Loading...
CCPC Minutes 02/05/2009 S February 5, 2009 TRANSCRIPT OF THE RLSA MEETING OF THE COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION Naples, Florida, February 5, 2009 LET IT BE REMEMBERED, that the Collier County Planning Commission, in and for the County of Collier, having conducted business herein, met on this date at 9:30 a.m. in SPECIAL SESSION in Building "F" of the Government Complex, East Naples, Florida, with the following members present: CHAIRMAN: Mark Strain Karen Homiak Donna Reed-Caron Tor Kolflat Paul Midney Bob Murray Brad Schiffer Robert Vigliotti David 1. Wolfley (Absent) ALSO PRESENT: Jeffrey Klatzkow, County Attorney Joseph Schmitt, CDES, Administrator Heidi Ashton-Cicko, Assistant County Attorney Page 1 AGIo:NOA COLLIER COUNTY PLA~NING COMMISSION WILL MEET AT 8:30 A.M., WEDNESDAY, JANUARY 28, 2009 [CARRYOVER DATE OF JA~UARY 30, 2009] AT COLLIER COUNTY lJEVELOPMENT SERVICES CENTER, CONFERENCE ROOMS 609/610, LOCATED AT2800 N. HORSESHOE DR]VE. NAPLES, Fl.OR]DA' NOTE' INDIVIDUAl. SPEAKERS WII.L BE I.IMITED TO 5 MINUTES ON ANY ITEM.' IN[)JVIDUALS SELECTED TO SPEAK ON BEHALF OF AN ORGAN]ZATION OR GROUP ARE ENCOURAGED AND MAY BE ALl.01TED 10 M]NUTES TO SPEAK ON AN ITEM IF SO RECOGNIZED BY THE CHAIRMAN. PERSONS WISH]NG TO HAVE WRITTEN OR GRAPHIC MATER]ALS I",CLUDED IN THE ccpr AGENDA PACKETS MUST SIIIlM]T SAID MATloRIAL A MIN]MUM OF 10 DAYS PRIOR TO THE RESPECTIVE PUBLIC HEARING. IN ANY CASE. WR]TTEN MATERIALS INTENl>El> TO OE CONSIDERED OY THE CCPC SHALl. OE SUOMITTED TO nil' APPROPRIATE cou:-;n STAFJ A MINIMUM OF SEVEN DAYS PRIOR TO THF PUBLIC HEARING. AI. L MATERIAL USEl> IN PRESENTATIONS BEFORE THE CCPC WILL BECOME A PERMANENT PART OF THE RECORD AND WILL 01' A VAILABU' FOR PRESENTATION TO THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS IF APPL]CABLE. ANY PERSON WHO DECIDES TO AI'PEAL A DECISION Or THE CCPC WILL NEED A RECORD OF TilE PROCEED]NGS PERTAINING TllERETO, ANlJ THEREFORE MAY NEEl> TO ENSURE THAT A VERBATIM RECORO OF THE PROCEEDINGS]S MADE. WHICH RECORD INCLUDES THE TI'.STlMONY A'ID EViDENCE UPON WlllCH THE APPEAL IS TO BE QASEfl J. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE 2. ROLLCALL BY SECRETARY J. FIVE YEAR REVIEW OF THE RURAL LANDS STEWARDSHIP PROGRAM PHASE II REPORT PREPARED BY THE RURAL LANDS STEWARDSHIP AREA REVIEW COMMITfEE. DATED JANUARY, 2009 4. ADJOURN JI2RI09ccrc A~\mdaITGlmk 1 February 5, 2009 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, we're back on line. Everybody, welcome to the February 5th continued meeting for the RLSA. This was a meeting that we started last Wednesday, continued it Wednesday to Friday and Friday to today. Item #2 ROLL CALL BY SECRETARY So first thing I'd like to do, since it is a new meeting from the last one, it might be listed separately in the recording instruments, I want to ask for a roll call again. Mr. Vigliotti, would you do roll call? COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Yes. Commissioner Kolflat? COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: Here. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Commissioner Schiffer? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Present. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Commissioner Midney? COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Here. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Commissioner Caron? COMMISSIONER CARON: Present. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Chairman Strain? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Here. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Commissioner Vigliotti is present. Commissioner Murray? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Here. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Commissioner Wolfley is absent. And Commissioner Homiak? COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Here. Page 2 February 5, 2009 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, a little housekeeping matter. I wish to thank the recording office upstairs for the nutritional embellishment during the break. Cherie', we're wired, so if we talk too fast, we can blame it on the recording office. And with that, the other housekeeping matter is time today. The EAC is hearing the RLSA for their continuation in developmental services building on Horseshoe Drive starting at 1 :00. I want to make sure that the people that are here from the committee and others who have to attend that meeting at 1 :00 have ample time to grab a lunch and travel to that point. So since we are going to meet on this matter again, probably one if not two more meetings, we can easily cut off at any time that's convenient. And I need to know if it's 11 :30 or noon. Bill, do you know what your committee would prefer? MR. McDANIEL: It's solely at your pleasure, sir. I mean, we'll make adjustments accordingly to be able to get there. I mean, an hour is travel time. I know that there are some technical issues in moving the projector screen. And that particular room up there is not available for access for anybody. It's being utilized until I think 11 :30, we heard that this morning. So whatever meets your pleasure, we'll do necessarily what we have to do. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Does staff have a concern time-wise? MR. GREENWOOD: No. Item #3 - Continued from the January 30, 2009 Meeting FIVE YEAR REVIEW OF THE RURAL LANDS STEWARDSHIP PROGRAM PHASE II REPORT PREPARED BY THE RURAL LANDS STEWARDSHIP AREA REVIEW COMMITTEE, DATED JANUARY, 2009 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, we'll just find a convenient time Page 3 February 5, 2009 to break somewhere between 11 :30 and noon, try to give you guys as much time to reorganize and get back up there as possible. Bill, when you left last time, Brad was working on responding to some of our issues, but in going through the paragraphs where we had continued on your departure, there were some matters that couldn't be answered by the people in the room at the time. And Tammie Nemecek was one of those individuals who were pointed to as far as having answers for some of our questions. We left off on Page 58 of Phase II, Section 2 report. The policy that we had lingering questions on was Policy 4.7.3. And this is the one that involved the changes of uses within the CRD and brought in Policy 4.7.4, which is a new policy. And Tammie, you weren't at that last meeting. There was discussion about the CRD's and their expanded uses. And when we pointed out that there was a new sentence added in 4.7.3 that said appropriately scaled compatible uses described in Policy 4.7.4 may also be permitted in CRD's, that opened up a whole ball of wax in regards to uses that I don't know if everybody understood were possible to go into CRD's. Because CRD's were previously looked at as more or less a less intense smaller-scale use. So anyway, you want to -- I know that you -- in talking with you since, I know that I don't think you intended it as it was stated, so -- MS. NEMECEK: Yes. Thank you, Chairman Strain. There was a great deal of discussion about the CRD's within the committee when we were talking about economic diversification and what activity would actually occur -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You've got to slow down a little bit. You've got to really -- MS. NEMECEK: Sorry, I've been driving back from Tallahassee. I'm still in drive mode, I think. So what we did was in the other language you'll see that there's a statement that says that towns and villages are the preferred location Page 4 February 5, 2009 for these types of uses. We had actually had CRD's in there originally, but had -- in our discussions had removed CRD's as a preferred location. I think it was -- in looking at what the intent was, what we did in Policy 4.7.4, I think it would be appropriate to remove that line from the Policy 4.7.3. I don't think we just went back and made that connection between our discussions in Policy 4.7.4 and what would be modified in 4.7.3. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, because if you do drop that sentence, you still then retain the primary uses that were originally in CRD's or that was now suggested for support research, education, tourism or recreation. And I think this committee had recommended bringing the convenience retail uses down from the hamlet section and adding it there as well. Does that seem to work with what your intention was of that? MS. NEMECEK: Yes, it does. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Let me make a note of that. At the end of the process, we've got to go through all these notes, so -- in 4. -- first of all, does anybody else have any questions on 4.7.3 from the Planning Commission? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. In 4.7.4, it's my understanding that the intent of 4.7.4 was that you -- you were looking to find a way to add a reference so that Immokalee urban areas, towns and villages for sustainability shall be the preferred location for business and industry within the RLSA to further promote economic development, diversification and job creation. And I had met with you and talked about the last sentence that was added that got into the whole myriad of uses that you wanted to have in there. We have found that the GMP is more of a concept document. And I think by modifying your first sentence to add something Page 5 February 5, 2009 referencing the sustainability of those CRD's as a need, and then leaving the permitted uses to the implementation of the LDC would be probably a cleaner way to go than have to debate what the GMP meant every single time someone wants to put a use in there that may not have gotten listed in the LDC as a reference to the GMP. And here we go with acronyms, so sorry about all that everybody, but I don't know how else to get it across. What's your thought on that? MS. NEMECEK: Well, I think the discussion in the committee did center around trying not to be so specific in the GMP because the difficulty in changing and modifying it, and that a lot of the specificity should be put into the LDC when we go to the LDC section of it. So, you know, I think the intent here is that describing those types of businesses that -- or the general sense of businesses that we're talking about, you know, we're not necessarily talking about the three-legged stool that, you know, of construction companies that we have here are basing it on, some of these lower wage jobs, but looking more at the high-tech nature of it. So even if -- I think we could accommodate that in an LDC amendment, as we've done in other types of zoning that we've brought forward with regard to research parks and that kind of stuff. So I think it could be appropriate. I don't want to lose the emphasis, though, you know, that the highest and best use of land in Collier County tends to be higher residential. And when we're talking about developing research parks and business parks, it always tends to be a much more difficult conversation because it's a long-term endeavor to develop those parks. And so we want to make sure from an economic development standpoint that we preserve property for these high-tech uses, that we have places for these businesses to go and we have a balance in our community between residential and job opportunities for people in the community, and being able to place those job opportunities near where Page 6 February 5, 2009 the people live. So I think it's -- I like the sustainability piece of that. And even if you said promote economic sustainability, economic development, diversification, I think that that's an important component of what we're talking about. And what we do is that the economic sustainability comes from the balance between having a residential tax base and a business tax base here. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I think that would help with keeping the GMP as a concept document. But on Page 60 as well, just so you have a level of comfort, Policy 14.15.1 says that SRA's are intended to be mixed use and shall be allowed the full range of uses permitted by the urban designation of the FLUE, as modified. And then of course it lists the policies, one of which is 4.7.3. So I think you've got it there as well in more of a concept status that then allows the LDC to be more refined -- MS. NEMECEK: Right. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- which is what we have to then oversee in regards to SRA development -- MS. NEMECEK: Right. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- and it makes it a lot easier. MS. NEMECEK: And the more prescriptive concept in 4.7.4 is the diversified industries. It's that fourth leg to our economic stool that we're emphasizing in there, that this is equally as important as some of the other concepts that are coming out in this document. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, anybody else have any questions on Page 58? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I have one more. In 4.7.3, you've got to put in -- or you could have the option to put in houses in a CRD two to one, which means you could have about 200 homes. And under the Page 7 February 5, 2009 persons per household in Collier County, you would end up with about just a little under 500 potential people living in those 200 homes. What about services? And I notice that you've crossed off in the seventh line, and the services and facilities that support permanent residents. Why was that crossed out? Do you know? Because, I mean, we could get into the definition of those services in the LDC. To me I thought if you're going to do it primarily for residential, you may want to leave some of that in just so that the residential has what it needs, unless it's covered somewhere else and I just haven't caught on to it. MR. McDANIEL: For the record, Bill McDaniel. Mr. Chair, I believe that's exactly the case. Those essential services for the residents there are captured elsewhere, both in the LDC and in the Rural Land Stewardship Overlay. And if I might add just one -- does that sufficiently answer your question? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I understand what you said. I'm just wondering -- I don't know how that specially is done, because I don't know where CRD's -- it's more ofa cover yourself type argument I'm making to you. And that's why I was surprised it was struck, because it didn't hurt to leave it in. And it reemphasized that if you're going to have these residential uses, you better have the services there, and you better think about it there. And to put it in another paragraph, it may not be readily thought about. Mike, did you know? Or Tom, do you guys have any idea why that was -- MR. McDANIEL: And if I might add just one little comment with respect to what Tammie was speaking about earlier on 4.7.4. I recall during those discussions that our prem -- there is probably a little more specificity with the definitions of those -- or designations of those types of businesses. Page 8 February 5, 2009 The goal was to suggest, if you will, environmentally friendly green businesses, if you will, high-tech and that sort of thing, and not heavy use industrial, manufacturing and those sort of things that are less conducive and potentially can have a greater harm on the environment at some particular point in time in the future. That was the premise behind our designating those types of businesses, with more specificity than typically is found in the GMP. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I understand what you just said, but I don't know if it fits when you've got uses in there like wholesale trade and distribution. And I go back to my Wal-Mart example out in Punta Gorda, out to the east there. That's one giant block of concrete standing in the middle of a farm field with 1,000 trucks running around it. And that's their wholesale distribution location for the Southwest Florida area. I don't really think you want that, from what you just said. And I really strongly suggest, and we can always do that anyway, that you regulate the uses to the LDC and let the LDC define that, and that will protect the interest that you're now talking about. At least I would think so. MR. McDANIEL: That's certainly an appropriate path for you all to travel. I was just sharing with you at the committee level as we were going through these discussions how we arrived at this language in an effort to promote those type of businesses and not really get into a debate about the particular exposure, if you will, that comes from one type of business or another, but to promote that as a standard, if you will. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Well, any other -- if there's no other questions on 58 -- Paul? COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: So then would you suggest striking wholesale trade and distribution? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No, I would suggest the first sentence be modified to include economic sustainability as the purpose and Page 9 February 5, 2009 drop everything after that where it starts to say permitted uses shall include. That process is an LDC process. And I think the committee and the property owners will be better served to have that detailed in the LDC rather than taking a risk on having something he never intended by too generic language or too strong language in the GMP. MR. McDANIEL: And just for the record, I mean, we at the committee level felt we had covered that. And I'm not suggesting that your suggestion is out of Hoyle. Those permitted uses shall include but not limited to. So we felt that we had sufficiently covered it here to offer up the premise behind why we were doing or what we were intending with that. And I don't disagree with what you're saying, Mr. Strain. From a committee perspective, that's the path that we were traveling at that time. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I understand. Paul, does that answer your question? COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: On Policy 4.7.3, how would you prevent someone not wanting to broach the thresholds of a village, and instead of doing that they put in five or so little CRD's and said each contiguous adjacent piece of property is now a parcel with 100 acres and those are all CRD's and we don't cross the village threshold, therefore, we don't have to put in the criteria of the village, we just have to put in the criteria of five CRD's? Since you took the balance of the language out of 4.7.3, how is it that you would prevent that from happening? MR. McDANIEL: I can't answer that. That really did never come up as a discussion point that I can recall at the committee level. Do you guys remember? MR. EIDSON: I'll take a stab at it. F or the record, Gary Eidson. My recollection is that we were focused on the village size. You Page 10 February 5, 2009 know, we had gotten rid of the hamlets and we were focused on the village size. And I honestly think that the CRD discussion was -- and correct me if I'm wrong, but it almost was tangential to the focus that we had on the village. Your -- I guess that's why they have this process, so people see things differently. But we didn't envision -- we saw -- there was a question about economic viability, which was why -- of the -- there was a question of making the village large enough so there'd be more economic viability. And I think that we envisioned that the CRD's -- the CRD part of the village -- it would be a part of the village, not necessarily a standalone. That was kind of I think what we were seeing. We were seeing these clusters of economic viability through a small -- if you will, northeastern kind of companies. You know, that entrepreneurial high-tech kind of company that would be attractive down here because there would be an incentive to do it. And that's -- and that all goes back to, you know, the development of the airport in the future, the development of29, all of that concept. We were seeing a whole economic center that could evolve and be attractive, so we didn't think of the CRD's as standalones, we thought of them as integrated. And I don't disagree with what you're saying. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I imagine you all did, and I think it's a good thought. I'm more concerned about -- MR. EIDSON: The possibility -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- people who read things differently when they decide they want to come before the boards and say gee, it doesn't really say we can't do this so therefore we can. And I would be -- that's my only -- that was my concern. It was more of a protective concern than trying to stop anybody from doing anything. It was just a cautionary thing. MR. JONES: Good morning. For the record, Tom Jones. Page 11 February 5, 2009 I think the way that the committee viewed it was the CRD wasn't a mechanism that was utilized to skirt around the village criteria. Because the way it was written, it says that the compact rural development is a form of SRA that shall support and further Collier County's valued attributes of agricultural natural resources and economic diversity. So I think if the issue is we would have these little pods of 200 homes clustered around as a CRD, somewhere when somebody comes before the various boards they'd have to be able I think to justify how that particular pod is in support of agricultural natural resources or economic diversity. So I think if somebody tried to pop just little housing developments, say it was a CRD, I don't think it works according to what 4.7 says. I think it certainly tries to skirt it. But I think that was the intent. And clarification is certainly -- you know, the LDC is certainly a place to clarify what is acceptable within a CRD. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, the only -- and I understand that part of it. But do you have any objection to limiting a maximum amount of CRD's that could be collected together before they have to become a trigger for the thresholds of a village or a town based on their size? MR. JONES: Yeah, that would probably be something worth taking a look at. Especially with respect to what a CRD is supposed to be. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Thank you. Anybody else on Page 58? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ifnot, we'll move to Page 59. Now, on 59, we went through this last Friday. MR. McDANIEL: Before you jump forward, if I might-- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes, sir. MR. McDANIEL: -- I just have one last point. And I have Page 12 February 5, 2009 somewhat personally an issue oflimitation of those CRD's. Not that it can't be a subject matter of discussion in the future. But the locale of those CRD's and the premise behind those are working with smaller landowners to -- and not have to force joining of properties in order to add up to the sizes necessary for in fact a village. And we have to -- and if we start to limit the ability of any of the processes of towns or villages in here, it could have a constraining issue later on down the road. And that's something we need to be conscious of in our language if in fact that's your suggestion there. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, when you have a village or a CRD or a town, you have specific criteria that are required, and it's triggered based on the size of that area. Some areas need governmental facilities that others wouldn't. I would hate to see someone skirting those responsibilities by putting 10 CRD's together for 1,000 acres when really it's a village and they should be looking at the criteria for villages. And that was my concern. MR. McDANIEL: No argument there. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I think we've -- in this committee we've seen all kinds of attempts to modify the intent of the codes. And so the tighter you make it, the safer you are. MR. McDANIEL: Agreed. The caution was just from a limiting standpoint, remembering that this is an incentivized program, and flexibility within the program has to be adhered to in order to maintain the marketplace for the utilization of those credits. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: To the point where it's reasonable and doesn't incur additional cost to the taxpayers of the county. Page 59. Anybody have any questions on Page 59? Because there were a few lingering questions from our meeting last week. MR. McDANIEL: And I know Brad Cornell has a couple of comments on those. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, Brad? MR. CORNELL: For the record, Brad Cornell, with the Page 13 February 5, 2009 committee and also with Collier Audubon and Audubon of Florida. My comments would only be in answer to the questions that you had last week that I could not answer on 4.9 and 4.10. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. MR. CORNELL: I don't know if you recall that discussion. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Oh, I -- parts of it, yeah. I think I'm older than you so I'm forgetting more, but I'm trying. MR. CORNELL: Not much older. Your beard's a little longer. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's what I'm going by. So if it's by the length of the beard, I'm really old. On 4.9, Brad, the issue that was -- I think one of the issues brought up was the underlined addition about infrastructure necessary to serve permitted uses may be exempt from this restriction, provided the design seek (sic) to minimize the extent of impacts to any such areas. And I believe I asked you if essential services were considered part of that infrastructure necessary, and I think that's where we got off on one tangent. MR. CORNELL: I believe that's correct, reading this. And also, what I wanted to relate to you was in answer to the question was there wasn't consensus on the committee on this particular policy in 4.10, but the majority felt that relative to SRA's that had higher scoring habitat areas and open areas that would be left open and the possibility of citing infrastructure or essential services and those kinds of uses in those areas, that the permitting process through the state and federal government regulations would be the adequate way to address those concerns about conflicts. If you're going to put a road or essential services or some use that otherwise would conflict with high habitat values. You know, of course we're talking about something that scores greater than 1.2, that those conflicts would be resolved through the permitting process, not through the RLSA policies. Page 14 February 5,2009 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, but see, the sentence that this underlying sentence exempts says the following: In addition, conditional uses, essential services and governmental essential services, with the exception of those necessary to serve permitted uses and for public safety, shall not be cited on lands that receive a natural resource index value of greater than 1.2. Then the next sentence goes on, infrastructure necessary to serve permitted uses may be exempt from this restriction, provided the design seeks to minimize the extent of impacts. And that's ambiguous anyway. But that infrastructure -- essential services are libraries. I mean, I got -- was given a definition by staff. And public libraries, parks, emergency medical, all services designed to operate and provide water, sewer, grass, telephone, electricity. I mean, so you've got a -- MR. CORNELL: Well, it's those -- as it says, those that are necessary to serve permitted uses and for public safety. So how you would define that -- and I agree, there was some ambiguity in that. But that's the exception. Those that are essential to serve permitted uses and public safety are the essential services that you would put there. And then the infrastructure that would be required for those may be allowed, depending on if you've minimized the extent of the impacts through the design of that infrastructure. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, and of course the way someone minimizes is just an opinion. MR. CORNELL: It's an opinion, I agree. And there is ambiguity. And as I said, there wasn't consensus; however, the majority of the committee felt that if there was a problem with conflict in terms of land use, especially from the vantage point of habitat value, if there was a conflict with that -- of something being put into an open area, then that would be resolved through the permitting process. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, so you're comfortable with the fact that if you have a higher index value of 1.2, you can put in a park Page 15 February 5, 2009 or a public library on that property? MR. CORNELL: With the stipulations and the conditions that you've got here. Like I said, there wasn't consensus on this policy, but the majority felt that you could resolve it with the permitting process. If somebody said I'm going to put a library here on gopher tortoise habitat, that that would not go through, or at least it would be addressed adequately through the permitting process. And the other thing that was understood was that only two percent of the open lands do score greater than 1.2. So there would be -- we're talking about a relatively small percentage of the landscape. Nevertheless, that was the majority of the committee's opinion was to deal with it that way. But they'd be comfortable, yes, to answer your question. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You said that you're thinking this is only going to go on the open lands; is that right? MR. CORNELL: Right. In an SRA. You can't put an SRA in flow way stewardship areas or habitat stewardship areas. So that's what we're talking about here, SRA's. We're not talking about any place that would be otherwise -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. MR. CORNELL: -- you know, preserve areas or incentivized to be SSA's. It's only the development areas. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, thank you. 4.10. What was your -- I know we had issues on 4.10. MR. CORNELL: Your concern, if I recall correctly, was that the last sentence, which is an existing policy, but obviously this is a review of the whole thing, not just the things that we recommended. Your concern was that we might be incentivizing through that policy golf courses and open areas by not requiring credits to be used. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. MR. CORNELL: And when you look at the uses allowed in open areas, we didn't really see that. And I think you've raised a Page 16 February 5, 2009 legitimate issue, so -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: What areas of open area -- okay, do you -- and I know we talked about this, I don't know offhand what area. Do you remember we tried to define open areas? MR. CORNELL: Yeah. And there's -- MR. GREENWOOD: It's in 4.10. MR. CORNELL: 4.1O? Oh, that's where we are. But also what uses you're allowed to have in open areas I think is in one of those matrices. Schedule C, attachment C; is that right? No, where is it? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Tom? MR. CORNELL: Yeah, here it is. Recreation and open spaces. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Active recreation, golf courses. So all those are golf courses. MR. CORNELL: Well, that can be one of the uses, right? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. So basically what happens, is 4.10 would encourage development by expanding the ability to develop more land without it being counted as an SRA, because it's golf courses. So how does that help keep the footprint down -- MR. CORNELL: Well, that's an observation that I personally didn't think of. I don't know if anybody else on the committee wants to address that. We didn't think of that, as far as I can tell. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Is it something you think ought to be explored further? MR. CORNELL: It sounds like something that was an oversight, yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, that's all I'm asking. MR. CORNELL: You might be able to address it through a modified piece of -- you know, except for such and such uses. If the desire is to incentivize additional open space and not golf courses, then if that's your concern, then yes, you would need to modify that last sentence. Page 17 February 5, 2009 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, actually, my concern goes a little different. I want to understand the true footprint of what is going to be developed in the RLSA area. MR. CORNELL: Right, so-- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And if we're going to have greater percentages of open space encouraged by uses that don't count, more than likely you're going to have greater uses of open space. And if that open space is a developable area, like a golf course or a park or something else, it's not the same as the preserve areas that a lot of people think this plan is going to provide a certain limitation on. So that's where I was going. MR. CORNELL: I hear you, and I think that's a legitimate issue. From -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I made a note of it. MR. CORNELL: -- my perspective, we didn't discuss that, so that's -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I don't think our objective is necessarily to change your language that your committee's worked on, simply to have suggestions so that when it goes to the board there's a list of suggestions, and when it goes to adoption or transmittal, there's more to look at, more ideas. And I guess that's how I see it kind of evolving. So I wasn't suggesting a language change right now, but it's something I think ought to be looked at to be prepared. Anything else on Page 59, anybody? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, Page 60. Anybody have any questions on Page 60? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I do, Mark. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Go ahead, Mr. Schiffer? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And we've never talked about 60, before, right? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right, I think it's a new page. Page 18 February 5, 2009 COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. The maintenance of the public and private roads shall be maintained by the primary town or community that's served. That seems somewhat -- I mean, will that be clear as to who's required to maintain the roads or -- as opposed to being maintained by the SRA it's in? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Could you say that again, Brad? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Well, the second paragraph down, it's the maintenance of the road systems, the requirement of the town or community. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I think we did start to talk about that, and that's why Nick is here. Because there was a series of things that need to occur, not only within the town but between the towns and how they are to be maintained. So is that where you're headed? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: But anyway, I mean, the town-- it's really to reference the town or community. Would it be better to reference the names they have, like towns, village or CRA that they're within? That's kind of the first part of the question. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I think Friday we suggested striking the words primary town or community and substituting the words SRA. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay, that's what I have. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That means any SRA, whether it's a CRD or whatever, they have to deal with this. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Which is what I thought the intent was. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And that's why I started out saying did we talk about this Friday, because -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: We did, but we didn't finish. So I'm sorry, you're right. MR. McDANIEL: That's my understanding of it anyway. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Nick, thank you for coming today. And I think we left off on Friday starting to get into Policy 4.14 when we hit into questions that everybody -- not everybody, but your name was Page 19 February 5, 2009 brought up. In a good way. MR. CASALANGUIDA: For the record, Nick Casalanguida with Transportation. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: This particular policy brings in a whole pile of beginning issues, and I think a lot of the transportation issues that we may want to pick your brain on could be understood better here. First of all, the proportionate fair share agreements that are being discussed in the county now as alternatives to something that may occur in impact fee disappearance in the future, and DCA's. Would this paragraph be the appropriate paragraph to start entering into requiring those documents to be, let's say, agreed to prior to the approvals of any SRA's in this RLSA area? MR. CASALANGUIDA: It could be. I mean, Mr. Schiffer's comments about removing within the town, I have no issue with that. If you wanted to stick to just saying within the SRA, to address his initial comment a few minutes ago. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. Where do we talk about integrating transit systems? Would it be -- and I'm trying to make sure that we address -- because I know there's a lot of transportation issues in the RLSA. I want to make sure whatever policy they're supposed to be in, they somehow get in here. And that includes proportionate fair share agreements, DCA agreements, integration of transit systems, how the roadway system will connect when each landowner's individually developing an SRA. They've all got to agree on some common element. Where in this document -- and I don't know if you've read it or not yet. MR. CASALANGUIDA: Oh, God, if you're going to ask me to go through this and tell you exactly -- what I can tell you, I've written it and worked with ECPO to put it in here. As you go through it, we have sections where we talk about transit being included, subsidized Page 20 February 5, 2009 bus subsidies, transfer stations incorporated into the town. We have talked about in this document having DCA's where we outline the responsibilities of the respective county and the developer. But I can't tell you exactly which one. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No, I went through this and tried to find some of that. But do you feel that from your department's perspective you've gotten the information in here that you need? I mean, I know you haven't done a full data and analysis yet, but have you had enough familiarity with this document to get some of the concepts in? And I'm talking this proportionate fair share issue, that seems to be an important one on your department's mind, so -- MR. CASALANGUIDA: Ifthere -- understand that most of these will be DRI's, and understanding that we're going to have DCA's at the same time concurrently, not ahead of a DRI approval, I'm pretty comfortable that we can outline or define our responsibilities such as proportionate share as part of that, yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: What if a village or a CRD is done, generally they could be small enough they won't broach the threshold of a DRI. MR. CASALANGUIDA: If you wanted to include that as part of the proportionate share, making them -- requiring them to do a DCA, that would be appropriate. I don't know the size thresholds of this. Maybe one of the planners would want to fill me in on that. But if it goes through the PUD process or it goes through some sort of development approval process, I'm sure we could come up with an agreement at that point in time. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, CRD's are 100 acres or less and villages are 100 to 1,500 acres. MR. CASALANGUIDA: But the density that would go with that? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, village is one to four -- or four Page 21 February 5, 2009 units per acre, and CRD's are two units per acre. MR. CASALANGUIDA: So at 100 acres and two units per acre are 200 units? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. MR. CASALANGUIDA: I mean, that's relatively small. We could approach that at the PUD review stage, if there is such a process that goes forward with that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Ifwe put language in here that forms these entities, villages, CRD's and towns, without a requirement to consider a proportionate fair share agreement, the language in Tallahassee, if it goes through that, voids the need for impact fees and is based basically on comprehensive zoning being approved. How then in a PUD level would you institute the proportionate fair share agreement if it had to be done prior to the zoning of the property from a compo plan level? MR. CASALANGUIDA: I don't know how you would do it. So you may -- like I said, then we may want to consider that, if we're going to anticipate some sort of change at the legislative level for impact fees and you wanted to stress proportionate share in this, you could certainly look at that as part of staffs review of that in the next phase. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, that was my concern. MR. CASALANGUIDA: Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And if someone -- and you had another issue that I thought we had mentioned, is if you've got a village and a village and they're separated by a distance, how will the roads in between handle them? MR. CASALANGUIDA: Well, that's where that master planning goes into effect. I mean, if we -- we're going to have a roadway network that's going to serve not only the RLSA, the adjacent counties and back to the urban area, they're going to have to consider that. Page 22 February 5, 2009 To have some sort of master plan -- and again, in working with Mr. Perry at WilsonMiller, we both recognized that it's going to have to be fluid. But whether that road goes one mile to the east to where it's proposed or one mile to the west, when you model that road, that road has to be there. So if we have a master plan to work off of with some consideration for flexibility, that's when you would address the discrepancies between two towns. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. And as far as the county build-out vision plan -- MR. CASALANGUIDA: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- that's being devised by your department? MR. CASALANGUIDA: Right now we're going to coordinate that with compo planning. We're dropping the scope right now. Half of it's public involvement, coordinating with folks like ECPO, adjacent communities, the Immokalee CRA, Conservancy and comprehensive planning to develop that plan. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: What's the process for approval of that plan when it gets done? MR. CASALANGUIDA: If it's adopted through the GMP, it would go through the board. If it's a planning exercise, it would be something that's brought to the board, is informal (sic) for adoption. So it depends on if the board chooses to adopt that recommended language to have a new section in the transportation section -- transportation, element. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. And we're going to do that in-house? MR. CASALANGUIDA: In-house. With a consultant as well, too. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Who's the consultant? MR. CASALANGUIDA: It hasn't been chosen yet. Most likely, Page 23 February 5, 2009 if I can do it under the general planning contract, it would probably be AIM Engineering at this point in time. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Anybody have any questions of Nick at this point? Donna? COMMISSIONER CARON: What's the timing of that? MR. CASALANGUIDA: We are meeting next month to finish out the roadway network analysis. That's the first phase of getting the vision build-out plan. Because the vision build-out plan doesn't take in just roads, it takes in transit, it takes in land use. You're probably looking at about another 12 months after that. So probably a year from now. COMMISSIONER CARON: So we can safely say a year and a half? MR. CASALANGUIDA: Thanks for your encouragement, Commissioner Caron. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: We're just remembering Vanderbilt Beach Road extension. MR. CASALANGUIDA: Oh, every chance you can, Mark. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, thank you, Nick. MR. CASALANGUIDA: You're welcome. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I think that's so far what we've got. Gary? MR. EIDSON: I do, too. On 4.17, does that language in there provide a framework to address some of the issues you were talking about? Final local development orders will be approved within -- you see where that is, 4.177 And then it talks about in accordance with the concurrency management system of the GMP and LDC in effect at the time of the final local development order approval. Does that kind of get to the fact that it would be global and what's relevant, or do you want to be more specific? Page 24 February 5, 2009 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The only thing I'm concerned about, there's a push now to invalidate impact fees -- MR. EIDSON: Right. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- state-wide. I want to make sure that ifthere's impacts generated by a site and they should be paid for by the site. Then if the impact fees are gone, we still have a way to make that happen. And if Nick feels comfortable with 4.17 as being that application, then I've got no problem with it. But that's -- all I was trying to do was make sure the taxpayers as a whole were equally protected if the impact fees were gone. MR. EIDSON: Well, I just wanted to, you know, kind of refer you to that language to see if it helped. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: It might, thank you. MR. McDANIEL: And this is more of a housekeeping point than anything. In 4.14, and this is -- Tom Greenwood? There seems to be a discrepancy between our books, and I wanted just a point of clarification. That language that Brad brought up earlier about public and private roads within an SRA and their maintenance and who's responsible, in my bigger book it doesn't show that as new language. It's not underlined in the larger book, and I'm just wondering if that was all -- if that was part of the original RLSA and just inadvertently got underlined here. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Or we've got time to correct it, regardless. MR. McDANIEL: Correct. Absolutely. That's something to check into, if you would, please, just as a point of clarification. It brings up a valid point, but I just wanted to make sure. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. MR. McDANIEL: I happened to notice that, so -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Nick, unfortunately one question I forgot to ask you about Policy 4.1.4. Page 25 February 5, 2009 The first sentence says, the SRA must have either direct access to a county collector or arterial road or indirect access via road provided by the developer that has adequate capacity to accommodate the proposed development in accordance with accepted transportation planning standards. Now, when it says SRA, I'm assuming it means all the SRA's, any level of SRA, CRD, village or town. MR. CASALANGUIDA: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You feel that -- okay. What is the minimum road that you feel could be supplied to a single standing 100-acre CRD that has the potential of 200 homes and whatever businesses would be going with that? MR. CASALANGUIDA: It would be a two-lane local road. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Two-lane local road of what width? MR. CASALANGUIDA: Twenty-two to -- in terms of pavement width? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No, right-of-way width. MR. CASALANGUIDA: You could go as minimum as 40 feet if they took the sidewalks within their property. You know, it varies, based on design. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Do you know what the minimum easement width has just been more or less -- MR. CASALANGUIDA: Sixty feet for typically a two-lane. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No, the Pepper Ranch, 100 acres of the SRA that was left out of the SSA in the south of Pepper Ranch with the Farm Cattle Road leading to it. If that 100 acres was left out with some idea of ever being developed, by language here it looks like you're now telling me the minimum developable road they could put through Pepper Ranch to get to that would be 60 feet. MR. CASALANGUIDA: It depends. I mean, our county road standards require a road section to have II-foot lane calls, five-foot Page 26 February 5, 2009 sidewalks on both sides, proper spacing. You can do that within 40 to 60 feet. I mean, you're right, that's the answer. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I thought I heard on the meeting on the Pepper Ranch that they were looking like they were agreeing to a minimum easement of 15 feet. I'm not sure if they were ever to do that how they could get legal access if they wanted to develop that 100 acres. And that's a concern, because I'd hate to see someone coming in later on saying pursuant to this language, this county, knowing that that 100 acres could potentially be a CRD, and if we own that ranch we'd end up having to put in a wider -- maybe possibly be tricked into using a wider roadway. MR. CASALANGUIDA: My recollection is that agreement contains language, and someone correct me from the County Attorney's Office, that that road is to maintain in the condition it is right now, and it's not to be improved to any other use other than cattle ranching. That was on the record I think placed by both the applicant and the adjacent property owner. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Well, then uplands would never be developed, basically. MR. CASALANGUIDA: That was my understanding. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, thank you. MR. CASALANGUIDA: You're welcome. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: We're moving on to Page 60. Any other questions from any of the sentences? I mean, I'm still going to move into more, but I wanted to make sure I keep up with the rest of you. (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: As we move down to the very end of Policy 4.1.4, there's a long added section to that paragraph. The last sentence, these actions shall be considered within the area of significant influence of the project traffic on existing or proposed roadways that are anticipated to be expanded or constructed. What does that mean? The actions shall be considered within the Page 27 February 5, 2009 area of significant influence. MR. McDANIEL: And in might suggest you read the entire added in underlined. I mean, to pull an excerpt out of one of the additions that we have suggested as modifications, there is further definition above with respect -- and my recollection of the discussions there were just to ensure that there were proper mitigations and zero impact, if you will, with respect to these road improvements and such that were coming along. