other comments? (No response.) CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Seeing none, all those in favor, Page 57 December 4, 2007 indicate by saying aye. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Aye. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN COLETTA: The ayes have it, 5-0. COMMISSIONER HENNING: And the next one is the SBR? MS. MOSCA: The next item would be -- no. The next item would be the Intergovernmental Coordination Element. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Motion to transmit as amended. MS. MOSCA: Commissioner, actually the interlocal -- I mean, the Intergovernmental Coordination Element was not amended. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Oh, it wasn't. MS. MOSCA: My apologies if I stated that earlier. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: We have a motion by Commissioner Henning -- COMMISSIONER FIALA: And I'll second it. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: -- to approve and a second by Commissioner Fiala. Discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Seeing none, all those in favor, indicate by saying aye. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Aye. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye. Page 58 December 4, 2007 CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN COLETTA: The ayes have it, 5-0. MS. MOSCA: The last element would be the new Public School Facility Element as amended. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Move to -- that's a transmittal, correct? MS. MOSCA: That's a transmittal. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Move to transmit. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Second. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Motion by Commissioner Henning to transmit, second by Commissioner Fiala. Any discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Seeing none, all those in favor, indicate by saying aye. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Aye. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN COLETTA: The ayes have it, 5-0. MS. MOSCA: And then I have just two more items, Mr. Chair, if! may. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Please. MS. MOSCA: This would be to allow staffto work out the issues related to the handout that was provided by the school district staff today. We'll work out any of those issues between transmittal and adoption, and then also the allowance for staff to correct any grammatical items within any of the documents. Page 59 December 4, 2007 CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Commissioner Fiala? COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes. Being that this was on our desk when we walked in, we've had no time to address it at all. We don't even know what it says. MS. MOSCA: Yes. COMMISSIONER FIALA: So after you work this out with staff, would you please bring it back so that -- so that we know what this is about? I mean, definitely it must be worked out, but I want to know what we're voting on when it comes back. And we don't have any time to read things when it's placed on our desk in the morning. It's either read this or listen to what's going on. MS. MOSCA: If! may, would this be a formal meeting or as an e-mail? I just want some clarification on those items that are listed. I don't know what's in the document as well. MR. SCHMITT: Or during adoption hearing. We would review this in detail during adoption hearing. COMMISSIONER FIALA: All right, fine. MR. SCHMITT: So you'd have the document. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Would you do this though. If you find something there that you feel we need to be alerted on beforehand, let us know. MS. MOSCA: Yes. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Okay, fine. Thank you. And then we could even bring it up at a regular commission meeting or something. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: So that's a motion. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Second. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Motion by Commissioner Fiala, second by Commissioner Halas. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Just to clarify the motion, Mr. Chairman. Page 60 December 4, 2007 CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Go ahead. COMMISSIONER HENNING: It's to direct staffto work on the handout with the school board staff? MS. MOSCA: Yes. COMMISSIONER HENNING: And that's nothing -- working -- you know, don't work with them on anything that's contrary to the board's direction. MS. MOSCA: Yes. COMMISSIONER HENNING: And correct grammatical errors in the document. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes. I'll include that in my motion. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: I think that's understood. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Thank you. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: And how about the second? COMMISSIONER HALAS: Yes. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. Any other comments? (No response.) CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Seeing none, all those in favor, indicate by saying aye. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Aye. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN COLETTA: And the ayes have it, 5-0. MS. MOSCA: Thank you, Commissioners. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Mr. Chairman? CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Thank you. Commissioner Henning? COMMISSIONER HENNING: May -- I just want to compliment Michele for her hard work on this and the school board Page 61 December 4,2007 staff and consultant. This is a monumental task handed down by the legislators, but it's all in keeping with serving the public as a whole. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Once again, the Planning Commission, of course. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Oh, yes, most definitely. MS. TREV ARTHEN: And Mr. Chair, thank you for that. And I apologize, Commissioner Henning, for any confusion that was created by my terminology. But what we've said today is reflective of the administration standpoint on these matters of the school. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. Thank you. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Fine. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Let's get our next books out. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Yeah. We're ready to proceed with that. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Anybody want to read? CHAIRMAN COLETTA: One second. I'll be ready to go, Mr. Fernandez. Mr. Weeks? MR. WEEKS: Good morning, Commissioners. I'm David Weeks, Planning Manager in the Comprehensive Planning Department. Next before you is the adoption hearing for the 2000-15 cycle of Growth Management Plan amendment. This board previously reviewed these earlier this year. We started out with a total of 16 petitions but some were withdrawn and some this body voted not to approve for transmittal, and then we have one added petition which this board previously authorized, so we now have a total of eight before you today. At the end of this hearing you'll be -- excuse me. As we go through this hearing you'll be voting on each of the eight agenda items, specific Comprehensive Plan amendments. It does take a supermajority vote, that is four out of five commissioners, to vote to Page 62 December 4, 2007 approve a petition. Once each petition has been adopted, the package will be sent up to the Florida Department of Community Affairs and other state agencies and regional agencies for their review, which will culminate in a notice of intent to find the amendments in compliance with Florida Statutes or not in compliance with Florida Statutes. And if their determination is not favorable or if there is a challenge to a compliance -- in compliance finding, the respective amendment would not go into effect. This is a quasijudicial (sic) hearing. There's no need to -- no requirement to swear in the participants nor to offer notice of ex parte communications. As required by state law, there is a sign-up sheet on the table outside this meeting room for any interested party to sign their name and address. And by doing so, they will be notified by the Department of Community Affairs when they have issued their notice of intent to find the amendments in compliance or not in compliance. Some of the respective petitions, as noted in your executive summary, were reviewed by the Environmental Advisory Council and, of course, all of them were reviewed by the Collier County Planning Commission, and their recommendation specific to each petition is identified in your executive summary. And perhaps I misspoke a moment ago. I meant to say that this is not a quasijudicial hearing, if I failed to say that or said it incorrectly. The Department of Community Affairs issued their Objections, Recommendations and Comments Report -- we refer to that as an ORC Report -- in which they raised two objections, both of which were pertaining to county-initiated petitions, and staff has addressed those as noted in the executive summary. And as we get to each of those specific items, we'll walk through the objections and how they've been addressed. There is some fiscal impact for two of these petitions. Again, Page 63 December 4,2007 both being county initiated. Actually three, excuse me. Petition 14, which are the redesignations of sending lands, will require subsequent amendments to a map in the Land Development Code. That will be handled by existing staff. Also petition 16 pertaining to wellhead protections areas map in the Future Land Use Element will require subsequent amendments to maps in the Land Development Code and specific zoning maps; again, to be dealt with by existing county staff. The most significant fiscal impact pertains to petition number 15. This is the thoroughfare corridor protection policies being proposed as additions to the transportation element. As noted in the executive summary, some outside consultant assistant will be necessary, and a rough estimate of that cost will be $25,000. And further work to implement those policies would be handled by county staff. Commissioners, in your executive summary, each of the Planning Commission recommendations are noted specific to each petition in what I'll refer to in laymen's terms as just simply saying, here's what they voted on, what their vote was, and what changes they may have recommended. If you go to the document immediately behind your executive summary, it's titled CCPC recommendations. That gives the very explicit depiction of their changes, the underlined, strikethrough changes. And then also behind the tab that's labeled ordinance, ordinances, you'll find each ofthe respective petition Exhibit A's. That shows the actual language that you would be acting on as modified to reflect the Planning Commission's recommendations. So, again, earlier in the CCPC recommendations document we show a strikethrough, underlining format how the Planning Commission has made changes so that you can see the changes. But the clean documents are those ordinance exhibits. They simply show the language as Planning Commission has recommended. In a few instances, Planning Commission either had a tie vote so Page 64 December 4, 2007 there was no recommendation or they did not recommend adoption. In that instance -- and that's petitions number 9 and 13 -- the language on those ordinance exhibits are as this body approved for transmittal. Commissioners, we as staff do our best to try to make these documents easy for you to understand. When we get into the double underline, double strikethrough, admittedly it can be difficult at times. We tried to keep that to a minimum in the CCPC recommendations document as well as in the executive summary. But let me express again that the Exhibit A's are the clean version of the text as recommended by Planning Commission or, in two instances, as this body recommended for transmittal. As is your typical protocol, Commissioners, each of the petitions we'll present to you first, followed by a very brief presentation by staff, and then we'll ask you to take a vote on each individual petition one at a time as we go through the agenda. And lastly, we would appreciate at the conclusion of to day's hearing, if you would leave your binders on the dais. Staff will collect those and we will reuse those. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: David, before you go a. MR. WEEKS : Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: First anyone that would like to speak on anyone of these issues, please take a moment and fill out the speaker slips that are on the table on the -- on the outside in the hall and turn them in to Ms. Filson up here at the desk, and we'll make sure that you're called on to speak. With that, too, Commissioner Fiala's got a question, procedural question. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes. As you were talking about those two items, I think you said 9 and 13, that the CCPC had a tie vote on, are their recommendations in here still? I mean, these things that we have that -- those are their recommendations even though they had a tie vote? Page 65 December 4, 2007 MR. WEEKS: In the CCPC recommendations document we explained what their motion was, note their motion, and the vote failed 4-4. COMMISSIONER FIALA: But what their concerns were are written in -- MR. WEEKS: Yes. COMMISSIONER FIALA: -- in this? MR. WEEKS; Yes, ma'am. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Okay. So that we can see, even though they tied, what their recommendations were for these different subjects; is that correct? MR. WEEKS: That is correct. And let me clarify. Petition 9 was a recommendation not to adopt; petition 13 had a tie vote. There's one petition where the Exhibit A does not completely reflect Planning Commission's recommendations. Staff failed to include one sentence. It was an amendment to policy 5.1.1 of the Golden Gate Area Master Plan; however, the Planning Commission recommendation document does accurately reflect the complete action that they recommended. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Will you state that when that -- when the time comes on that particular one so that we're all aware of that? MR. WEEKS: Certainly. And I can put on the visualizer that correct version. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Okay. Item #3A ORDINANCE 2007-76: PETITION CP-2005-2 - ADOPTED W/CCPC RECOMMENDATIONS MR. WEEKS: Mr. Chairman, your first petition is CP-2005-2. Page 66 December 4, 2007 MR. FERNANDEZ: Good morning, Chairman, Commissioners. Michael Fernandez with the firm Planning Development, for the record, representing Michael Porter in this application, CP-205-2 (sic). This is an amendment to the southwest quadrant of a neighborhood activity center to substitute what could be a conditional use area or request for a conditional use with an expansion above that particular quadrant to allow restricted uses. All the uses or all the restrictions that are part of the neighborhood center would still apply to this quadrant except we've added some additional restrictions. You may recall that we came before you for the transmittal hearing and we indicated -- we showed the community support and benefits about this regarding this particular change. We had -- and we displayed 227 signature petitions, a little less than 700 response cards; 95 percent favored additional commercial; 75 percent favored one that dealt with medical and medical-related uses. Only 5 percent objected to or wanted no development or no expanSIOn. The services that are being proposed that are included in here are services that are needed by our community in having those services in a close -- in a -- in relationship to the end users. It's going to capture trips that otherwise would have to travel to urban areas of our community. Specifically, especially those of medical-related are especially well located in close proximity to the end users. The other element that I'll talk about is that in relationship to the existing use, there's an existing rezone of the adjacent property for commercial development immediately next door. It's in the SDP for a Walgreen's, the medical-related medical uses are more appropriate. It's an ideal mix. The language that was transmitted to DCA, there was no comments from the Department of Community Affairs. The Planning Commission, however, heard the -- and reviewed the language and had input from staff and also the public. Page 67 December 4, 2007 They made some recommendations that further restricted the uses. So it's more restrictive than the language that was submitted for transmittal by this body. Specifically, there was a 60 percent requirement, that 60 percent of the square footage was going to be restricted to medical, medical-related, and uses. The board of -- the planning commissioners decided that we needed to stick to a more -- a majority of medical use. So now it's 60 percent for medical and clinics and that the 40 percent now holds the medical-related and general office uses. In review of the text that the planning commissioners -- their recommendation and their approval, which was a vote, a unanimous vote, we're amenable to accepting their language. And I believe Mr. Weeks mentioned that there was one item that was left out of that clean version that you're looking at, and that has to do with policy 5.1.1.1. We made a commitment to the neighborhood that we would utilize Ballards to the greatest extent possible within our site to limit the light pollution or a light cloud in that area. That would have been in conflict with the provisions of 5.1.1.1 which basically says you're going to have 25- foot poles, Cobra lights. The Ballards are more restrictive, more costly, but it's a commitment we made and we wanted to commit to. The CCPC made that recommendation, and it has been added by staff in their dialogue to open the meeting here. If you have any questions, I'll be happy to answer them at this time. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Your public outreach has been remarkable. I give a lot of credit to your -- the petitioner himself for taking this forward to the Golden Gate Estates Civic Association and working through a long and arduous process there. It started out as a general use type thing with the possibility of some medical. And as it went through the process, the public identified the fact that they were looking for more medical than anything else. It turned out that in the end, through doing the public process the right way -- in fact, I asked Mr. Corders to provide me the white paper of how he Page 68 December 4,2007 accomplished this because it was quite remarkable, so he could share that with other people that are looking to do something similar. What it did, it involved the public process way beyond anything I've ever seen before in my life, to come up with a product that meets the immediate needs of the neighbors. In fact, in the audience we have one immediate neighbor to that who I know quite well, and I'm sure everybody else does too, Mark Teaters, and several -- and a couple other people too that are -- that live in the Estates area too and have been with the civic process for many years and are here to testify in favor of it. I couldn't tell you -- I couldn't be more pleased with a single project that I've seen come down the pike since possibly Ave Maria. It meets the needs in many directions. And with that, it would be my pleasure to make a motion for approval. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Second. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: So we have a motion by myself, Commissioner Coletta, and that, of course, includes all of the Planning Commission recommendations, and we got a second by Fiala. We'll go to Commissioner Henning, then Commissioner Halas. COMMISSIONER HENNING: David, in the CCPC's recommendations on the summary, it says 1st Street Southwest and it should be 15th Street Southwest. On page 1 on the recommendations. MR. WEEKS: No, sir. I don't believe that's true. This property is -- both abuts Wilson and Golden Gate Boulevards and also on its west side abuts 1 st Street Southwest. Defer to the petitioner to correct me if I'm wrong. MR. FERNANDEZ: You're right. That's correct. COMMISSIONER HENNING: That's correct? Well, I did see -- I need to find it -- where it referenced 15th Street. And I -- I think we're okay in the ordinance, but the backup documents -- let me just look for it. If you'd go to Commissioner Halas. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: I'll go to Commissioner Halas. We'll Page 69 December 4, 2007 come back to you, sir. Commissioner Halas? COMMISSIONER HALAS: I've listened to the comments that Commissioner Coletta has made, but yet in the information that's been provided to us, staff recommends that this not be transmitted to DCA and also the Collier County Planning Commission. Can you give me some further insight into why maybe the staff and the Collier County Planning Commission are not in agreement? MR. WEEKS: Certainly. Let me defer to Tom Greenwood, the assigned planner for this petition. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay. MR. GREENWOOD: For the record, Tom Greenwood, Comprehensive Planning. The Planning Commission actually reversed course. At transmittal they recommended denial, and at that time the application was fairly open in that the application would allow the applicant, if approved, to have C-1 through C- 3 uses. Subsequent to the Planning Commission transmittal hearing and prior to the board's transmittal hearing, language was proposed by the applicant which staff received just before the transmittal hearing before this body that would place those additional restrictions and standards that you have before you. The Planning Commission at the adoption hearing did recommend approval of this application unanimously with the language as provided in Exhibit A. Does that answer your question? COMMISSIONER HALAS: And you said that what was added was C-1 through C-3? MR. GREENWOOD: No. What was provided in your packet, which is Exhibit A, restricts the uses there to basically medical- and office-related. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay. MR. GREENWOOD: Which is what the neighbors in the area Page 70 December 4, 2007 apparently have told us they wanted, and they supported it at the Planning Commission adoption hearing. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay. MR. GREENWOOD: And also at the second NIM, which was held -- that's a neighborhood improvement meeting, which was held prior to the Planning Commission transmittal hearing -- I'm sorry, adoption hearing. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Commissioner Henning? Yeah, we'll come back to you, Commissioner Coyle, if you're ready. If you're not, I'll come back to you in a few minutes. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Which commissioner are you talking to? CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Well, to you, Commissioner Henning. If you're not ready, I'll go to Commissioner Coyle. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Yeah, I'm ready. I found the mistake. I was looking at an S and I thought it was as. Thank you. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Commissioner Coyle? COMMISSIONER COYLE: Mr. Greenwood, as a follow-up to Commissioner Halas's question, why is the staff still recommending denial or not to adopt and not to transmit if the CCPC has now decided to approve? MR. GREENWOOD: The initial neighborhood improvement meeting, which, again, was to authorize C-1 through C-3 uses in the crosshatched area, there was strenuous neighborhood opposition to it. Many of the concerns had to do with creeping commercial, wanting to have basically the Estates as more of a rural area and that this would be the beginning of additional things in the area. There was that kind of concern expressed by the neighbors and, quite frankly, the staff as well. The red bounded area there is the existing neighborhood center. The northwest quadrant is vacant, about five acres. The northeast Page 71 December 4, 2007 quadrant is either partially vacant and/or undeveloped. The southwest quadrant -- I'm sorry. The southeast quadrant now has under construction the neighborhood center, a small retail and service facility. And again, the southwest quadrant is going to be the site primarily, the Walgreen's. And the crosshatched area would be the site if approved today and approved by DCA of a medical facility. The Golden Gate Area Master Plan was adopted in 2003, and staffs concern is that rather than open up an additional area for commercial -- I should say in this case, medical uses -- is, perhaps, looking at existing areas that are already set for it, not just within this neighborhood center, but areas perhaps to the east of Everglades Boulevard and Wilson, to the north in the Orangetree area which has already been approved. These are some of the concerns. And there is -- it's not a subject of the other -- a 2006 cycle transmittal application for, I believe, about 33 acres, which is just to the -- just to the west and north of this map. But those are some of our concerns. It's -- I -- personally I think the use is a great use, I really do, and it certainly represents what the people out there wanted. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay. Thank you very much. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Yeah. And I may point out to you, too, that Michael's in an unusual position to be able to provide this service. His wife is very tied into the medical industry, so he has the wherewithal to be able to pull this off, that's why he was agreeable to 60 percent. Any other comments? (No response.) CHAIRMAN COLETTA: We have how many speakers, three, four? MS. FILSON: Three, Mr. Chairman. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Three speakers. Would you call the speakers, please? Page 72 December 4, 2007 MS. FILSON: The first speaker is Karen Acquard. She'll be followed by Mark Teaters. MS. ACQUARD: Good morning, Commissioners. For the record, my name is Karen Acquard. And I'll remind you, I was a member of the master plan committee and that the chairman of the CCPC, I think is what you call it, the Planning Commission, is Mark Strain, who was the chair of the master plan. I'm very sorry that Linda Hartman can't be here today, but the influenza has her. She was also a member of the master plan. I can only speak for myself. Commissioners, we tend to protect something that we worked very hard for, like the master plan, but I have to say that this proposal is something that is badly needed in our area. The verbiage has been firmed up so much that we feel confident that a developer can't pull any foollies on us, so to speak, as we've had in the past, and that has been one of the concerns of the members of the master plan, and that's why we've watched things so closely. We definitely would -- we support this one change to the master plan because it's something we need. The location is superb because it will help people in -- that are off DeSoto and Everglades. The central location is fantastic. It will service a large number of people. And the fact that Mr. Corder is so willing to have such tight verbiage in this, that pretty much eliminates -- I mean, they can have a -- someone that does physical therapy, but you can't have a Gold's Gym, and you can have an optometrist, but you're not going to have a Visions Works. I mean, it is really firmed up to where it's not going to be just a bunch of fluff. It's going to be services that we really needed. And I'll remind you, about seven years ago -- as a matter of fact, the day three of you took office -- I told you we needed services out there in the Estates and -- but we didn't want just fluff and crap. We wanted quality. And this looks like it's going to shape up to be quality from everything that we've seen and heard. Thank you very much, but I'm hoping that you'll approve this. Page 73 December 4, 2007 MS. FILSON: The next speaker is Mark Teaters. He'll be followed by Pat Humphries. MR. TEATERS: Good morning, Commissioners. Mark Teaters, Golden Gate Estates. I'm very delighted to be here today to support this. I will tell you that if you look at the map, the second house down to the right is mine. You see that little rooftop, the big rooftop right down there is mine. Now, that means that I am right across the street from where this project is going to be. The neat thing about this for the neighborhood -- and I've got some points here to make to you. I sent them all an e-mail and I want to do it for the public -- is that the buffer area that they're talking about that will go across the bottom through this piece that goes between 1 st and Wilson