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, the area -- I know, I didn't read the whole thing for the sake of the court reporter and time, because it's in on the board. MR. McDANIEL: That was the main premise behind what we were looking to do there. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, my questions on that last one, what is the area of significant influence; do we know? Is that a defined term, is what I'm trying to find out. MR. CASALANGUIDA: It is in your GMP. On your significance test it's two percent, two percent, three percent, that threshold test. And I believe in the transportation element it talks about within significant influence and it defines it as two percent on the adjacent link, two percent of the next link and three percent. So depending on the size of the project and how far the trips, based on significance test, went out would be how far they would have to mitigate for. So if you took a development of 1,000 units and you said it generates 50 trips or 100 trips, you would do that test on each adjacent link. And once you stopped, you would say that's your area of significant influence. You would have to mitigate within that area. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And in that area you take into consideration all known zoning at the time. So there's -- their mitigation is for them, even though the road may have other applications coming in that would add additional burden to it. Page 28 February 5, 2009 MR. CASALANGUIDA: It would, but the significance test tells you how far you go out. And then your test as far as your proportionality would be different. So the significance test says we go this far to look at it. And then say the third link you put on 10 trips. And that 10 trips is a percentage of .01 percent of impact on that road when it's widened. We have a formula that says that multiplied by the cost is what you would pay for as part of your proportionate share. The only part, if you run this thought process through, that's concerning for both parties is when the improvement has to take place and who's responsible to make it happen. If the road's failing and then they apply, the argument can be made that okay, I've applied, I've been turned down, you've got to fix the road. So it's a timing issue we're trying to work out as to when that kicks in. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. If you continue on in that same sentence, Nick, after the word significant influence, of the project traffic on existing or proposed roadways. Now, I would suggest a period there, but there isn't one, and it says, that are anticipated to be expanded or constructed. So if the existing or proposed roadways are not anticipated to be expanded or constructed, then they wouldn't have to have any of the mitigation actions for traffic impacts on them; is that fair to say? And what would be the time frame of that anticipation of the expansion or construction? MR. CASALANGUIDA: You touched on the issue of timing. Now, anticipation of expansion or construction means that that road is planned to be a six-lane road by the vision build-out plan or by the long-range transportation plan. So there is some expectation that that road will be widened. You get into that timing issue. I can't solve that in this paragraph. And the responsibility issue. I don't want to get into a situation similar to Ave Maria in terms Page 29 February 5, 2009 of I've got to build it and now I have declining revenues. You know, I don't want to be in that situation again. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I think that's relevant in all of our minds. And that's probably why we want to make sure we don't get in that situation again. MR. CASALANGUIDA: And in discussions with the folks that worked on that, they're cognizant of that and they're going to work with us on making sure that we have some sort of back checks that, you know, in terms of revenues and timing. And we're still trying to figure out how we get there. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Would you suggest that a time frame be added so that it's consistent with a plan that we have like -- that are anticipated to be expanded or constructed within a so many year time frame? MR. CASALANGUIDA: Well, not necessarily, because you could be paying your prop. share on a road that may be outside your five-year plan, but it could be in your vision build-out plan. And when that road comes on-line, I may be knocking on someone's door and saying I'm ready to widen that road, we're asking you to pay your proportionate share now. So they may be -- you know, because you're talking about phasing developments. If it's a 5,000-unit subdivision and they come in and we widen a certain road and that accommodates it to a certain phase and then five years later we bring it one of the roads from the LRTP, long-range transportation plan, and our five-year plan, they may still have proportionate share responsibilities to that roadway. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Well, I'm just concerned about how this fits in. And you haven't figured out the language yet, but I think that if this were to move to transmittal, you'd have something by the data and analysis stage, would you not? MR. CASALANGUIDA: I think we would, but I think it's more important to say each individual SRA, depending on the size and Page 30 February 5, 2009 where it is, that individual agreement would be more relevant to what would be happening. Because you may have one that, depending on the size, may only have significant impact on our road that's within our five-year CIE, and it'd be a straightforward agreement. You may have one that depending on the size may be phased to incorporate improvements and payments or proportionate share over the course of 20 years, depending on the project size and where it is, so -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, based on the ultimate timing facility, timing sequence, are there any roads in Collier County that are not anticipated to be expanded or constructed? MR. CASALANGUIDA: That's a loaded question. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I mean, I'm concerned about those last words. And I think that you could make the sentence function just as well without that caveat if you put a period after roadways. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Yeah, it opens up too many Issues. MR. CASALANGUIDA: I don't have an issue with that. I think . , It s -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: It's just a suggestion. And I'm trying to keep as tight of a rein on the concepts as we can. And I don't think -- I think that just leaves it too fluid. MR. CASALANGUIDA: Yeah, I don't disagree. If you put a period at the end of that, it wouldn't take away from what we're trying to accomplish. It might eliminate some ambiguity. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Well, we'll move on. Is there any other comments? Ms. Caron? COMMISSIONER CARON: Well, I think in the next Policy 4.15.1, we were concerned here about the policy notations. I think 4.7.3 needs to come out and 4.7.4 needs to go in. MR. McDANIEL: And that is correct, I believe, with concurrence from staff. Page 3 1 February 5, 2009 MR. GREENWOOD: We'll look at that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, now wait a minute. The CRD's are an SRA. So they aren't permitted the full range, but they are permitted as modified by Policy 4.7.3. So if you take the reference to 4.7.3 out that modifies the CRD's, you're going to inadvertently open them up to everything in the FLUE. A lot of acronyms in that sentence. MR. McDANIEL: I think maybe with the -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The poor public is trying to follow this. Sorry, everybody. MR. McDANIEL: I think the main point would be maybe just to un-strike 4.7.4 -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes. MR. McDANIEL: -- and leave 4.7.3 in there. COMMISSIONER CARON: And leave 4.3 in. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: 4.7.3. And I think that would be right. Is that it, Ms. Caron? COMMISSIONER CARON: Yeah, thank you, for right now. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Mark, just -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes, go ahead. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: My only question on that, though, wouldn't the other 7.1 and 7.2 bring in 4.7.4? Wouldn't it be best to let them bring it in rather than this bring it in? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, let's -- 4.7.1 does reference it down in the second paragraph. 4.7 used to reference it but it's been crossed out. 4.7.2 does reference it . COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And 4.7.3 does not anymore. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: You know, we get there, but without -- you wouldn't want the guy in 7.3 saying he gets it from this paragraph. Page 32 February 5, 2009 COMMISSIONER CARON: Right. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah, why don't we -- you know, that's a good point. Bill, what he's suggesting is if you go back to Policy 4.7, leave the reference -- well, that 4.7 would work, because it's set in the general criteria where to look for towns, villages and CRD's. Then in 4.7.1,4.7.2 and 4.7.3 where appropriate you reference 4.7.4, so it wouldn't need to have to be redundant in 15.1. Because by putting it there it may conflict with the CRD language in 4.7.3. What's the matter? MR. McDANIEL: That's fine. That's a fine sugg -- I mean, it could be repetitious, but there's no doubt it's better. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Well, if you leave it -- if you do what we were saying, a guy in the CRA could say I get those uses and cite this policy to give them to him, so -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So the best thing is to leave it like it's written. The committee had stricken it. It should probably be that way. If you move down in that paragraph, the next sentence, or second sentence past that says, depending on the size, scale and character of an SRA, such uses may be provided either within the specific SRA, within other SRA's in the RLSA, or within the Immokalee urban area. Well, I understand what you're trying to say. There's two concerns. If you have another SRA and it's a village, town or compact rural development and they meet the minimum criteria of attachment C, then you can't -- you shouldn't be able to rely on those, because they've already met their minimum for the SRA that they're built within. And for you to take advantage of that by saying that they now can apply to your SRA as well, you're kind of like double dipping on the same calculation that built the first SRA. And the same would apply for even the Immokalee urban area. If you've got enough facilities to handle the Immokalee urban area for Page 33 February 5, 2009 a certain area that the SRA's adjacent to, how can the SRA dump the added density onto that area and not have that area have to have expansion or require some expansion while the SRA doesn't have to do anything? I know you didn't change anything here, but I'm suggesting something may need to be changed. MR. McDANIEL: And minimumly (sic) discussed at some stage of the game. I mean, I think my understanding is we were discussing this was just to try to encompass the regionality (sic) and the flexibility for the location of the different SRA's as they in fact come about and come to fruition. Right now we've had one that we can sink our teeth into and learn the lessons from, if you will. Inevitably there will be more. And the goal was to encompass the regionality (sic). CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah. And I'm not -- I have no problem with the goal, I'm just trying to make sure that the SRA's don't overburden each other by one relying on the other and not having to create additional facilities. Tom? MR. JONES: Well, it is in the existing policy, but I think Bill was getting to it right about the time I stood up. There may be some synergies that would make more sense to have perhaps a government center, a combined government center in one SRA as opposed to having two smaller government centers, one each in an SRA. And when the original document was put together, there was also some -- again, back to the originality (sic) concept, there was also some possibility that maybe some of these facilities get combined into Immokalee, if there was some reason to do it. So I think what we're trying to do is maintain a level of flexibility that in some cases it may make sense to combine these into one SRA instead of scattering them among -- especially these Page 34 February 5, 2009 government services -- among multiple SRA's. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And I think that's a good idea, Tom. But my concern was if you have a village and town that requires a .6 FAR for civic and governmental institutions, you put that in that village, but then you add two or three villages to it that rely on that, you've exceeded the .6 capability. All I'm saying is we might want to add some language that retains that level of FAR performance for whatever was added to it until such point it becomes overburdened by the numerics. Then it has to move to their own sustainable government facilities and whatever else they have to put in there. MR. JONES: Yeah. I think we might be saying the same thing. I was just trying to back up the original concept of when that was developed on the first go-around. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. I think we are. I just want to make sure that there's no -- we can minimize the potential problems with this language is all. Anybody else on Page 60 before we go to public comments? On Pages 58, 59 and 60. (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Does anybody in the public have any comments on those pages? Jeff? MR. PERRY: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. For the record, Jeff Perry with Wilson-Miller. On Page 60, Policy 4.14. First an observation. The -- in the second paragraph, the second new text that's underlined there, that's the language that basically supports -- the previous sentence talks about a transportation impact assessment meeting the requirements of the LDC shall be prepared for each SRA to provide the necessary data and analysis. That's a traffic impact statement much like you would have with a planned unit development or something else. It's the same criteria in Page 35 February 5, 2009 fact that is required of PUD's and other land zoning entitlements. The new language talks about how you mitigate for all of that impact, and in fact requires the developer contribution agreements and all those proportionate share kinds of things that would be negotiated during our review of these things. Even those projects that are not going to be DRI's, if they are sub-DRI, they would still be subject to this paragraph, which would require not only the traffic impact analysis, but then would also require the mitigation for that impact within that area of influence, as Nick has indicated. All this is covered by the traffic impact statement guidelines. So I think this is the new paragraph that sort of shores up how you deal with impacts that are identified by the impact analysis that's required for every SRA, regardless of its shape or size or context. The first sentence, though, however, of that same paragraph concerns me just a little bit. And I would ask that between now and the time this ultimately finds its way through to a GMP amendment in transmittal, the very first sentence of that second paragraph says, public and private roads within an SRA shall be maintained by the SRA it serves. In the transportation analysis, preliminary analysis that we've conducted so far, we have identified on the transportation map, the build-out map and the 2025 map that you have seen, some major facilities, some major new facilities. And I'll use as an example Little League Road, which is going to be running north-south parallel with the north-south run of Immokalee Road, several miles to the west of Immokalee Road. All the way from Immokalee Road sort of skirting Lake Trafford, all the way up to State Road 82. A major north-south corridor that theoretically is going to -- could bisect or go through the middle of an SRA. I'm not so sure that it's the responsibility of the SRA to maintain that roadway. Another example might be the loop road around Immokalee, Page 36 February 5, 2009 which actually starts at Immokalee Road near the Camp Keais intersection, goes over to 29 and then goes around Immokalee, ties back into 29 at the north side of Immokalee. There are segments of that roadway which admittedly will be a major east-west and north-south arterial. There are segments of that which could actually be through the middle of an SRA. And to avoid having a landowner submit two separate SRA's that straddle the roadway, it might be more appropriate simply to have some flexibility to decide who's going to maintain the roadways when the SRA comes in and go through the motions of determining the public benefit of these roads. Whether there is substantial reason why the county would want to maintain ownership and maintenance of these roadways I think is best left at some point. This first sentence simply says that if it goes through an SRA, it's the SRA's responsibility to maintain it. And I'm not sure that's always going to be the case. So I'd ask that at some point in the future we have an opportunity to sort of work with Nick to come up with some language that might add a little more flexibility that at the perhaps time of SRA those decisions would be made. Certainly local roads within SRA's, even, you know, traditional what we call spine roads, collector roads that serve the developments. There's no -- obviously those are roads that should be the SRA's responsibility and not the burden of the county. Just as today PUD's have that same kind of burden to maintain their own roadways. But arterial and collector roads that serve a much broader service I think need to be examined a little in more detail. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's a good point, Jeff. MR. PERRY: Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And this whole exercise is to put these points out so when we get to the next stage we can have more thought on them, so -- Page 37 February 5, 2009 Anybody else in the public have any comments? Elizabeth? You're spending a lot of time in Collier County lately. MS. FLEMING: Yes, I am. Elizabeth Fleming with the Defenders of Wildlife. I have a comment and I want to ask some questions also. I'm looking at Policy 4.4 (sic) in that -- on Page 60. In the area down at the bottom it talks about -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Policy -- you said 4.4? MS. FLEMING: 4.14-- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, thank you. MS. FLEMING: -- on Page 60. Down at the bottom talking about some of the mitigation for SRA's traffic impacts and talking about wildlife crossings and things of that nature. In the discussion that came up just a little while ago about the issue of timing, we've really tried to stress this in our discussions with others that Defenders, we believe that the mitigation should take place at the time -- be able to mitigate against the impacts. So if the impact occurs, it takes place for some time and later in comes the mitigation. We don't feel that's adequate. So I know the only project out there so far is the Ave Maria project, and I don't know all the ins and outs that have gone on between the landowners and the county, but some discussion did come up. But a point I want to raise is we've been expecting that two panther crossings are going to be constructed on that road to mitigate against the increase in traffic and the impacts. And now there's -- because of the economic downturn, I don't know about impact fees, I don't know all that's taken place. But I do know more -- some people have moved there. The university students are there. I've been out there. I know there are more cars on the road than there used to be. So when can we expect to see the panther crossings constructed Page 38 February 5, 2009 on that road? Obviously when it's widened. But that's my question, is CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, that's one of the things we're-- MS. FLEMING: -- how do you move forward with these timing issues? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, that's what we're trying to partially fix. And you've kind of hit on the only example we have, the DCA that created Ava Maria happened at a time that made a commitment that is not quite the amount needed to complete the road. Ave Maria's contributing a huge amount of money for the road system, but Collier County's got to do the rest. The problem is, Collier County's rest to do is a lot more than I think we anticipated. And the timing of that has not happened prior to development, it's going to happen either concurrent or during the development, as it is now. And I think you're suggesting that mitigation should occur before the impacts happen from the development end of things, which means Collier County and Ava Maria would have had to put the money up at the early stage, prior to any money coming in either from impact fees or from development revenues. Is that kind of where you're going? MS. FLEMING: I understand that there are logistical and real financial issues involved, but we're here to advocate for endangered species, so I'm saying panthers and other species are going to be impacted by traffic. We feel that the mitigation -- the remedies should be there at the time of impact. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And the only -- I know your panther crossings are important to you. They require a large segment of the road to be in basically as far as costs go, because you have to elevate them, put in culverts and build the road system to accommodate those crossings, and that's a big chunk of money. And doing that early I think is where the concern's going to be. Page 39 February 5, 2009 Well, it will certainly end up being explored, I'm sure, but I don't know what the answer is today, so -- MS. FLEMING: Well, while those other issues of timing are being discussed, we just would like this to be included. Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. Anybody else from the public have any comments? Oh, Paul. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: It almost seems like something like that, you'd have to wait till its four-laned and, you know, that could be pretty far out. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, if it's -- I imagine-- COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: You wouldn't want to do a panther crossing for a two-lane road and then have to totally redo it, right? MR. McDANIEL: Certainly not. And if I might, I think as time transpires we are developing -- in conjunction with the existence of the Rural Land Stewardship Overlay, we're developing a long-range transportation plan. It was flipped up there -- or there was an excerpt of it being flipped up there on the map. And certainly one of the things that transportation can take into consideration is the facilitation of the road construction in advance of the impacts so that we're not, as you said, Paul, building the crossing on a two-lane facility when we all know inevitably it's going to go to four. And I think that is Elizabeth's valid concern with respect to those particular crossings. And there has been an increase in traffic. And again, it's a learning process but a timing aspect of the long-range transportation plan that's going to be necessary to help mitigate those -- that particular circumstance. But it's coming. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. Any other -- Nicole? MS. RYAN: For the record, Nicole Ryan, Conservancy of Southwest Florida. Page 40 February 5, 2009 And the issue of the timing for panther crossings has been something that has concerned The Conservancy. With the Oil Well Road widening, those panther crossings were not part of the Phase I, and indeed you are going to be feeling the impacts of the development long before those crossings are put in. So we certainly support having some sort of better timing coordination for that. And another suggestion that we advocate and have been advocating is if you do not build in those primary panther habitat areas, then you're more than likely not going to need the new two, four, six-lane roads, and so you won't need the roads, you won't need the crossings. That won't solve all of the concerns for Oil Well Road and other roads, but it certainly could cut down on the number of new roads and new crossings needed if you again avoid primary compress -- stay on that footprint where SRA's could be located. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. Any other questions? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: If not, we will move on to Page 61. Cherie', we were thinking of going between 11 :30 and 12:00. I'm assuming you'll need a break between then -- before then? Okay, give us a little bit more time and we'll take a break for about 10 minutes, okay? Okay, we're on Page 61 and the policy starts with 4.16 and goes -- starts on 4.19 towards the bottom. Are there any questions from the Planning Commission on Page 61? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I do, Mark. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Schiffer? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And these are really housekeeping. Policy 4.16 is normally after the CRD's, they keep noting that are less than one (sic) acres in size. And obviously you Page 41 February 5, 2009 can't have one greater than, so you may as well remove of one acres (sic) less in size, because they're all of 100 acres less in size. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So about in the middle of the paragraph after the reference to CRD's, the first one that isn't crossed out, drop the words that are 100 acres or less in size, is that -- I mean, they have to be, so that's a good point. Bill, is there any concern from your end? MR. McDANIEL: Not at all, sir. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anything else, Brad? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: No, that's good. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Donna? COMMISSIONER CARON: Further down in that paragraph, one, two, three, fourth line up at the end it begins, individual potable water supply wells and septic systems limited to a maximum of 100 acres of any town, village or CRD. Well, I don't think you're going to have a CRD that's a septic system for something else. So I'm not sure that they're applicable here is all I'm saying. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. COMMISSIONER CARON: Or that just means it can't exceed 100 acres? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: It's on an interim basis, so -- COMMISSIONER CARON: Because that's a maximum -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I think what they're saying is if you have a 100-acre facility you can have the homes within there on water wells and septic, but once you get past that you have to go to a centralized system. Is that what you're trying to say? MR. McDANIEL: That's my understanding. This is all part of the original program, and that was my understanding of that. I can honestly say we probably didn't have a lot of lengthy discussion revolving around that, but -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Brad? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I think what it's saying is you Page 42 February 5, 2009 can only do that on an interim basis. MR. McDANIEL: Correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Which you obviously have to go into. MR. McDANIEL: And it sets a limit for progression of development, going through the process for maximum acreage of exposure to that to -- just to facilitate. And again, it's a timing issue. And from a development side, bringing in product on-line and having units there available for sale. COMMISSIONER CARON: So it's anticipated that these CRD's are going to have centralized water. MR. McDANIEL: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: At some point. MR. McDANIEL: At some particular point in time. It says -- it basically picks that up, individual potable water supply and septic systems may be permitted in CRD's. And I don't know if there's an actual requisite that requires them to hook to central sewer or water at any particular time. Someone else might know the answer to that. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Well, this does. I mean, I think the intent of this is that you could theoretically build out a full CRD, have it all on wells and septic, waiting maybe for an adjoining development where you'd connect at a later date or something. MR. McDANIEL: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Paul? COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Could you maybe mention that it would be required to have it at build-out? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, there might be more availability if it's regional. I mean, if you're going to build out a CRD but you've got a regional plant like the north plant for Collier County coming on-line, you really wouldn't want to force somebody to put a central system in Page 43 February 5, 2009 when that one -- I think the circumstances would dictate it and we can probably get into that in implementation language at the LDC. But this just says that it will be there -- it will be allowed on an interim basis. And I think the interim basis can be defined in the Land Development Code. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Yeah, as long as it's defined at some point. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, that's the LDC implementation. Anything else on 61 ? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Bill? MR. McDANIEL: Sir. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The middle of the --let's see, third paragraph, or second. Third it is. The capacity of infrastructure necessary to serve the SRA at build-out must be demonstrated during the SRA designation process. MR. McDANIEL: You have to forgive me. Which policy are you in? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: 4.16. And that was toward the end of the third line. Then the sentence after this says infrastructure to be analyzed includes: Transportation, potable water, wastewater, stormwater management and solid waste. Where is it we enter into the analysis of other facilities such as EMS, sheriff, government facilities, libraries, parks -- well, parks I know are minimized in the -- are required in the attachment C. But what about those kind of services? MR. McDANIEL: I think that's addressed in the LDC, if I'm not mistaken. There's definitions in the LDC about essential services. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I'd have to -- I don't recall that. But I know that wouldn't we be -- we had to negotiate -- or Ave Maria has negotiated land for sheriffs office and fire departments and all like Page 44 February 5, 2009 that. I want to make sure that somehow that's a requirement. MR. McDANIEL: And again, I think Mr. Greenwood passed out a definition page earlier. And these are excerpts out of the LDC. And it defines the discussion we were having on the floor area ratio and the essential services and the definition of those. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, the reason I was concerned about that is because of what I read in Policy 4.17. The things I -- you reference in 4.16 are Category A, public facilities, and in 4.17 it's emphasized that the review will with be based on Category A public facilities. Why wouldn't we want to base it on both Category A and Category B? I mean, why isn't fire protection and police protection and EMS coverage and all that just as important for public safety and welfare as the others? Is there a reason we wouldn't want to get into that? MR. McDANIEL: Absolutely not. I mean, those are as important as the others, actually. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Then I would suggest that in 4.16 where the sentence refers to the infrastructure, we might see infrastructure and essential services to be analyzed -- includes but not limited to. And then that opens up 4.17 to have Category A and Category B reviewed. And I've got to write here for a minute, so excuse me. Okay, let's move on down the page. COMMISSIONER CARON: You're going to want to do that same thing in 4.18. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah, shall be considered and not limited to. And then we -- COMMISSIONER CARON: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Then we get down to Tammie's sentence. Tammie, as we talked, can you help us understand or -- what that means? Maybe since -- I don't know how many people had a Page 45 February 5, 2009 concern over what it meant. I mean, I wasn't concerned, I just couldn't follow what you were trying to say. Maybe there's a simpler way to say it. Because I do know that I asked others on your committee and not everybody understood what it meant, so -- MS. NEMECEK: With regards to this, the EDC has been working with the Board of County Commissioners. We had a workshop with them in January talking about the creation of economic development zones throughout Collier County. But in particular to this one and related to the fiscal impact analysis, the fiscal impact analysis will show whether or not an SRA is revenue neutral or positive to the community. And the concept and idea is that if it is showing that it is revenue -- fiscally positive to Collier County, that Collier County may have the opportunity to take a portion of that revenue and invest that in economic development activities that would catalyze companies to locate in those areas that would spur on additional economic development in the SRA areas. So it's basically taking that excess revenue from the fiscal impact analysis, or a portion of that, and investing it back in that community in order to be able to have companies locate there. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And when I discussed this with you, since you were the famed author of this, my concern after you explained it to me was not -- if you have an FIAM, as Ave Maria does -- and again, sorry, that's the only development out there, we have to keep picking on them -- they're going to produce a revenue generation from that facility, whether it's negative or positive, I would assume it's positive. But in their analysis in the FIAM, they're not going to have costs outside their realm, outside their SRA, outside what they contributed to the road system. But yet the road systems costing the taxpayers substantially more money than they're going to show on their FIAM. I don't blame them for not showing it, it's not a requirement. But when you read this sentence, if you base the excess revenues Page 46 February 5, 2009 on those generated by the figures in the FIAM, then you've got no way to protect the taxpayers for the out-of-pocket that they're going to put that is many, many, many times more millions than what the contribution was by Ave Maria for just the Oil Well Road. And if that's the case, at what point then do you really have excess revenues, so that you can honestly argue then that those excesses could be dumped into some economic opportunity, when really there aren't any excesses to the taxpayers. They may be for the development, but not to the taxpayers. And I think this would only apply if those revenues were to go to the taxpayers. And in the analysis to the taxpayers, you wouldn't show excess -- there may not be excess revenues. And that's my concern on how this applies, how this fits together. MS. NEMECEK: Right. And the fiscal impact analysis has been adopted by Collier County as the analysis that we're going to use for this. And so I would suspect that if -- I don't think Russ is here, but I would suspect that if -- when you look at that analysis, it would take into consideration like impact fees do, in that development you're charging somebody for the impact that they made for that road segment to be able to build that road segment. So for Ave Maria, for example, would it not make sense that you're charging that community for their impact, their portion of impact on that road, and others that use that road, new development that would go on surrounding that road would absorb the additional -- I mean, is it likely that Ave Maria would absorb the full 100 percent impact on Oil Well Road? And they're the only ones that would have to absorb that impact, I guess, would be my first take on that question. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, they wouldn't be paying for it, that's for sure. That's not part of the agreement. But I'm more concerned about how you calculate excess. Because under that scenario, there's no real access to the taxpayers. And therefore, if Page 47 February 5, 2009 you're taking what could be more positive away from the taxpayers and putting it back into the SRA before there's a balance to the taxpayers of Collier County, we're never getting ahead, or we may not get ahead as quickly. And that's the concern I have with that statement and the way it's worded here. MS. NEMECEK: The second part of -- well, the second part of what we're talking about with economic diversification actually goes back to the fact that these businesses happen to be revenue generators for Collier County. So investments in high-tech companies that are locating on a footprint with buildings that are a higher cost and generating taxes that actually are a surplus to the community more so than the services we have to provide to them, you're actually investing in a revenue generation opportunity for Collier County rather than a cost center for Collier County. So, I mean, aside from the fact that the FIAM model -- and that's something that is core to this program, and that's something that, you know, you will have to talk about with regards to how that analysis is factored in, but I think it's been generally accepted that that's the fiscal impact analysis that we're going to use. It's going to say are we fiscally neutral or positive in a five-year basis. And if we are so, if that FIAM model is accepted by the county, then how do we use those funds to be able to invest in projects that are going to generate additional revenue that otherwise would not be here in Collier County. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I don't remember the numbers from Ave Maria. I remember Babcock Ranch is I think more than Ava Maria's. There was a huge amount of money, supposedly based on the FIAM, that was going to be generated by Babcock Ranch as a positive to the county. And had this applied to that, I think it was 293 million, some big number like that. That number then, by this statement, some of that could have been considered surplus revenue when in actuality it wasn't, it was only what was within that SRA. Page 48 February 5, 2009 And I go back to my point, and I'm not sure we're going to resolve it here today. But it's an issue I think needs to be studied before we lock this in, because it's a concern on how that's calculated. And that's what the point I guess I was making. MS. NEMECEK: Right. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And I understand your argument, and we'll just kind of have to leave it at that. Any other questions of Tammie while she's up here? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, thank you, Tammie. And then the last item on Page 61 is Item 4.19. And that goes over to Page 62. Before we get into that one, why don't we take a lO-minute break till five after 11 :00 and then we'll come back and finish up for today. Thank you. (Brief recess.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, everybody. Mike, you want to-- somebody want to put the speaker back on? Okay, if you'll all take your seats again, we'll resume the meeting. And we left off on Page 61. We started towards the bottom on 4.19. And before we do, we'll ask for public speakers on Policies 4.16 through 4.18. Does anybody in the public need to address it. Brian? MR. GOGUEN: Hi. Brian Goguen, Barron Collier Companies, for the record. The discussion of the FlAM we talked about I think last week and we're talking about it again today, when you look at that, I mean, Mark, you brought up the point, and I think what you're saying is that all of Oil Well Road should basically be attributed to Ave Maria. And I don't think that's how -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No, that's not what I was saying. MR. GOGUEN: Okay. Well, the way the FIAM works is when Page 49 February 5, 2009 -- let's take a single-family home comes on-line, the impact fees for the county are calibrated, as I understand it, so that the cost or that impact fee reflects the cost to the county of that single-family house coming on-line. So you take the FIAM, let's say for Ave Maria. And as we move through it and we're fronting impact fees, we pay 50 percent of impact fees at SDP and the other 50 percent at CO of the units. So we're paying our impact fees in advance as these homes and businesses and other things come on-line. We basically are a positive because of that timing difference. Again, those impact fees are calibrated to reflect the cost to the county of those units of development coming on-line. So I do think in that sense that it is paying for it as it goes. I don't think it would be fair to attribute -- in that sense we're paying -- those impact fees are paying for those off-site improvements, Mark, that you referred to. I don't think it would be fair to load on top of that a whole bunch of additional costs when again we're paying as we go. The FIAM is adopted by Collier County. It's adopted by other counties around the state. It is the model that everyone uses, and, you know, I think we need to take a close look at that. And I agree with you, it has to be fair in order to be able to accomplish what we want to and measure these things. But I'm just telling you, I don't think -- I don't think it's fair to take a disproportionate amount of those off-site improvements and attribute it to a project like Ave Maria or other projects that happen out there. As it relates to the DCA, there's been a few comments that I've heard that in some way I guess the thoughts are that Collier County didn't come out with the agreement that it should have. I can tell you from our standpoint, you know, we feel that we are doing more, you know, perhaps than we should be doing. So I guess that's the mark of any good negotiated agreement, if both parties feel Page 50 February 5, 2009 that, you know, they left something on the table. And, you know, as it goes forward on DCA, the same thing is going to have to happen. We're going to just look closely at these things and we're going to have to come to win/win situations in order for these projects to be able to move forward. One other point was made about panther crossings. And one aspect, one significant aspect of the panther protection agreement that we're putting in place, the landowners and the environmental groups, is to create a fund. And one of the significant or very high important areas that this fund will be used for is for those panther crossings. So there again, if we can keep this program voluntarily incentive based and the program moves forward, I think we will have that funding to be able to put those panther crossings into place. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And Brian, let's go back to your first comment. I think you missed my point. It had nothing to do with the FIAM, had nothing to do with Ava Maria's deals and DCA's and everything they got in place. What they got in place, Collier County needs to honor and we need to continue with it just like we always have. I have no question about that at all. That was the only example we have unfortunately is Ave Maria. What I was trying to say is if Tammie's language in the first sentence where it says, it is recognized that the SRA development in the RLSA may generate surplus revenues to Collier County, I want -- my concern was that that sentence cannot be based solely on the SRA's FIAM, because there are other extenuating circumstances that don't take into consideration the taxpayers cost that aren't on the FIAM, and they shouldn't be, and you guys shouldn't be responsible for them. Never was insinuating you should be responsible for more than you are. All I'm trying to say is that when you calculate that sentence, which has nothing to do with your calculation, really, you can't rely Page 51 February 5, 2009 solely on your calculation. That's the only point I was trying to make in that, and that's what my concern was with the way the paragraph was written. So it wasn't specific about an FIAM for an SRA. Here we go with acronyms again. FlAM is the financial impact analysis model and SRA is stewardship receiving area. So that's what I was getting at, Brian. It wasn't -- and unfortunately when we have to talk about only one project, Ava Maria's name's going to come up as an example of possibly how this could apply. But I wasn't suggesting that you need to have more on your FIAM, that's certainly not the case. MR. GOGUEN: Okay. And I appreciate that clarification. And as it relates to as we get more into the details of what Tammie talked about and these economic development zones, I do think we have to keep in mind, because sometimes there is a timing difference as it relates to it. Sometimes, you know, major portions of infrastructure like Oil Well Road have to be put into place, but I don't think we can lose sight of the fact that we need to diversify our economy and we do need to develop a sustainable source of funding in order to be able to invest now in the things that we're going to need, you know, for the future. So I agree with you, we're going to have to work through those details. THE COURT REPORTER: Could you spell you name, please? MR. GOGUEN: Bill Goguen. G-O-G-U-E-N. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Any other questions on Page 61? Tammie, did you have something you wanted to -- MS. NEMECEK: Just as a follow-up. Thank you, Chairman Strain. The idea here is that we figure out a mechanism in which we can develop sustainable ways of funding our economic diversification Page 52 February 5, 2009 efforts here in the community, particularly if we're going to be competitive in order to do this. If there is a way that you say that this community itself is showing that there's a positive impact through that analysis, granted that there's other costs that have to be borne to build that road. But those are being borne by those other developments that are going to impact that road, correct? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes. MS. NEMECEK: Okay. So if we are going to say that we want to induce some revenue generation opportunities for the community through the development of these business parks, research parks and having these high-tech companies here that will help balance out the residential tax base to the commercial tax base, because if we're overly dependent on residential development and that's the only thing that we have in these developments, the fact of the matter is no matter how much money you want to charge, you're still not going to have enough to be able to sustain the community. So I guess there's a -- the mechanism still needs to be worked on and we've got a group that's working on that right now. But I guess I don't want to throw the baby out with the bath water in this discussion in saying let's figure out the mechanism by which we can do this as a needed piece of quite frankly infrastructure for this community so that we're not overly dependent on residential development in order to sustain us, but we actually have places where we have businesses, they're generating positive revenue generation for this community tax base, for this community that actually helps to fund those roads, rather than relying on the homeowners to be able to do that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I learned something yesterday from someone who told me that residential is actually a negative to the tax base. That someone was you. MS. NEMECEK: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And that's exactly where I'm getting at. Page 53 February 5, 2009 When you said it was a negative to the tax base and you had a ratio, that applies to all elements, not just those within the FIAM analysis. And that's the point I was trying to make with your reference to how we calculate surplus revenues. And that will come out of the wash in the data and analysis I'm sure as this time goes on, but that's something I'll be looking for and it's something that staff now has a heads-up for. Thank you. MS. NEMECEK: Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Gary? MR. EIDSON: Yes, a thought that came to mind. And this is word-smithing. But where it says it's recognized, I was thinking that you -- if that was just changed to say in the event instead of that it's recognized, it changes the whole tone of that sentence, that thought. And then you go further down and you put a comma after Collier County, and eliminate the "and", and it says, Collier County may choose. What you're doing is you're creating an atmosphere that's more of consideration than of fact. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That second comma, what is it you were referring -- MR. EIDSON: Well, you're counting down there, it says may generate surplus revenues to Collier County, comma, Collier County may then choose to allocate. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I think any changes that -- I mean, that's a positive change. We ought to -- they certainly ought to be considered. MR. EIDSON: Yeah, I just -- I threw that in because I can sense where there's a wall in this discussion. And that might just breach the wall a little bit so that we can make it a little more open. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. Appreciate it. Okay, we've got-- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I have a 61. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, Brad, go ahead. Page 54 February 5, 2009 COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Bottom of6l where essentially I guess what we're saying is that in the old program you needed eight, now you're going to need 10. And where sending areas were vested under the eight. So if you came into the program assuming eight was enough, is that what that's meaning? I mean, that bottom thing. MR. McDANIEL: That was our attempt there. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. Is there a way we could like establish a date? Wouldn't it -- in other words, we don't need 10 until this comes into effect, correct? MR. McDANIEL: And that's pretty much the way it was worded. Because there again, there's really -- it's difficult to determine when this -- when the new, if you will, rural land stewardship overlay is in fact going to be adopted. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: But we could put a placeholder with a date, which I think might make that easier. MR. McDANIEL: You're grabbing at straws, Mr. Schiffer. I mean, at some stage of the game, depending on the entire process -- and that was one -- I mean, we talked about that at length. And rather than to try to pick a date of specificity and a time line that folks have to necessarily gear to, the language here allows for it to transition as the ultimate adoption of the program is put in place. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: When I say a placeholder, I don't mean put an actual date. We could put a parenthesis this will be the date that the thing comes into effect. Because I think that makes it clearer to people that from that date forward that things change. The vested means somebody's got to go back and investigate vested. But that's just my thought. I think a milestone that's a point in time is better than a milestone that's a concept. MR. McDANIEL: And my only response to that, and again, you all are welcome to make any suggestions that you wish, is that when things like those suggestions get implemented into the program, it then becomes a perception as some of the information that was Page 55 February 5, 2009 disseminated prior to the existence of the initial Rural Land Stewardship Overlay plan with respect to percentages and ultimate credits. And if that gets into print, someone potentially could hang their hat on it and it could be a misleading statement or a guise of such in the future. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I'm not sure of that, but-- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I think some of the recommendations we made previously may make that eight to 10 credits something that has to be rethought out as they re-plan this. Because one of the suggestions this committee made previously, and we'll actually dwell on it more and debate it more, is just putting a cap on credits. And how those credits fall out can be jiggered any which way they want. They can go up, down, they can do whatever they want to do with them, allocate more for restoration. But you're not taking away any property rights by doing that, that have already been granted. And everybody can't be hurt by it any more than they were originally. So that might be a safe way to consider something as we go down the future, but -- anything else, Brad, you wanted to bring up? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: No, I'm good, thanks. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: We're on Page 62. Actually, I've got a carryover from 61 that goes to 62. It's the same policy Brad was talking about. The last sentence on Page 61 says, open space in excess of the required 35 percent, as described in Policy 4.10 or for land that is designated for a public benefit use described in Policy 4.20 do not require the use of credits. Okay, so that means you can increase the open space but you don't have to use credits up. But if you look at that thought and go to 4.20, the acreage ofa public benefit use shall count toward the maximum acreage limits described in Policy 4.7 but shall not count toward the consumption of stewardship credits. Page 56 February 5, 2009 Now, am I to read this that in Policy 4.19 you refer to open space or land that is for public benefit use, do not require the credits. But in Policy 4.20, only the public benefit use shall not count to the maximum acreage limitation. So that means any excess open space will increase the maximum acreage computation. MR. McDANIEL: I believe that's correct. And that was encompassed in that 35 percent of open space definitions earlier. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And if you do more golf courses because you don't need credits for them and it doesn't -- and you can expand the development footprint, in essence you're encouraging the development footprint to go beyond the 45,000 acres. That's the way it reads to me, at least. And that's what concerned me. So anyway, that goes back to the use of credits and how we apply them. MR. McDANIEL: I can assure you it certainly wasn't our intent to imply that type of a thought process. The goal was for the capping of the ultimate acreage, but yet allow for flexibility of utilization of those open spaces in relationship with the consumption of the credits. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, if you capped -- if you included open space in 4.20, along with the public benefit so that it is capped at the 45,000 acres, you would really be discouraging open space. Because then you've got a cap that's going to be used up by non revenue-generating land for the most part. So I understand why it came out this way, but I -- I'm worried now that the 45,000 acres becomes a whole heck of a lot more for every numbers of open space they want to increase for things like recreational areas, golf courses, who else knows what else could go under that -- MR. McDANIEL: And as I said last week, Mr. Strain, and I would suggest that -- I mean, these are all positive comments with respect to the potential of what in fact could happen. There are going to be additional review processes. We will have Page 57 February 5, 2009 the benefit at the next go-around of seven years worth of experience on the EAR-based amendment cycle again when this program comes back, and we'll have that benefit. And we can certainly lay hands on, if you will, the potential for that if someone has abused that portion of the program to exceed the ultimate developable acreages out there. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And the only concern I have there is once given, it's very hard to take away. We have constant challenges with people who believe they have land use rights, and when you try to reduce those land use rights in some of our minds by saying you can't do something that you could do before, we ultimately get into arguments with that. So that's the only thing I was bringing that up for. Let's move on down through the rest of the policies, up to group five. I don't want to -- we'll stop at Policy 4.2.2. today. And we have one public speaker that needs to address us today, because she can't be here on our other two meetings. But let's first go through the rest of the four policies. Anybody have any issues with those? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Mr. Chair? CHAIRMAN STRAIN : Yes, sir. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I just have a question. On the top paragraph -- and it's because the hole punch in my notebook went through this paragraph. What is -- there's some policies. It's 4.7, we crossed out 4.5. That's what's the next one? MR. McDANIEL: Looks like it jumped -- the hole punch went through everybody's book. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. 4.15.l? Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, any questions on the balance of the page? Go ahead, Mr. Midney. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: This is just kind of a reiteration again about the -- this would allow -- 4.21 one would allow two villages of not more than 500 acres within the ACSC. And that seems Page 58 February 5, 2009 like too much development within the ACSC, which is supposed to be protected environmentally. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, previously it was two villages or CRD's and not more than 500, now it's saying two villages doesn't limit the CRD's. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: So you could wind up with two 500-acre villages there. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: What was your intention, Bill? MR. McDANIEL: Clarification, elimination of the hamlets, promotion of the CRD's, and limitation of ultimate development in the ACSC. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Wouldn't you be better off saying -- limiting the amount of SRA development and not referencing whether it's a CRD or village? Because the way this reads, it says, however, that CRD's or villages of not more than 500 acres each. MR. McDANIEL: And if I may make a suggestion, Mr. Strain. There are a lot of different ways of saying the same thing. And folks' opinion as to how much development is too much within the ACSC is really not part of what -- other than from a discussion standpoint, as to whether it's good or bad or how in fact you can say it. We did the best we could at the committee level developing this language for the clarification and reducing the ambiguities. There's certainly a lot of different ways of saying the same thing. And you folks have done a phenomenal job in pointing out different ways that things can be stated for clarification purposes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. So Paul, your point was to clarify or to say that it's not acceptable having that many acreage in the ACSC? COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Yeah, because they're talking about stuff. They're saying well, it's not so bad if it's already predominantly cleared as a result of Ag. Group 1 or earth mining uses. What I'm saying is that Ag. 1 is less destructive to the panthers than Page 59 February 5, 2009 large residential areas with -- including the essential services that would have to go in there too. So I would like to keep it as Ag. 1 and not have two large villages in there. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So you don't think there should be any SRA development in the ACSC? COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: No, CRD's, not villages. Eight 500 acres. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, that means you'd have five CRD's. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: You could. It doesn't mean you'd have to. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But then that triggers the problem that I brought up earlier. You start combining CRD's to avoid the triggering of the requirements of a village. And even if we didn't address that, I bet you DCA would. So that -- so if you have five CRD's, they're bigger than the village minimum, but they don't have to have the sustainability of a village. I'm not sure that's a better thing. But Tom, did you have something you wanted to contribute? MR. JONES: Sure. I was just clarifying -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You always do, that's good. MR. JONES: Whether it's good or bad, I don't know. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Oh, no, it's -- MR. JONES: It's always good. As Bill stated, the committee's intent on Policy 4.21 was to just simply streamline it based on the fact that in earlier policy we had removed hamlets as a form of development as an SRA. The debate whether or not two villages or the existing language is appropriate or not, it is the existing language, it is the policies that were adopted and approved by DCA previously. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, the difference here is the way that Page 60 February 5, 2009 reads. And I guess it goes back to the word-smithing that Bill talked about. It may need to be word-smithed a little bit, because the way this reads, you wouldn't be limited to just two villages of 500 acres, it would be whatever amount of CRD's could go in there as well. MR. JONES: Right. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Was that the intent of the committee? MR. JONES: No, that wasn't the intent of the committee. The intent of the committee was to eliminate the utilization of hamlets within the area of critical state concern. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I think we ought to first attempt to clean up the language, Paul, and then see how it rides when we go into our discussions on a motion -- or deliberations. Brad? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Because reading it, is it the intent that you can't have more than two villages, each of which can't be greater than 500 acres, and then unlimited CRD's? That's the way the -- isn't that the way -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah, so you'd have 1,000 acres potentially in villages and an unlimited number of CRD's. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And CRD's everywhere. MR. McDANIEL: Here again, that wasn't the -- MR. JONES: Again, the intent of the committee was to eliminate hamlets from the language. The unintended consequences that you're delivering up now are certainly reasonable from where you're sitting. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Well, we can format that in some recommendation. Gary? MR. EIDSON: Gary Eidson. Another thing to think about on a CRD is that a CRD could be an environmental group that's going in to work in that area. It could be a small cluster of, you know, types of homes or whatever that would Page 61 February 5, 2009 accommodate that. And I know that discussion was had. I don't know how deep we went into it. And I do know that certainly an agreement about cleaning up the hamlet language, because we had to go through and do that a lot. So in your deliberations you might think about the fact that it would be prudent to have some -- it might be prudent to have some type of development in that area that would accommodate, you know, those things that we're most concerned about from an environmental standpoint. So I would say tread carefully. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: I have no objection to the CRD's, it's just the two villages of 500. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I think what we ought to do is attempt to clean the language up, and then when we go into discussion, we can refine that -- the quantity, if that's the desire of the board. So first the language ought to be fixed, and we can do that when we get into deliberations. That takes us to the end of the policies, Policy 4. I'd like to stop there and first get any kind of public comment on the remaining of the items on Policy 4, ifthere is any, and then we have one public speaker on an item on Policy 5 that she needs to address while she's here today. Nicole? MS. RYAN: Nicole Ryan, Conservancy of Southwest Florida. First on Policy 4.19. The Conservancy has been very concerned about the need to increase the number of credits for each acre of development, because that's based on again infusing more credits into a system and then devaluing the credits by requiring more of them for each acre of development. We very much support exploring the Planning Commission's idea of capping the credits at what the program currently allows and then providing for some redistribution of how those credits are assigned so that we can preserve more ago Page 62 February 5, 2009 lands in appropriate areas, we can provide for corridors. We believe that that really is the solution that will protect environmental resources, agricultural resources. And also in looking at DCA's initial comments on the Florida Panther Protection Plan, which also had in it one of its elements, this 45,000-acre cap and the introduction of more credits. Their initial comment was that, quote, an increase in development rights available for transfer raises questions about the adequacy of current development potential, justification for additional land use allocation, consequences on the footprint of development and urban sprawl, and public facility impacts. We recommend that you work within the extent of development rights currently available for transfer. So we see what you're proposing as consistent with what DCA was also suggesting. And a comment on Policy 4.21. The Conservancy believes that all SRA's should be moved outside of the ACSC. This is some of the most environmentally sensitive land in the county. It doesn't contain all of it but it does contain a good quantity of it. It's primary panther habitat. It's also the land that is furthest away from our current urban area, from urban services. If you're going to have SRA's, you're going to have to be building road networks and providing infrastructure for these areas that are very, very far away. So we had advocated and still support removing all SRA's from the ACSC, having that land be part of some sort of agricultural preserve category. Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Nicole, part of the argument here is that there are some -- and it's the acreage that Mr. Midney focused on. It says, provided, however, that CRD's or two villages of not more than 500 acres each, exclusive of any lakes, created prior to June 30th, 2002 as a result of the mining operation shall be allowed in areas that Page 63 February 5, 2009 have a frontage on State Road 29. So the way I'm reading that is wherever this mining operation is, it's already spoiled the land, and that's the land that can be used, not to exceed the areas for villages of up to 500 each. Is that the way that reads? MS. RYAN: Well, I think that one of the concerns about having it even focused on an area where you have a former mine pit is that the development doesn't just impact the development footprint. You're going to have to be providing roads to get out there. There are going to be impacts from that. And also impacts to the environment from intensifying that use from any current uses to a new town. Lighting, you know, light pollution, noise pollution, those sorts of things. So we see it as an impact not just to the footprint but to essentially the entire area. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. Any other public speakers on Policy 4? Group 4 policies. Okay, Allen? MR. REYNOLDS: Good morning. For the record, Allen Reynolds with Wilson-Miller, representing the Eastern Collier Property Owners. In your discussion about the open space as it relates to the acreage cap, I want to make sure that the -- that it's clear. A common understanding of growth management plans is that you have to read the policies in their entirety to get the final interpretation. So arguably you have to go to a couple of places to get to the conclusion. The conclusion is, is that any open space within an SRA does counts towards the 45,000-acre cap. And the way that you get there is if you look at Page 59, under Policy 4.10, it makes it clear that open space is part of an SRA under that particular policy. If you go to Page 56, you'll see -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Wait. Page 64 February 5, 2009 MR. REYNOLDS: Go ahead. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Let's go back to 4.10. Where does it say that in 4.1 O? MR. REYNOLDS: No, I'm not on -- 4.10, you are discussing the open space as to whether or not that counts as part of the acreage cap. 4.10 is related to the public benefits. So what I'm trying to do is answer your question as to whether or not excess open space can cause you to exceed the 45,000-acre cap. I think that's where you were concerned. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, the only -- but you said -- and I'm not trying to find fault with what you're saying, I want to make sure I understand what you're saying. So you referred us to 4.10 by saying that open space is part of an SRA, right? Is that what you said? MR. REYNOLDS: Correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Is this the open space that's defined as open space? Because it's not capitalized, and so I wasn't sure what they -- it just says open space adequate to serve the forecasted population and uses within the SRA is provided. By the mere fact that the open space, which by definition shall include public and private conservation lands, undeveloped areas and designated SSA's, agriculture, water retention and management areas and recreation uses. So you're saying all those are part of the SRA. And if you cap the SRA at 45,000 acres, these then are part of that cap? MR. REYNOLDS: No, you have to read those two sentences separately. The first sentence is talking about open space within the entire RLSA overlay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. MR. REYNOLDS: Okay, so that includes SSA's, agricultural areas, those kinds of uses. Page 65 February 5, 2009 Then if you read the next sentence it says, to ensure that SRA residents have such areas proximate to their homes, open space shall also comprise a minimum of35 percent of the gross acreage of an individual SRA. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. MR. REYNOLDS: And then it goes on to say, as an incentive to encourage open space, such uses within an SRA exceeding the required 35 percent shall not be required to consume stewardship credits. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. MR. REYNOLDS: But it still counts towards the acreage. The only thing that you're -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: What about the 45,000 cap? MR. REYNOLDS: Okay. Well, if you go now to policy -- on Page 56, Policy 4.2, up at the top it says, total SRA designations shall be a maximum of 45,000 acres. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Then how does that comport with the sentences that I read where in Policy 4.19 it references to both open space and land for public benefit do not require credits. But in 4.20 it only said acreage of public benefit use does not count. Why wouldn't you say acreage for public benefit use and open space? MR. REYNOLDS: You could say that. That would be fine to say that, because it's accurate. What I'm pointing out is that it is already covered by other policies. If you want to make it, you know, clear to put it in there, that would be perfectly fine. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, so the 45 -- MR. REYNOLDS: I just didn't want you to think that the open space feature allowed you to go beyond 45,000 acres of SRA's, because it doesn't. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, that's fine. And if that clarification be added to 4.20, that does help if we were to use the Page 66 February 5, 2009 45,000 acres as a cap in lieu of the credits. MR. REYNOLDS: Yeah, I think that would be a good suggestion. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Thank you. MR. REYNOLDS: You're welcome. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Before we go to the young lady who's been waiting all this time to talk with us, is there any other Group 4 policies? Tom, you jumped up. MR. JONES: I did. And I'd like to make this comment as a representative of a landowner in Eastern Collier, not on behalf of the committee, in may. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. MR. JONES: And the only reason I'm jumping up here is because my colleague and friend Russell Priddy is not here today. And I think with respect to any comments made to the area of critical state concern, he would have been out of his chair rather quickly, because he and his wife's family, with the exception of approximately 300 acres, all their landholdings are within the area of critical state concern. And when the initial program was set up, it was voluntary, it is incentive based. We also recognize that even though there is an area of critical state concern designation, it does not preclude development within the area of critical state concern, when it was established or even today. Recognizing that, when we went through the NRI scoring and those types of exercises in the initial program for three years to set up the initial program over a three-year period of time, there were areas that were deemed suitable for potential development under the criteria that was established. Recognizing that there are open designated areas within the area of critical state concerns, we set up criteria that, you know, it had to be Page 67 February 5, 2009 developed with credits generated from with inside the area of critical state concern. So we did to an extent -- we acknowledged that there are concerns with that area, but we also recognize that people have legal rights to develop within the area of critical state concern under that designation that was established by the state. If anybody -- if anybody wishes to propose carte blanche no development within the area of critical state concern, then I think one, you have to address the statute itself which does allow for it. And secondly, on behalf of landowners within the area of critical state concern, if you're going to say they can't develop their properties, then I think the second part of the sentence needs to be how are you going to compensate those landowners within the area of critical state concern? Because now you're not talking about a voluntary incentive-based program, now you're talking about a regulatory program that has stripped the ability of people to develop lands that they have rights to develop today. What we attempted to do back -- from the committee's perspective what we've attempted to do is try to dis-incentivize development within the area of critical concern through the creation of the agricultural preservation credits. That's how we're trying to keep it in line with a voluntary incentive-based program. And as I said earlier in my comments, that 2.6 was developed among conversations of a number of landowners who felt yeah, it probably is enough. Now, did we all sign papers and say it was and we weren't going to do it? No, that didn't happen. But we think we reached a consensus where it does incentivize -- or it does dis-incentivize development. So thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, Tom, we don't want to leave any stone unturned. MR. JONES: I'm sure you don't. Page 68 February 5, 2009 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And the stone ofMr. Priddy, and he has very exciting discussions with us, so -- MR. JONES: He certainly does. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- you can tell him the next time he shows up, we can certainly go back and revisit his concerns on this policy, because we don't want to leave anybody out of the picture. MR. JONES: And I can appreciate that, but I just couldn't sit still with Russell not being here and making some comment with respect to Mr. Midney's comments. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, you and he certainly have different styles. MR. JONES: Yes, we do. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So with that, I think we're going to end the Group 4 policy discussions. Did you have something else you wanted to add, Bill? MR. McDANIEL: I did, sir. And if you would like, this has to do more from a public perspective than the committee's perspective, and it relates directly to a comment that you made to Nicole while she was up there with respect to the existing mining operation. It is on Mr. Priddy's land. And I would caution you that there are a lot of perspectives as to what spoiled in fact means in relationship to a particular mining operation. There's no one that will argue the fact that there are impacts that are associated with it, but I just would respectfully request consideration with definitions in relationship to especially for me something that's near and dear to my heart. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, no problem. Thank you, Bill. Now, for the patience, and you'll have to state your name for the record. And I know you've been very patient attending our meetings, and I want to thank you. I hope they've been enjoyable, but I doubt -- I wouldn't want to go that far. MS. HIRSCH: I like talking here. Page 69 February 5, 2009 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Your issue is one that's going to be coming up, and I understand you won't be able to be here. It's Policy 5.7, which is a policy that gets into the issue of the dark skies and lighting. So please go ahead. MS. HIRSCH: Dorothy Hirsch. And I enjoy watching you and listening to you, and thank you for your service, actually. I won't be able to be here, honestly, because I will be with my daughter while she has another round of surgery for her breast cancer, so I honestly can't be here. But it brings me here all the same. I started to get interested in night light or dark sky about a year ago and started to study it, its effect on human health and wildlife health. There's a great deal of scientific data out there that is beginning to lead to the conclusion that light at night affects the circadian rhythm of both humans and wildlife. F or humans this means that our ability for our brain to make melatonin, which is very important for our sleep, is disrupted. And that in turn disrupts our hormone levels, potentially causing breast cancer and prostate cancer in humans. And these studies for the last year have been increasing and so has the science. So my concern is that we have an opportunity here to look at these new communities that will be developed, and put in lighting that not only reduces light pollution in the sky, or certainly half this country can no longer see the Milky Way at night. But more importantly, the health of human beings, as these studies become more and more obvious that may be very prove-able that they are increasing in younger adults breast cancer and prostate cancer. So I would ask you to set a standard that when a new town is built, that we look at the International Dark Sky Organization and whatever standard it may have out on an international level. And this translates all the way back to lighting in our neighborhoods, whether it's from streetlights that light trespass onto Page 70 February 5, 2009 our homes and the side of our homes and into our windows. Light should be directed where it's going to be used, not where it's not going to be used. As well as new homes that are being built are lighting up their homes like hotels. And increasing the light around them, shining into others homes. Also, you can take it into the business communities, especially where we're starting to put condos on top of those, the exposure that these people have to a great deal of night life -- light, excuse me. Also, shift workers, I mean, that's a whole issue that is really being investigated, that people that are exposed to work at night are definitely having increases of both breast cancer and prostate cancer. But of course what you can really effect is the light that is out in the neighborhoods and on the streets and in the business communities. And I will leave one article that came out from Science News, and it's just touching on the issue. And I will leave that for a quick read for you. You can go to internationaldarkskies.org and they have lots of information, including a lot of the standards that we could just use right from their website. The other issues, you can also Google breast cancer and nightlight, and there's an enormous amount of information on that that will pop up. If you can take the intense technical reading, it's very informative and very scary. The other issue, when you talk about animal life which I feel is very important, whether it's also down to insects, they are being affected. And when animals and insects are being affected, as well as the little sea turtles, we know that it's going to have some kind of effect on humans. The little night -- the flies that light up at night are actually disappearing because of so much light. Their little lights are how they mate, so they're greatly being affected. The other issue is you might want to -- if you can check out the November issue of National Geographic. I mean, there are a lot of Page 71 February 5, 2009 prestigious magazines and newspapers that are now picking up on this. But they have a very widespread article on wildlife health. They do touch on human health, but they have a wonderful article on wildlife health. So again, I would just ask you to please put this standard forward to our commissioners. It is the future. I think we will move there. And it will save on energy, if! must throw that out there as well. We waste -- residential and business placed an incredible amount of energy misdirecting light and having more light than they need. So we can reduce our carbon footprint out there by a huge, huge number. You would be surprised. But I thank you so much for letting me speak. Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, we really appreciate your pointing this issue out, because it is coming up on Policy 5.7. And by telling us today, we will have ample time to go look at internationaldarksky.org, and we will probably have a lively discussion when we get to Policy 5.7 because of you, so thank you very much. MS. HIRSCH: Well, thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Appreciate it. Anybody have any questions? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: If there are no other questions, we need a motion to continue this meeting to February 20th at 1 :00 in the afternoon at the community developmental services building on Horseshoe Drive. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: So moved. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Vigliotti made the motion. Is there a motion? COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Second. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Second by Mr. Midney. This meeting is hereby continued to that date. All in favor, signify by saying aye. Page 72 February 5, 2009 COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Aye. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Aye. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Aye. COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: Aye. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye. COMMISSIONER CARON: Aye. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I assumed you all would. So we're done. ***** There being no further business for the good of the County, the meeting was adjourned by order of the Chair at 11:49 a.m. COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION MARK STRAIN, Chairman These minutes approved by the board on presented or as corrected as Transcript prepared on behalf of Gregory Reporting Service, Inc., by Cherie' R. Nottingham. Page 73