Boulevard is going to do something great for our neighborhood. It's going to protect us all. When they put the buffer, the water management in there, when the Walgreen's comes in, it's going to protect the neighborhood from that development. It's a nice and it's a positive thing for us. Positive to the community, as well as the neighborhoods, medical professional offices. Reduce trip generation. That was one of the things when we did the original hearing on this that all the commissioners thought was a great thing, reduce trip generation. The -- reduce the approved uses, and all those uses are not high -- high-traffic generators. An optical center or even a workout center, a small one, or physical therapy is not going to be a high traffic generator. Types of businesses that are going to be in this center normally would operate eight to five. They're not going to be late hours. The buffer area. We talked about Ballard lighting. That's something that's absolutely critical. The people in the neighborhood don't want to have a light cloud in the neighborhood. They don't want to have -- and it's nice -- that was one of the things that they came to Page 74 December 4, 2007 us with. We didn't ask for that. Fleet trucks. One of the things they said was, if you're going to have all this parking, we don't want to have a truck fleet parked here at night, and that was one of the things they said they would not do. Parking is designed to be conducive to medical. No retail or standard commercial. Project is within walking or bike riding distance to many people. It really is. If this is going to be a Golden Gate Estates community center, which it looks like it's going to be in the future, we need to have those kind of services that people can walk to or ride a bike to or whatever. I know with gas prices, I'm going to be riding a bike, and I need to do it anyway. Petitioners agreed to the 60 percent medical. That's a big -- that's a big plus for us. I did attend the CCPC hearing. Mark Strain did tighten this thing up even more than originally, as was suggested by you or by the community, which is a good thing for everybody. I urge you to support this. I think that the -- like Commissioner Coletta said earlier, I think that the petitioner has gone above and beyond what a normally -- normal developer would have done in this case, and I do urge you to support this. Thank you. MS. FILSON: Your final speaker, Mr. Chairman, is Pat Humphries. MS. HUMPHRIES: My name is Pat Humphries, and I live three miles from the proposed project. I'm in favor of this project because a medical center will serve the residents of Golden Gate Estates. And I commend the property owner for pursuing an appropriate facility and following through on his objective. I've been monitoring shopping centers for 10 years as a past Director of the Estates Civic Association and as a director on the new Estates Homeowners Association and this is -- and this is only one of two incidents where we would be receiving what we were told we would be receiving. Page 75 December 4,2007 Hopefully this will set an example for future commercial projects petitioned for in the Estates. Thank you. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Thank you. Commissioner Halas? COMMISSIONER HALAS: Final question I have on this to get a level of comfort here; what is the other 40 percent going to be used for? MR. FERNANDEZ: The 40 percent would be restricted to medical-related and professional office uses. Professional office uses would be lawyers -- COMMISSIONER HALAS: We need more of them. MR. FERNANDEZ: That's probably not the best way to start that one. But it would be -- it would be architects. It would be, you know, tax preparers. It would being basically professional services, and then medical-related. And medical-related originally was part of the 60 percent; now it's part of the 40 percent. That 40 percent could be as -- we were talking -- as some of the people had spoken about, an eye center, for instance, or, you know, a wellness center, which would be where you also have some kind of therapy component and exercise component. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Basically what you're talking about is low density? MR. FERNANDEZ: Yes, sir. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay. Low density use. We're not going to have a supermarket there, we're not going to have Joe's Grill Barbecue? MR. FERNANDEZ: No, sir. Basically most of those type retail facilities are excluded by the verbiage that's put into this document. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay. Thank you very much. MR. FERNANDEZ: You're welcome. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Any comments? (No response.) Page 76 December 4, 2007 CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. With that, all those in favor, indicate by saying aye. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Aye. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN COLETTA: And the ayes have it, 5-0. MR. FERNANDEZ: Thank you. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Commissioner Coyle? COMMISSIONER COYLE: In favor of what? COMMISSIONER HENNING: In favor of adoption. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Adoption. COMMISSIONER COYLE: With the staffs recommendations? CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Planning Commission recommendations. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: I think I stated that when I made the motion. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Did you? Okay. All right. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yep. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: You understood that? COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes, I did. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. Thank you. Item #3B ORDINANCE 2007-77: PETITION CP-2005-6 - ADOPTED W/CCPC RECOMMENDATIONS Page 77 December 4,2007 MR. WEEKS: Commissioners, the next petition is CP-2005-6. MR. YOV ANOVICH: Good morning. For the record, Rich Y ovanovich on behalf of the petitioner. As you will recall, this was the petition filed by the David Lawrence Center and the adjacent church. It was to basically make the five-acre parcel -- and I think we need to zoom out. The property fronts Golden Gate Parkway. Due to a 2.2-acre taking related to Golden Gate Parkway, the David Lawrence Center couldn't do its planned expansions on the site. They acquired a five-acre parcel adjacent to the church and basically are asking to create a district that would allow the David Lawrence Center and the church to go ahead and expand their operations and provide for interconnection between the two so the David Lawrence Center, as you can see in the blue -- that's the David Lawrence Center -- they can go ahead and do their expansion on the five-acre parcel interconnect through the existing church to provide those services. It went to the Department of Community Affairs. There were no comments back from the Department of Community Affairs. It was transmitted unanimously by the -- by you all, as well as the Planning Commission. At the Planning Commission hearing recently, there was a request that we drop private schools from the five-acre piece, and three planning commissioners requested that we drop day care from that five-acre piece. We pointed out that we still would have to do a conditional use process anyway. This would just give us the right to come in and do a conditional use on our five-acre piece. And if there were any compatibility issues in the future that said a day care shouldn't go on that site, that should be addressed at that point. A majority of the Planning Commission agreed with that, with that stance. And I believe that addresses the update since we were here last. If you have any further questions of me or David Schimmel from Page 78 December 4, 2007 the David Lawrence Center or Margaret Perry from WilsonMiller, we'll be happy to answer any questions you may have regarding this. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: We'll go to Commissioner Henning first, then Commissioner Fiala. COMMISSIONER HENNING: What was the planning commissioner's, commissioner -- and that may be plural -- concern even after you stated that it would have to be a conditional use? MR. YOV ANOVICH: To be honest with you, I didn't understand why there was still objection other than they may have believed that we shouldn't even be allowed to ask for the conditional use for a day care because it would be near residential. Now, keep in mind we went through and we had neighborhood information meetings, and the neighborhood was fine with whatever the David Lawrence Center did and related to the David Lawrence Center; they just didn't want other private providers to provide those services. So we limited day care, and in that case as well, the private school to only things related to the David Lawrence Center or the church. So we had addressed -- I think we had addressed the public's concern that some private day care could go on that site. So I don't know that there was -- there's no public objection to it. I think a couple of the planning commissioners just believe that, for whatever reason, they thought that we shouldn't even be allowed to go through the conditional use process for a day care. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Did they have a concern about -- because this is a subdistrict for institutional uses? MR. YOV ANOVICH: No. And in fact, the things that came out were some of the things -- like libraries and general governmental institutional uses. Those were removed. Those were the concerns that kind of came through the process. It was those types of institutional uses that should go away. Honestly, Commissioner, I'm sure I'm not doing them justice, but Page 79 December 4, 2007 I didn't really see -- see their concern with the conditional use process. COMMISSIONER HENNING: It's -- is this related to the church, the Church of God? MR. YOV ANOVICH: No, this was us. It was -- it was our -- we own that five -- we being David Lawrence Center. They own that five acres. There's no immediate plans today for a day care on that site, but we didn't want, in the future, to have to go through another Comprehensive Plan amendment process when we thought the conditional use process would address any concerns, if and when we requested a day care on that site. MR. WEEKS: Mr. Chairman? CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Yes. Go ahead, Mr. Weeks. MR. WEEKS: I could respond further. The stated concern by the -- some planning commissioners was the noise that might be generated by day care or schools because you have properties that are only a -- that are limited to residential development immediately to the east. That was the concern that was expressed, noise. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. And right now there's a vacant lot followed by an acre-and-a-quarter house. But there has -- doesn't there have to be buffering between those conditional uses and the residential? MR. YOV ANOVICH: And we thought, Commissioner, we could address all of that. If we needed to put up a wall related to that, we could address all that through the conditional use process, and I think staff also said at the hearing that that could also be addressed through the conditional use process. COMMISSIONER HENNING: David, doesn't -- there has to be buffering distance between conditional uses and residential in the Golden Gate Master Plan? MR. WEEKS: Yes, sir, both setbacks, physical separation of structures, as well as landscape buffer. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. Well, I'm willing to kick Page 80 December 4, 2007 it down the road with those uses of day care and private school. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Was that a motion? COMMISSIONER HENNING: Yeah. I'm going to make a motion to adopt the ordinance. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. Do I hear a second? COMMISSIONER FIALA: I second that. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Motion by Commissioner Henning, second by Commissioner Fiala. Commissioner Fiala, you've got the floor. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Well, he asked my question and it was answered to my satisfaction, so I could second it. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. Commissioner Halas? COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay. What we're addressing today also in this is, the following institutional uses are permitted through the conditional use process within the subdistrict. One is -- or A is churches and other places of worship; B, group care facilities; category 1 and category 2, nursing homes, assisted living facilities, associated -- associated with the David Lawrence Center; D, the essential services as set forth in section 2.01.03 of the Land Development Code; E is the private schools associated with the David Lawrence Center or the Parkway Community Church of God and F is the day care centers associated with the David Lawrence Center or Parkway Community Church of God; and then G is the medical offices associated with the David Lawrence Center; is that correct? MR. YOV ANOVICH: (Nods head.) COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay. I just want to make sure that that's all included in what we're discussing at the present time. MR. YOV ANOVICH: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Any other comment? Seeing none -- COMMISSIONER COYLE: Wait a minute. My light was supposed to be on. Did you turn it off? CHAIRMAN COLETTA: We broke it. Go ahead. Page 81 December 4,2007 COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay. I just want to clarify again which recommendations we are accepting here. And first let me address my question to the petitioner to find out which recommendations the petitioner agrees with, because the staff recommendation and the CCP (sic) recommendations vary somewhat. Which recommendation do you agree with? MR. YOV ANOVICH: We had accepted the removal of the private schools so -- we had accepted the removal of private schools. We'd like to keep them in if possible because we think the conditional use process will take care of those as we go through the process. And medical use -- everything, A through G, is our request; however, we did say we would give up the private schools if that was necessary to get the Comprehensive Plan amendment adopted, because that was really far out in the thought process of the David Lawrence Center as far as getting into the private school business. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay. So essentially you have agreed to accept the CCPC's recommendations? MR. YOV ANOVICH: Yes, sir -- yes, sir? COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay. And is the motion -- does the motion include the CCPC's recommendations? COMMISSIONER HENNING: Yes. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: The motion -- the CCP (sic) recommendation was no schools? MR. YOV ANOVICH: It was -- and remember, that was only on tract 66, because that -- yes. And it was no private schools at all, was the CCPC's motion. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: And you understand that, Commissioner Henning, as being what you -- COMMISSIONER HENNING: Yeah. It says it right in H. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. And Commissioner Fiala, you're okay with that? Page 82 December 4, 2007 COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Any other questions, sir. COMMISSIONER COYLE: No, thank you. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. With that, all those in favor, indicate by saying aye. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Aye. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN COLETTA: And the ayes have it, 5-0. Thank you. Item #3C ORDINANCE 2007-78: PETITION CP-2005-9 - ADOPTED MR. WEEKS: Commissioners, next is petition CP-2005-9. MR. ARNOLD: Good morning. I'm Wayne Arnold with Q. Grady Minor & Associates. Rich Y ovanovich and I are here representing Bobby Williams with the Corkscrew Island Neighborhood Commercial Subdistrict application. The subject property, just to refresh your memory, is located north of Oil Well Road on Immokalee Road about three-and-a-half miles north of Oil Well Road. It's an eight-acre parcel ofland, and presently it is zoned both C-2 commercial and mobile home. The front portion, a little over three acres, is presently zoned C-2. The back portion of that is zoned mobile home. We started this process a little over two years ago in meeting with the fairly newly-formed Corkscrew Island -- Big Corkscrew Island Neighborhood Association looking at options for this piece of Page 83 December 4,2007 property. And we had several meetings with them, both formally and informally and members thereof. The president of that association is just arriving. But we had met with them. And our original proposal was up to 90,000 square feet of commercial uses in this new neighborhood subdistrict. And through the process, we've reused the square footage request from 90,000 square feet down to 70,000 square feet. There was one formal vote taken of the neighborhood association, and there was support by a vote of -- I had it recorded as 22-4 in my notes from that meeting. And with that came our discussion with them that we would continue to work with them through the zoning process. We would have to come back through the rezoning process to eliminate the mobile home zoning to establish commercial. We had six criteria that were a component of our request and that talked about coming back through the PUD rezoning process, limiting our uses to those that are found in C-2 or conditional uses in C-2, and also dealing with uses and recognizing that this is a rural area and looking at the surrounding area. We're obviously happy to do that. We think we've done a good job working with our neighbors. There are a couple of the neighbors here today that are here in support of this application. We've spent a little bit of time doing some site planning since you voted to transmit this to the state. And I guess I would mention -- I know it's in your report, but the state had obviously no comments with this application. We've looked at some options. We've shown this conceptual site plan, and it's very preliminary. But we've looked at some options on the site and looked at probably a series of two to three buildings in total that would service the site and provide this neighborhood convenience to the surrounding community. Your staff has gone on record of acknowledging that there is a Page 84 December 4, 2007 demand for more commercial need out here, and we think we've met that. As we said, we've worked with the neighborhood, and I think we have their support and our continued efforts to work with them as we would bring forward a zoning. You transmitted -- staff, obviously, is not supportive of this. The Planning Commission was not supportive of the original transmittal as well. You all did support that, and I think largely because we had people here from the neighborhood supporting this. So I would hope that we could move forward with adoption and allow us to work through this with the neighborhood to eliminate the mobile home zoning on the back portion of this property and bring forward commercial property that would be responsive to the needs of the neighborhood and one that we think will be well designed and functional and probably a better neighbor, I think, from what I heard from several of the neighbors, than a more transient mobile home park would be in that location. I'd be happy to answer questions. That's really a summary of where we've been and where we are. I know Mr. Williams is here, Rich is here, and several of the neighbors are here. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Well, we'll be calling the speakers after staff. Does staff have a presentation? Then we'll go to the speakers. MR. SCHMIDT: Good morning, Commissioners. For the record, Corby Schmidt, Comprehensive Planning Staff. There were a number of reasons that the staff had not recommended to transmit, and those same reasons still stand from the staffs recommendation not to adopt. I could go over those, but I believe they're a part of the record having to do with the market study showing demand, but not necessarily at this location. The magnitude of the project, the access directly out to Platt Road, at this time a private dirt road, the expansion of Immokalee Page 85 December 4, 2007 Road, incomplete, at least planned, but incomplete for that segment of Immokalee Road. Commercials uses are not authorized in neutral lands in the rural fringe mixed-use district. It is likely that a petition like this would lead to an increased number of like petitions in the area. Rural villages are intended to provide additional commercial uses, and certainly the property has other viable uses. Unless there are questions, I could -- CHAIRMAN COLETTA: If! may, sir. You referenced Platt Road being a private road but, of course, for them to be able to do the proj ect, they would have to bring it up to county standard, wouldn't they, the part of it that would be leading into the project? MR. SCHMIDT: That's my understanding, and-- CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Yes. So I mean, it has no bearing upon the fact that it's private and what it looks like now. It's how the final product would look. Your decision, of course, is based upon what our Land Development Code allows for, and I can understand. You're putting all the particulars together; however, have you seen anything in the way of resistance from the residents there? Would you say the residents are generally in resistance against this, are they receptive, or are they responding favorably for it? MR. SCHMIDT: There has been a mixture of responses. Testimony given to the Planning Commission had people who did not support the adoption or the change into the new subdistrict, and you also had support where, I believe in -- either written into the record or spoken to you at your transmittal hearing, you heard from the association in that area, and they had general support for the change. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Right. I tell you what, let's go ahead and call the speakers that we have. MS. FILSON: We have five speakers now, Mr. Chairman. I'm not sure if the first one is Robert Cullin or Allen. He'll be followed by Page 86 December 4, 2007 Craig Joel. MR. GILLAIN: For the record, it's Gillain. MS. FILSON: G-I-L-L-- MR. GILLAIN: A-I-N. A resident of Corkscrew Swamp Big Island Community. We stand in favor, several people I know, stand in big favor of this. Our closest community center of any type would be the G's store, which is 10 miles away, round trip. Immokalee Road has gotten just crazy with traffic. With gas expenses, if we could have something there, possibly a small post office, shipping store, I think that it would help the community immensely. We would hate to see a trailer park go in there with a store in front of it. Like the gentleman had mentioned, the transient nature of that could be devastating to a nice, quiet community that we'd like to keep. And I guess that's really all I have to say. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Thank you. MS. FILSON: The next speaker is Craig Joel. MR. GILLAIN: I think he's out of the room right now. MS. FILSON: Okay. Kevin (sic) Snell. Kevin will be followed by Jeri Cobb. MR. SNELL: For the record, my name is Kelvin Snell, and I live on Rabbit Run Road, and that's just 300 feet from where the building is going, and we are in support of it. If it's a store that would be a fabulous idea. I have three growing sons, and it would be my pleasure to see them to be able to walk up to the store, perhaps jog up to the store, to get food, or however -- it would just be a benefit to them as well as the community. And the community's growing, and it's always nice to have resources in your community that might enhance the community as far as going 10 miles to do any kind of shopping. And so I'm in favor, Mr. William (sic), whatever it might be. So Page 87 December 4, 2007 I'm very in support of them, okay. Thank you. MS. FILSON: Jeri Cobb. She'll be followed by Bill McDaniel. MS. COBB: Good morning, Commissioners. I've been involved since the very beginning, from the first Corkscrew Island -- Big Corkscrew Island Civic Association meeting -- and I'm sorry to disagree, but I recall there were only two votes against the project at that time -- and have been to the other civic associations. There is overwhelming support for those necessary services in that neighborhood. The front is already zoned commercial. The back is zoned for the mobile homes, and I haven't spoken to one person who would like to see that developed in that direction. MS. FILSON: Your final speaker, Mr. Chairman, is Bill McDaniel. MR. McDANIEL: Good morning, Commissioners. For the record, my name is Bill McDaniel, and I'm the president of the Corkscrew Island Neighborhood Association. And I'm not quite sure whether there was two or four dissenting votes with respect to it. There was a majority vote for and in favor and support of Bobby's project. There were concerns, and not everybody was in favor of it, but with the communication level that the applicant has supplied our association, allowing us to ask questions, allowing us to be participatory in his application process, we became comfortable with what, in fact, it was he was proposing for utilization of this particular piece of property. Commissioner Coyle, you had some concerns early on with respect to the lack of specificity when an applicant is coming through on a comprehensive growth plan management change because there are several steps that follow after that. And, Commissioner Coletta, you asked staff this morning about the utilization of Platt Road as part of their project. Those specificities Page 88 December 4, 2007 come through later on and after the fact. And because of some of our rules and regulations with respect to how applicants come forth to you and not allowing for dual submittals of zoning requests and comprehensive Growth Management Plan requests at the same time, you're not always afforded all of the information that you necessarily could have in advance in making a decision on a subject such as this. It's important for you to understand that I'm also a property owner. I own the five acres to the south of Platt Road and Immokalee Road right now. And I'm in support -- turn my hat around. I'm not the president of the association. I'm in support of what Bobby's proposing to utilize the property. Staffs recommendation for denial based upon it being a commercial use and not compatible doesn't really fly because the front half ofthe property is already, in fact, commercial. The addition of this -- the back half, the elimination of that segment to be utilized for a travel trailer park, we feel, those of us that live out that way, we felt that it would be far better utilized in its entirety as commercial. Any questions? CHAIRMAN COLETTA: I think you covered it quite well. MR. McDANIEL: Okay. Thank you. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Thank you, sir. MS. FILSON: That was your final speaker, Mr. Chairman. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: I tell you something. I'd like to do the will of the people. And you know, sometimes that may run contrary to what we get recommendations from, from staff and our own advisory group. But you know, we have to look past that sometimes. What do the people actually want and how could they benefit? And that's why we sit up here as commissioners, is to be able to look through all the smoke out there and to be able to make decisions that are the best for the residents that we represent. And I'd like to make a motion for approval for final -- what's the word I'm looking for -- adoption. Page 89 December 4, 2007 COMMISSIONER FIALA: I'll second your motion because I feel the same way. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. Commissioner Halas? COMMISSIONER HALAS: I have some concerns on this. Are we basically encouraging sprawl -- I'm asking staff on this one -- with the approval of this? MR. SCHMIDT: I believe in broad stroke terms, I would have to admit that, yes, you would be. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay. MR. SCHMIDT: You have a number of planned locations for mixed-use activity centers already in place or neighborhood commercial centers already in place. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay. MR. SCHMIDT: And there's a set or an established pattern to those in that rural or that suburban area. Are you adding to that sprawl that's already a pattern? I believe so. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay. And this is presently agricultural land; is that correct? MR. SCHMIDT: It is not. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Just -- it's for a mobile home basically at the present time? MR. SCHMIDT: It lies in the neutral area of the rural fringe mixed-use. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay. MR. SCHMIDT: And it is zoned for, of course, mobile homes, as you see it presented. COMMISSIONER HALAS: How far is this away from Ave Maria, about three miles or four miles away? CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Oh, no. MR. SCHMIDT: I know in a personal drive during the field visit, it was more than eight. It may be more like 12 and 13. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Then how far is this from Page 90 December 4, 2007 Orangetree? MR. SCHMITT: Here's the project. Ave Maria's here. MR. SCHMIDT: To the commercial node that's out in front of Orangetree, it's about eight or nine -- I'm sorry -- three or four. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay. Three or four miles. MR. SCHMIDT: Your next major commercial node is south at the intersection of Oil well, I believe, it is, and Immokalee. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Where is this in relationship to the proposed Big Cypress with that -- where that small town is going to be proposed there? MR. SCHMIDT: Just a moment. We'll get an indication here in a moment. MR. WEEKS: The Big Cypress development would run all the way north of Immokalee Road all the way down along the eastern edge of Golden Gate Estates. So road miles, I would say roughly five miles. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: To the border, but not to the commercial area? MR. YOV ANOVICH: Right. And I don't believe it's all the way up to Immokalee Road either. Is it? COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay. MR. YOV ANOVICH: If! could, just briefly. This was sent to the Department of Community Affairs. And as you know, the Department of Community Affairs was very involved in the adoption of the rural fringe mixed-use districts, which was where we came up with receiving neutral sending designations. The Department of Community Affairs had no objections to allowing this portion of the neutral area to be developed as commercial. They would have objected to that if they believed it was inappropriate to allow neutral in this area to be expanded for commercial. Page 91 December 4, 2007 I think they looked at it and said, okay, there's obviously a need for more commercial in the area. You have a parcel of property that's already halfway designated as commercial. There's really nothing close; I mean, a 10-mile round-trip, as the people have expressed. And they live there, so they know exactly how far it is to get to their commercial. It made sense to the Department of Community Affairs, and we believe it makes sense here. I would also point out as far as the rural villages go, I believe one of the potential sites just got their mining operation expanded, so I don't think a rural village is going to happen there anytime soon, and the other nearby rural village is potentially being developed by Bonita Bay. And my understanding is they publicly said that's -- that's been delayed, if not removed altogether. So I think that we've shown the need and the residents have told you they have a need and they'd like to see this need served now sooner rather than later. COMMISSIONER HALAS: My concern is the information that was provided by staff in regards to addressing this particular issue out there. So I see there's no recommendations by the CCPC on this. I guess they had a tie vote. MR. WEEKS: No, sir, they voted against, not to adopt. MR. ARNOLD: Mr. Chairman, if! might. I would just reemphasize that this is not the end of the process. This allows us to move forward to bring back to you the zoning application to convert that mobile home portion of the commercial site to a legitimate commercial opportunity for the residents out here. We're going to continue to work with these people that live in the community. We're going to go back through the neighborhood informational meeting process again. We have to refine our conceptual plan. We're going to come back to you with a schedule of uses that they deem appropriate. And I think if we haven't satisfied them, I'm pretty confident at Page 92 December 4, 2007 that point that we're not going to get your support either. But in order to continue with what you've heard as their desire to have more commercial out here, we'd like the opportunity to move forward in that and bring back the proper rezoning application for you. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Commissioner Fiala? COMMISSIONER FIALA: One strong selling point for me is also, it allows people to stay closer to home to shop, and it impacts our roads less, and I think that's really important. We have to keep remembering our road system when we vote on things, and that truly is a problem. We've heard repeatedly about all of the traffic on Immokalee Road. And if this brings people closer to their homes where they can run and pick up a quart of milk or a loaf of bread -- well -- and they want it there, then I'm all for that. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: I notice the opposition out there is -- has been removed, and the simple reason why is because people in the beginning that might have had some problems with the whole project, they've been worked out long -- when they went through this long and arduous process. They came to agreement to what was best for the whole community, and I hope that this commission will recognize the needs of this community. With that, has anyone else got any comments? (No response.) CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. All those in favor, indicate by saymg aye. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Aye. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Opposed? (No response.) COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye. Page 93 December 4, 2007 CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. Let the record show the vote was 4-1, with Commissioner Halas being in the opposition. And with that, we're going to break for lunch. Talk about timing, huh? (A luncheon recess was had.) CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Mr. Weeks? MR. SCHMITT: Commissioner, you have a live mike. Item #3D ORDINANCE 2007-79: PETITION CP-2005-13 - ADOPTED W/STAFF'S RECOMMENDATIONS MR. WEEKS: Commissioners, the next petition is CP-2005-13, petition requesting an amendment to the Future Land Use Element and Future Land Use Map and Map Series to create the Collier Boulevard Community Facility Subdistrict for property designated on the Future Land Use Map as urban mixed-use, urban residential fringe subdistrict, to allow up to 368,000 square feet of church-sponsored institutional and residential uses, and to allow nonchurch-sponsored residential uses at four-and-a-half dwelling units per acre offering-- should be 147, of up to 296 affordable workforce and market rate housing units to persons involved in providing essential services in Collier County for property located on the east side of Collier Boulevard one-half mile north of Rattlesnake Hammock Road within the First of Assembly of God PUD site in Section 14, Township 50 south, Range 26 east, consisting of approximately 69 acres. MR. KLOHN: Good afternoon. For the record, my name is Bill Klohn, President of MDG Capital Corporation. I'd like to thank you for this opportunity for your consideration for adoption of this request. On behalf of the ESP Housing Coalition of Collier County, our supporting members would like to thank you as Page 94 December 4, 2007 well. As you know, these members are the sheriffs office, the two hospitals, the school board, and the City of Naples. Some of the -- some history for you. This particular body supported our transmittal 5-0, and at our CCPC meeting for transmittal, it was 7-1. In recent months we had a few changes that I believe to be minor. Understanding what our final site plan would show, the units dropped from 149 to 147, or to 146. And if you'd like me to explain the reason for that numerical change, I'd be happy to do so. In our recent Planning Commission meeting for adoption, our vote slid from 7-1 to 5-5. In my opinion -- and I'll let Corby give his in a little bit. In my opinion, that -- that vote slid ever so slightly due to the fact that we were trying to suggest that at a GMP level to add one sentence at the tail end for the second phase that says that if the second phase of 149 units would, once again, be a CWHIP project, that with the Growth Management Plan stating that we can advance with the second phase, we would like to come back to you at a later date to suggest we did -- we were very successful with our first phase for CWHIP and essential services personnel. And I didn't want to close the door and not have that available for the second phase. I recognize that we're all sensitive to traffic and concurrency. If the -- if Davis Boulevard segment was under construction, I believe that the second phase would then be concurrent. And prior to starting construction, I'd like to come back and just say, hey, folks, Davis is under construction. The GMP did provide for this board, at a later date, to give us the go-ahead to start construction. So that's -- that's what I believe was the change in the vote at the Planning Commission level. So we're prepared to accept the staff recommendation of approval. I would like to leave the last sentence in. I do not want to jeopardize the vote today to stand tall on that. I just think it makes good sense to leave it in there because we're just at the GMP level Page 95 December 4, 2007 today. And if that language didn't exist, then in a year or two, I wouldn't have the eligibility to come back without another GMP amendment. So my preference is to leave it in. If that's going to cost me the vote, feel free to make the motion to leave it out. Thank you very much. I also have Pastor Mallory here as well, and Bob Duane if you have any technical questions. Thank you. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Let's start with Commissioner Fiala. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Okay. I have a bunch of questions, some of them for Pastor Mallory. First of all, I agree with the Planning Commission. I don't think any certificates of occupancy should be issued until all of the improvements to the existing deficient segment of Davis Boulevard are complete. Of course, I've stated that for years. I believe our roads are the most important thing, and we have to first -- we first have to make sure we have a roadway system in place and our infrastructure in place before we allow more construction. So I just strongly believe that. I'm glad to hear that you would go along with that rather than lose this project, and that's good. MR. KLOHN: Thank you. COMMISSIONER FIALA: And also I agree with them in increasing the landscape requirements along the Lord's Way beyond existing Land Development Code. I think that they're right about that, too. You -- there were many things, but one of the things that they -- it said they want to allow 368,000 square feet of church-sponsored institutional and residential uses, but it doesn't say anything about what those are. Could you please explain to me what they are? That's a lot of square feet, so I just wanted to know what we're talking about. Page 96 December 4, 2007 MR. DUANE: The allowable uses are community facilities, child care facilities, residential dwellings, essential services, parks, open space, and recreational uses. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Isn't this the detox center? MR. DUANE: And within that -- COMMISSIONER FIALA: You forgot that part. MR. DUANE: Within that is the rehabilitation center, the care -- COMMISSIONER FIALA: You have a 400-bed detox center in there; is that -- MR. DUANE: That's correct. There were 800 unit -- COMMISSIONER FIALA: I just want to make sure we put these on the record, rather than disguise. MR. DUANE: Yes, ma'am. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Everybody tries to disguise things. Why aren't we just honest and just say what we're doing? So that's what I'm wanting to do here, just say what we're doing here. Okay. So we have a 400-unit detox center going in there. We also have a home for unwed mothers, don't we? And we have some n a child day care, don't we? What else do we have in there, rather than the disguised -- MR. DUANE: The worship center itself, which is currently existing, which there'll be an expansion thereof. There's a transportation training center all -- COMMISSIONER FIALA: Do we also have any homeless housing in here, housing for people who are homeless? MR. DUANE: The care -- I'd let the pastor speak to that. But the care unit's going to accommodate a variety of people going through various transitions. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Do we have -- do we have a homeless area here? I think you do. I think -- PASTOR MALLORY: David Mallory, First Assembly. Yes, we have -- whatever the need is, that's what we address. And they do n Page 97 December 4,2007 they do go into our program though. If they're homeless, want to remain homeless, we -- there are other places that they can go. We do have a program for them, job training, drug and alcohol rehab and -- COMMISSIONER FIALA: So that will also be a part of this facility, right? PASTOR MALLORY: Yes. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Do you have a soup kitchen there? PASTOR MALLORY: It's not for public. There will be a cafeteria, but for residents only. COMMISSIONER FIALA: I see. Okay. Will you be doing any feeding of the homeless there? PASTOR MALLORY: No. Well, the homeless who come to us stay. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Okay. So-- PASTOR MALLORY: So they become residents. COMMISSIONER FIALA: In other words, you won't be a magnet for them? It's people who come there and are seeking help; is that correct? PASTOR MALLORY: No. The only meals we provide are those that -- it's not the soup kitchen type. For instance, Thanksgiving we gave 60 turkey dinners, those kinds of things, but those are people that pick them up and take them to another location. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Okay. And the reason I'm bringing this up is, I understand that it's needed and I understand that that's been your mission all along. I'm not objecting to it. I understand that that's where you're going. But I think with this much concentration of this element, I think we ought to make sure that the next things that we approve in that area, or improve, we have to make sure that we take this into consideration, and we don't put any more of those elements in there to then break the back of this corridor, and that's where I'm going with this. We -- you know, it's very important. It says in our Growth Page 98 December 4, 2007 Management Plan, we shall not concentrate this kind of stuff in one area. Well, this is it, and I don't think that we need any more to add to that. Okay. Then I had a couple other ones here, and I will be finished. Well, I asked what this all meant, but then you already explained that. It said the first persons involved -- it will be offered -- the 147 will be offered first to persons involved in providing essential services, and then -- but who -- what happens after that? If -- say, for instance, you don't attract the teachers or whatever, maybe they would want to live in another area, then who next does this housing go to? MR. KLOHN: Be happy to answer that. In our affordable workforce housing commitments for this project, we're first striving, as we all know, to become successful with the CWHIP application. The CWHIP -- the CWHIP application cycle opens this coming December 31 st, and we should know by about April or thereabouts that we've garnered the CWHIP grant, and that would be 146 units, which is the first phase. Ifwe were not successful with CWHIP, we are making yet a second commitment to Collier County as part of this project to be designated as a -- I'm sorry -- to enter into an agreement with Collier County assuming that no fewer than 147 affordable workforce and market rate housing units are constructed, and as they become available, are offered first to persons involved in essential services of Collier County. Such agreement being in effect for not less than 15 years, including a minimum of 35 dwelling units for those earning no more than 150 percent of median income of Collier County. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes, I understand that, but when I asked -- it says it's going to be offered first to them. After it isn't -- if it isn't accepted by that element, that essential service personnel, then under your CWHIP or anything, who is it then offered to? Page 99 December 4, 2007 MR. KLOHN: Then it would revert to the balance of the workforce, which would be gap or other workforce-type folks in Collier County. COMMISSIONER FIALA: I see, I see. So it will more or less become market rate then, or affordable market rate? MR. KLOHN: That's correct. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Okay, fine. MR. KLOHN: With a focus on affordable workforce. COMMISSIONER FIALA: And then it also spoke of permanent adult care units here. What are those and how many of them are there? MR. KLOHN: The adult care living facility units are being deleted. The 400 beds of ALF are being deleted at the local rezone level, as well as the 120 travel trailers. The care facility, which is under the guidance of the pastor, that is 400 care beds. As part of the rezone at a local level, we'll be deleting a different 400 beds, which was the ALF, adult care living facility. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Oh, okay. Well, in item number-- under number 17, Collier Boulevard community facility subdistrict number E, it spoke of -- that the adult care -- the temporary adult care units would be removed, and it would be replaced by permanent adult care units. What is -- I don't even know what a permanent adult care unit is, and it didn't say how many. MR. KLOHN: I understand your question now, Commissioner Fiala. Pastor Mallory came before you about 60 days ago to inform you that he had trailers on site that needed to be relocated. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Right. MR. KLOHN: The temporary trailers are those which were the subject of your approval to give him this temporary position -- permission to have the trailers on site. The document that we've got Page 100 December 4, 2007 before you now has a 24-month limitation, and I believe Pastor Bob, it's nine trailers? Nine. COMMISSIONER FIALA: So the permanent adult care units would be nine trailers. Is that's what -- MR. KLOHN: That's the temporary. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Or n MR. KLOHN: Okay. Corby says he can better answer the question. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Thank you. MR. SCHMIDT: Again, for the record-- CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Let's go to commission -- COMMISSIONER FIALA: He's-- CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Yes, go ahead. MR. SCHMIDT: Corby Schmidt, comp planning. That phrase or that language refers to a characteristic of the structure or the housing, not of the people. It's a permanent structure, not a permanent resident. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes, I understand that. MR. SCHMIDT: Okay. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes. But I was wondering, when we're talking about permanent adult care unit, are we talking about a permanent mobile home or a permanent house or -- MR. SCHMIDT: No, I'm sorry. Those would be site-built homes, I believe. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Or condos, or something along that line. How many are you planning on constructing? PASTOR MALLORY: Maximum of 10. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Okay. Thank you. That's what I wanted to know. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Would you repeat what he said? We didn't have a microphone on him. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Oh, yes. I asked ifthese would be permanent mobile homes, he said, yes. I asked how many, and he said Page 10 1 December 4, 2007 10. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay, thank you. MR. SCHMIDT: I'm sorry. Further clarification. They are mobile homes at this time there temporarily. They're to be removed. They're to be replaced by site-built structures. COMMISSIONER FIALA: That's right. He said that. So in other words, houses or -- MR. SCHMIDT: Houses. I believe it's to be 10 duplexes. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Duplexes. Okay. I'm sorry. I repeated that wrong. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Commissioner Henning? COMMISSIONER HENNING: My question was answered, thank you. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Let's go to Commissioner Coyle. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yes. You know, I understand the kinds of services you're providing here, and you're to be -- both to be commended for the service that you provide to the community for the people who can't help themselves. I am concerned, however, about the business decision that assumes that people who are in search of workforce housing or gap housing, who will be your teachers and police officers and middle or lower management level people in our retail stores of the tourist industry, some of them, probably mostly young and, perhaps, with young children, will actually seek housing in an area that also provides detox facilities and housing for the homeless. Now, I'm not going to put myself in the position of trying to make business decisions for you, but I am concerned about what happens if your business decision turns out to be faulty. What do you do when you find that those homes that you thought you were going to be able to sell to teachers and police officers are not purchased? MR. KLOHN: I appreciate that question, Commissioner. We, prior to purchasing this property, thought long and hard about the Page 102 December 4, 2007 interaction to our neighbors, be it the swamp buggy grounds, which at the time before Toll Brothers purchased it, was a swamp buggy grounds, and the church. We think that the church provides wonderful activities for those that are less fortunate. If the pastor were to elaborate on his plan, the folks that are involved in the rehabilitation are basically confined to that building during their period of care. We're not worried about them running around. We've had a lot of conversations in our neighborhood information meetings with the Naples Lakes folks across -- across the way. I think that the pastor is going to do as good of a job as possible to convince not only us but our other neighbors that these folks are not criminals. They could be my daughter or your daughter. They're just folks that had a bit of a rough time. With regard to a business decision involving millions and millions of dollars worth of land and buildings, we have gone through a thought process of -- and the pastor was very supportive of this, too -- of actually creating two different entries. The church property is well below this site plan. The Fountain Lakes CWHIP project has -- here's the church's entry. The Fountain Lakes project has its own separate entry, and it will have its own separate property boundary with buffering, walls, and so on. We intend to consider even gating our community with some privacy fencing and so on. So from our business decision, we do not think that the church is -- or its activities are a hindrance whatsoever. Furthermore, to attract folks to become interested in purchasing in our neighborhood, we, in our CWHIP application, will be committing to the term that I used at our last presentation, affordability in perpetuity. The first blue line on this chart -- and this goes out 30 years -- shows an entry level price at 217,000. If we're successful with CWHIP and on the -- next Tuesday we're coming before you on Page 103 December 4, 2007 various incentives which will include impact fee deferrals -- the debt amount for that purchaser goes down from 217- to 162-, and with SHIP funds, it's 130,000. Now let's go out 30 years. It's quite interesting that with these components of impact fee deferrals -- which, by the way we're proposing get paid off at year 10 -- but in 30 years these units will be 260,000, not as a purchase price, but as the debt exposure to a family, and we think that's pretty incredible to allow this kind of affordability for such a long term. So coupled with our ability to have separate tracts, if you will, or separate developments, the church is doing its good things, we're doing our good things. People are not going to be running back and forth. They'll be separate and distinct communities and activities. Now, one positive for our essential services personnel folks. The church will be offering day care and also educational classes to learn how to balance your checkbook and the like. We think that that interaction is very positive, and the church is a good neighbor to be offering those activities. I don't know if I've answered your question, Commissioner. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Well, you've provided answers. I don't know that I accept them all. I am just a bit more skeptical about the way people make decisions. But I -- that is not my job. It is your job to make the business decisions. And I will only say to you that I'm going to be watching very closely as we go through this process to make sure that this does not turn into what Commissioner Fiala fears. So there will be time to look at those things as we go forward. But in concept it's wonderful. But I have to tell you, putting myself in the position with a couple of young children looking for a place to live, this would be my last choice. I would have to be absolutely destitute to consider this location. I simply would not expose my children to a situation where we have a large concentration of homeless people who we know have Page 104 December 4, 2007 criminals among them because they have created some -- committed some very serious crimes here in Collier County, and people going through detox. Behavior is sometimes impossible to predict under those circumstances. But I hope you are successful and I hope you're right, because if you're not, it's going to be a real mess. MR. KLOHN: Pastor, do you have any additional comments regarding some of the programs? Because I'd like Commissioner Coyle to be as at ease as I am. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Believe me, my personal concerns about this will not affect my vote. I am going to vote in favor of your project because there's no reason not to vote in favor of it as you've presented it. I'm only saying to you that as we go forward, I'm going to be very interested in how closely your expectations follow the actual result. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. Commissioner Henning? COMMISSIONER HENNING: I'm going to make a motion to approve with staffs recommendations. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: I'll second your motion, Commissioner Henning. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Does that include, no certificates of occupancy shall be issued until improvements to the existing deficit segment of Davis Boulevard are complete? COMMISSIONER HENNING: What page are you on? Page n yes. MR. KLOHN: And if I could clarify that that does not affect phase one, just phase two. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Correct. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: And the second agrees with that. Any other comments, Commissioner Henning? COMMISSIONER HENNING: That's it. Page 105 December 4, 2007 CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Anything else from the other commissioners? (No response.) CHAIRMAN COLETTA: No speakers? MS. FILSON: No, sir. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Right. Just making sure. All those in favor, indicate by saying aye. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Aye. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN COLETTA: The ayes have it, 5-0. Thank you. MR. KLOHN: Thank you very much. PASTOR MALLORY: Thank you. COMMISSIONER FIALA: I just want to add, again, we can't have too many more elements like this along that corridor. We -- you know, I don't know why it all has to go here, but I think we have to consider all of the people that live in that corridor now. Thank you. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Thank you. MR. WEEKS: Commissioners, we have a staff request that petition -- next on the agenda would be petition CPSP-2005-14. That's item E on your agenda. Our request will be to ask if we could switch that with item F, which is CPSP-2005-15. Your transportation planning director has another engagement, and if you would allow us to switch those two, we'd appreciate it. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay, go ahead. Item #3F Page 106 December 4, 2007 ORDINANCE 2007-80: PETITION CPSP-2005-15 - ADOPTED W /CCPC RECOMMENDATIONS AND RECOGNIZING CHANGES ON HANDOUT MR. WEEKS: That would make -- the petition next is CPSP-2005-15. Petition requesting an amendment to the transportation element to add new policies 3.5 and 3.6, introducing thoroughfare corridor protection plans, transportation corridor preservation maps, and associated tables and ordinances to provide for the protection and acquisition of existing and future transportation corridors. MR. CASALANGUIDA: Good afternoon, Commissioners, Nick Casalanguida from Transportation, for the record. This has been in front of you before. It's been in front of the EAC and the CCPC, and right now we have support from all bodies. Weare moving forward with an ability to protect right-of-way in the future. As we've discussed many times, if we can work through some planning processes at critical intersections and roadways and define what they should look like early, we can save aggravation for both the homeowners, the landowners, and the county. The difficult part is not in the policy in front of you. The difficult part will be in the ordinance that will follow this. Staff that's looked at this says, we've got a lot of work ahead of us in one year to put this ordinance together. It's consistent with the Center for Urban Transportation Research best practices. West Palm Beach has an ordinance, and Florida Statutes also covers part of this as well, too. It's effective planning, and it also provides you an ability in policy 3.6, when you do have an applicant who does provide you right-of-way, you'll have the ability to make some accommodations in that right-of-way donation that you don't have right now. With that, I can answer any questions that you may have. Page 107 December 4, 2007 CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Commission Henning first, then Commissioner Fiala. COMMISSIONER HENNING: The DCA -- can you address the DCA's concerns? MR. CASALANGUIDA: Yes, sir. They had two concerns. Speaking with Bernard Proar (phonetic) from DCA, one of them was in policy 3.6. We did not make it clear it was for existing facilities only, and his primary concern there is we would be able to do that with new facilities. Second concern was environmentally sensitive land. And we've had several phone conversations with him, and we've taken his recommendations and incorporated it into this language. COMMISSIONER HENNING: The -- what was the setbacks you were looking at? MR. CASALANGUIDA: Critical intersections and thoroughfare protection would cover two things. In other words, if you have an intersection like Immokalee Road where right now you are at grade, but in the future you have identified it in your long-range transportation plan. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Are you saying Immokalee and Collier Boulevard? MR. CASALANGUIDA: Collier Boulevard. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. MR. CASALANGUIDA: In the future you would show an overpass there. And if you could define that on a plan like we've done with Heritage Bay and with some projects already, we know what that right-of-way looks like, so we'd be able to put on a corridor protection plan that this is what it's going to look like in the future and protect that corridor. There are several other areas we're doing the same thing; Immokalee and Randal. You're going to do an at-grade improvement, but you plan in the future, potentially, to expand that. So you want to Page 108 December 4, 2007 identify that through an early planning study and make sure we don't put any buildings, structures, in the way of that future overpass. COMMISSIONER HENNING: What about the straightaways? MR. CASALANGUIDA: As well there, too. You would take a roadway or corridor that you've defined. For instance, VBR extension. Right now your rear setback is 75 feet for-- COMMISSIONER HENNING: That's the new roadway. MR. CASALANGUIDA: New roadway. You could do a corridor preservation, which is policy 3.5 on a new roadway. Once you've defined it accurately, you can increase the setback from that new line, and that would be brought to the board through the ordinance. It wouldn't be a staff decision. COMMISSIONER HENNING: What do you have in mind as far as the setback? MR. CASALANGUIDA: It would be -- the new right-of-way line would be the new setback line. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. It's just -- so in the case of VBR it's 200 foot, right? MR. CASALANGUIDA: The corridor is 200 feet wide, 100 feet on center, but the setback would be 75 feet from the new line, the right-of-way line itself. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Oh, okay. So 75 feet from the -- okay. MR. CASALANGUIDA: Yes, sir. And this came about last year, staff tried to do it through the LDC, and we were trying to protect corridors that way, and they said, no, you've got to go through the GMP policy first and identify, and then build it -- COMMISSIONER HENNING: Where do you see these -- this policy applying on our future road expansions? MR. CASALANGUIDA: I would think that Randall Boulevard, Everglades Boulevard, anywhere that you've spent time or -- especially an existing corridor. And you can do a planning level study Page 109 December 4, 2007 that says, we're going to go to six lanes, and the minimum width would be X feet. You could identify what that corridor would be. COMMISSIONER HENNING: So on Randall Boulevard, you have a hundred-foot right-of-way existing? MR. CASALANGUIDA: Yes, sir. COMMISSIONER HENNING: And you're going to increase that to 200 foot? MR. CASALANGUIDA: It could be as much as 200 feet or as little as 160 feet, depending on what you did with water management. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. So you got -- if it's on, 50 foot on each side -- MR. CASALANGUIDA: Yes, sir. COMMISSIONER HENNING: -- let's say you do it -- take it from one side, each side, then you have to go back an additional -- well, it would be 125 foot from the property line. MR. CASALANGUIDA: It could be as more (sic) as 30 more feet or it could be as more as 50 more feet on each side of the road. But you would identify that, and then a new setback line would take place from that point. COMMISSIONER HENNING: What -- what about if you take it from one side? MR. CASALANGUIDA: You could. And the idea behind this is, this GMP amendment doesn't define when. You would have to take a planning level study to the board and have the board adopt that corridor, not staff. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Right. MR. CASALANGUIDA: Right. COMMISSIONER HENNING: I can guarantee you none of us will keep this ordinance in mind when that's done. So you could virtually take a piece of parcel and make it unusable? MR. CASALANGUIDA: You could, I mean, depending on what you did for a corridor, but you do that now with roadway right-of-way Page 110 December 4, 2007 expansions currently. And in that ordinance, keep in mind -- and I've been cautioned that the GMP amendment doesn't tell you the details of how you do it. It guides you to doing that. That ordinance will craft -- which we will craft and bring to this board, will go into detail on how it's done. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Yeah. Is that ordinance going to take a supermajority also? MR. CASALANGUIDA: I would think the ordinance would take -- I'll have to defer to the County Attorney's Office for the ordinance. MS. STUDENT-STIRLING: Yes. I think this would be a land development regulation, and it would require supermajority. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. The restrictions on structures, or is it -- would it be just structures? MR. CASALANGUIDA: Could be structures or land use. You may not want to put a preserve. And one of the things we talked about with the EAC was, if you've identified a corridor, currently right now some of the practices is to put the preserve next to the corridor, so you come back later and you wipe out that preserve. And so we would prohibit that as part of the ordinance to do that, and EAC thought that was a good idea. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. Are we talking about fences and berms and landscaping? MR. CASALANGUIDA: That would be discussed through the ordinance phase. COMMISSIONER HENNING: What do you have in mind? MR. CASALANGUIDA: Well, I would imagine anything that would prohibit the roadway expansion. A fence or berm or landscaping would not. But what my thought process would be, is not to put a structure that would increase the cost of A, acquisition, or B, as homeowners complain to me, ifI'd only known the road was going to be this wide, I wouldn't have put my house so close. Page III December 4, 2007 And that's kind of where we're going with this. You would be told in an early phase. Right now you're on a hundred-foot right-of-way. It's going to be 175 feet. You want to set back farther. And the question has come up, well, what if I have to set back farther, I'm in wetlands. Well, that will be covered by the ordinance. If there is a conflict, we'll have to find a way to resolve that. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Commissioner Fiala? COMMISSIONER FIALA: Do you have a map of those areas you're considering? MR. CASALANGUIDA: Your long-range transportation plan would be the guide, and we've referenced that in here as well, too. So it would be anything that's on your current LRTP. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Okay. So like, for instance, we just approved the DCA over at 951/41 but you and your staff stated that modification to the intersection there will only hold us for a few years, and then it's just going to break down completely, and it really needs an overpass in order to make it an effective intersection. That is what you said, right? MR. CASALANGUIDA: What my goal would be would be the bypass road, the Benfield corridor study that we're working on right now. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Right. But if you can't get through the Benfield, you were talking about an overpass there. MR. CASALANGUIDA: Based on the traffic study -- COMMISSIONER FIALA: Right. MR. CASALANGUIDA: -- you only get about to 2020. COMMISSIONER FIALA: So the reason I'm asking that is we just approved the DCA, and they're talking about building in that area, and we don't have this thing passed yet. So if that does happen, do you have to tear the buildings down? MR. CASALANGUIDA: No, no, ma'am. You wouldn't -- you Page 112 December 4, 2007 wouldn't -- this GMP amendment wouldn't cause you to tear buildings down. It's protecting the corridors for future rights-of-way. Ifwe did the Wilson/Benfield corridor study, for example, and then you were to do a planning level study and say, now, we know where this corridor's going to be, it's going to be a four-lane rural cross-section, 180 feet wide, and we've mapped it, we would protect that corridor for the future. We would say, don't put this in preserve land, don't put a building in this corridor. And I think, you know, based on discussions with developers who have helped us with right-of-way, homeowners, they want to know in advance what they're up against. And if they're willing to help us, they don't want to put the preserve in the corridor nor do they want to not -- be punished for providing right-of-way for that corridor. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Well, I think your motives are good. I really -- I really understand. We should have gone to lunch though so you could have explained them to me some more. Now, what about already built-out communities -- and I'll just throw one out -- like Foxfire, and you guys decide that you really need to open that up. Can you just do that then? MR. CASALANGUIDA: No, ma'am. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Okay. What about communities that you'd like to extend a road on; say Livingston, for instance, would you then plow down houses in order to do that? MR. CASALANGUIDA: No, ma'am. This has nothing to do with that at all. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Okay. MR. CASALANGUIDA: This is existing right-of-ways on the LRTP, or future right-of-ways that are guided by the LRTP. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Okay. I just -- I haven't understood very well. MR. CASALANGUIDA: Sure, no problem. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Nick, if I could, and make sure that Page 113 December 4, 2007 this is well understood by everybody. First, it doesn't have anything to do with existing buildings. Suppose somebody -- a corridor is planned out through existing buildings there, will they still be able to renovate the building or add on to it, or is there going to be restrictions to that? MR. CASALANGUIDA: No, there wouldn't be any restrictions to the building. Your current LDC covers that right now. If you've got an existing building and you acquire certain amounts of right-of-way, they become legally nonconforming up to the right-of-way take. What this does is, this is more for future construction or for future planning. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. In other words, what -- give us a what-if. Now, if this was put into place five years ago -- MR. CASALANGUIDA: Right. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: -- how would this have -- how would this have helped us deal with Vanderbilt Beach Road extension? MR. CASALANGUIDA: You wouldn't have any buildings that weren't constructed as of that date placed closer to that future corridor than they are right now. In other words, if a homeowner -- even on -- Golden Gate Boulevard's a good example. We have permits coming in right now. We know we're expanding Golden Gate Boulevard. They right now can set back as close as they want within the minimum setback of75 feet. If we take 40 feet from them, their house will be 35 feet from the right-of-way line. And currently right now there is no way to increase that setback. And homeowners have said, if I'd only known, I would have set back farther. And this is a way of identifying that clearly. And it all requires board adoption. This isn't a staff-level ordinance. Any right-of-way that we propose to bring forward, we'll bring to the board with maps and plans and say this is a corridor we've identified, this is what it looks like, and we'll have a detail sheet that Page 114 December 4, 2007 we'll attach to that ordinance. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: So in other words, if -- this is to protect the consumer out there that's going to build a house so that they get their house far enough away from the new existing road so they're not impacted? MR. CASALANGUIDA: Yes, and it goes -- CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Minimally impacted. MR. CASALANGUIDA: -- both ways. It helps the county as well, too, to lower right-of-way acquisition costs as well. If you're not purchasing, you know, properties and having whole takes every time you do a roadway right-of-way corridor expansion, you're saving money as well, too. So it benefits both sides. And I think the devil's in the details, as they say. Your ordinance needs to be very clear on how it protects existing landowners, and your ordinance has to be very clear on what it does to existing landowners. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. Now, we're talking about a conceptual road coming down 16th, and it may be 15 years away or it might never happen. I mean, there's been discussion about it, and it's one of those things where we came up with a conceptual plan and we've just got it on the shelf for somebody to be able to deal with in the future. How would we work with something like that that may be 15 years out? Would that be something that would fall in the corridor plan based upon what we may do, or it has to be an absolute certainty that we're going to build it? MR. CASALANGUIDA: I would not bring anything to the board for something like that until we were sure that we were going to do that roadway, and much closer to it. Similar to our VBR. I would envision this being like a n you know, the VBR process will take five or six years. Now, once you get to the 30 percent design, you've really nailed it down and you know you're going to be moving forward in the near future, bring it forward. But if it's on the Page 115 December 4, 2007 long-range transportation plan and you still haven't worked out the details of where you're going to go, I would not bring a corridor presentation -- CHAIRMAN COLETTA: So we can deal with this in increments as we go forward, too? MR. CASALANGUIDA: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: And I know on Vanderbilt Beach Road, because of the housing slowdown and everything, we had a number of places where the road is going to go, and we've had developers building houses there with the idea, at least they'll have a customer to sell them to, which is the county. They build them, we tear them down. You might want to elaborate on that for the listening public. MR. CASALANGUIDA: They could build up to the setback line if they're within -- I think our policy's 25 feet of the new setback line, it's a whole take, and so they could do that currently right now with no restriction. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: And there are people intentionally building homes to be able to have a whole take taken so they can sell a house for a profit. MR. CASALANGUIDA: I could speculate that that would be true. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Commissioner Fiala? COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes. Will you then produce some kind ofa map? MR. CASALANGUIDA: Yes, ma'am. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Good. If you have that map, will you then be able to, not only put it on your web site under county government so that anybody who's buying a home can see what the map says in case they're with an uninformed Realtor, as well as share that with not only the builders and the developers, but also with the real estate companies so that everybody has a map and knows what's Page 116 December 4, 2007 going to happen? Because we have so many people that are not given the entire story when they buy property, and then they're left holding the bag. MR. CASALANGUIDA: Once we've brought a corridor forward for the board's adoption, each parcel will be flagged in GIS as well, too. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Okay, good. MR. CASALANGUIDA: So we would try -- and you know, in the critical intersections are probably the space we want to spend most of our time going forward. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. Do I hear a motion? COMMISSIONER COYLE: Motion to approve. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Second. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Second. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Motion by Commissioner Coyle, second by Commissioner Halas. Any more discussion? Something for the record? MR. SCHMIDT: For the record, I'd like you to confirm that your motion is on the format of the handout. There was some wordsmithing done over the weekend, and that was insubstantial, but it reads better. So that is what I'm asking. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Commissioner Coyle? COMMISSIONER COYLE: I think we need to specify more clearly whether or not we're recommending approval in accordance with the CCPC recommendation or the staff recommendation. You have no problems with the CCP (sic) recommendation? MR. CASALANGUIDA: No, sir. I do not. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay. So I would like to make sure that the motion reflects that we're accepting the CCPC's recommendation to approve and also recognizing these, supposedly, insubstantial changes that we really haven't had a chance to review, what you just gave to us, to the amendment. Page 117 December 4, 2007 CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Commissioner Halas, do you agree? COMMISSIONER HALAS: Yes. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. Any other discussions? (No response.) CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Seeing none, all those in favor, indicate by saying aye. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Aye. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Opposed? COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Let the record show the vote was 4-1, with Commissioner Henning in the opposition. MR. CASALANGUIDA: Thank you, Commissioners. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Thank you. Item #3E ORDINANCE 2007-81: PETITION CPSP-2005-14 - ADOPTED W/STAFF'S RECOMMENDATIONS MR. WEEKS: Commissioners, next is petition CPSP-2005-14, petition requesting amendment to the Future Land Use Map and North Belle Meade Overlay Map, part of the Future Land Use Map Series, to redesignate rural fringe mixed-use district sending lands to either neutral lands or receiving lands for 12 properties located in various sections, townships, and ranges, comprising approximately 200 acres total. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Motion to approve -- COMMISSIONER HALAS: Second. COMMISSIONER COYLE: -- subject to the CCPC Page 118 December 4, 2007 recommendations. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: We have a motion by Commissioner Coyle, second by Commissioner Halas, and we have one speaker. MS. FILSON: We have one speaker, Mildred Morando (sic). MS. MERCADO: Hi. My name is Mildred Mercado, M-E-R-C-A-D-O, and I'm with Seaside Properties, and I'm representing my clients, which is Mary Rogers and Fernando de Jesus. One of these properties, which is American Farms, which is what you're viewing on, they have an easement going through the property, and they're not letting people go through the easement, which is in their property, but there's roadway easement there. We did get out a different way, but there's -- at the time, 2001, when I first built my house, there was very bad fires out there, and this year there was very bad fires at my house on the county property land. And if there's no other way to get out of your residence and the fire is in the way, American Farms is blocking the other way to be able to be -- get out of those homes there in that area. So I would like you to take that into consideration also. Thank you. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Any comments from staff'? Then we'll go to you, Commissioner Henning. MR. WEEKS: No, sir. None from planning staff. MS. STUDENT-STIRLING: No. It sounds like it might be a private matter between individuals and ways of necessity and so on. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Thank you. Commissioner Henning? COMMISSIONER HENNING: What was Planning Commission's recommendations? I'm trying to find that. MR. WEEKS: To redesignate all 12 properties. The change from what you saw at transmittal hearing is specific to parcels -- excuse me -- map parcel 96, and that is to leave the approximately 3.7 acres of vegetated portion of that site as sending lands, and that was in response to an objection raised in the ORC Report. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. And their Page 119 December 4, 2007 recommendations was to change it from sending to -- MR. WEEKS: To, I believe it's neutral. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Commissioner Coyle? MR. WEEKS: Correction, I'm sorry. That would be receiving. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yeah, that's what I thought. The 3.7 acres -- 3.7 acres won't be receiving. MR. WEEKS: Correct. It will remain as sending lands. COMMISSIONER COYLE: It will remain as sending lands, but it will not be receiving. I thought you said receiving. MR. WEEKS: My correction is that the balance of the property would be changed to -- COMMISSIONER COYLE: Will be receiving. MR. WEEKS: -- receiving, not to -- COMMISSIONER COYLE: But the 3.7 will stay as sending land? MR. WEEKS: Correct. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay. So -- and with this circumstance, what we're really doing is approving the staff recommendation, not necessarily the CCPC recommendation. MR. WEEKS: They're one in the same. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay. So there's no difference between the two? MR. WEEKS: That's correct. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay. Then my motion to approve stands. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Good, okay. The second doesn't change, of course. Okay. With that, all those in favor, indicate by saying aye. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye. Page 120 December 4, 2007 CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Aye. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN COLETTA: The ayes have it, 5-0. Item #3G ORDINANCE 2007-82: PETITION CPSP-2005-16 - ADOPTED MR. WEEKS: Commissioners, next is petition CPSP-2005-16, petition requesting an amendment to the Future Land Use Map Series map title Collier County Wellhead Protection Areas, Proposed Wellfields, and ASR Maps. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Motion to approve. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Second. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Second. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. We have a motion by Commissioner Coyle, a second by Commissioner Fiala. And we have one speaker; is that correct? MS. FILSON: That's correct. Rich Y ovanovich. MR. YOV ANOVICH: Yes. Good afternoon. For the record, Rich Y ovanovich. I just had one quick comment, and I think staff will confirm it on the record. The changes to the map series basically have expanded the protection areas. And there are several existing farm operations in these areas, and I think staff has confirmed that this will not have a negative impact on those existing farm operations, and that's -- my clients just wanted to get that confirmed on the record. I think that's correct, isn't it, Ray? MR. SMITH: Correct. Ray Smith, Director of Pollution Control, for the record. Outside of the existing local, state, and federal rules and Page 121 December 4, 2007 regulations that they need to comply with anyway, there is no impact associated with this Land Development Code, any other impact, other than to issue and inspect the facilities potentially once every year to ensure compliance. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Fine. Any other comments? (No response.) CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Seeing none, all those in favor, indicate by saying aye. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Aye. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN COLETTA: The ayes have it, 5-0. Item #3H ORDINANCE 2007-83: PETITION CPSP-2006-4 - ADOPTED MR. WEEKS: Commissioners, your final petition is CPSP-2006-4, petition requesting an amendment to the Golden Gate Area Master Plan to modify the conditional use subdistrict special exceptions to conditional use locational criteria provision, to allow a church as a special exception to locational criteria for property located on the south side of Immokalee Road and approximately 300 feet east of Oakes Boulevard in Section 29, Township 48 south, Range 26 east, consisting of approximately 2.6 acres. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Motion to approve. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Second. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: We have a motion to approve by Page 122 December 4, 2007 Commissioner Henning, a second by Commissioner Halas. Any discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Seeing none, all those in favor, indicate by saying aye. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Aye. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN COLETTA: And the ayes have it, 5-0. MR. ARNOLD: Thank you. MR. WEEKS: Commissioners, that's it. Once again, staff would ask that you leave your binders on the dais, and we'll reuse those. Thank you. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Thank you. Weare adjourned. ***** There being no further business for the good of the County, the meeting was adjourned by order of the Chair at 1:50 p.m. Page 123 December 4, 2007 BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS/EX OFFICIO GOVERNING BOARD(S) OF SPE~~~DERITSCONTROL JIM COLETTA, Chairman ATTEST: D HT E.13ROCK, CLERK . ,o~~'iP~ \2- Attest '5 to C~l~ ' 5 l~tlSf'" o.l\*'':' ," > II J \~JCfO , as These minutes'approyed by the Board on presented /' or as corrected TRANSCRIPT PREPARED ON BEHALF OF GREGORY COURT REPORTING SERVICES, INC., BY TERRI LEWIS. Page 124