BCC Minutes 01/31/2011 S (EAR)
BCC-GMP
EAR
ADOPTION
HEARING
MINUTES
SUBMITTED BY MARCIA KENDALL
COMPREHENSIVE PLANNING
GROWTH MANAGEMENT DIVISION
BOARD APPROVAL
MARCH 8, 2011
ITEM #2B
January 31,2011
TRANSCRIPT OF THE 2011 EVALUATION AND APPRAISAL
REPORT (E.A.R.)
MEETING OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
Naples, Florida
January 31, 2011
LET IT BE REMEMBERED, that the Collier County
Commissioners, in and for the County of Collier, having conducted
business herein, met on this date at 9:00 a.m. in SPECIAL SESSION in
Building "F" of the Government Complex, East Naples, Florida, with
the following members present:
Chairman: Fred Coyle
Jim Coletta
Donna Fiala
Tom Henning (After lunch recess)
Georgia Hiller
ALSO PRESENT:
Jeffrey Klatzkow, County Attorney
Heidi Ashton-Cicko, Assistant County Attorney
Mike Bosi, Comprehensive Planning Manager
Page 11
January 31, 2011
SPECIAL AGENDA
~
JANUARY 31, 2011
9:00 a.m.
Growth Management Plan
2011 Evaluation and Appraisal Report (E.A.R.)
Adoption Hearing
Fred W. Coyle, BCC Chairman Commissioner, District 4
Jim Coletta, BCC Vice Chairman, District 5, CRAB Vice-Chairman
Donna Fiala, BCC Commissioner, District 1, CRAB Chairman
Georgia Hiller, BCC Commissioner, District 2
Tom Henning, BCC Commissioner, District 3
NOTICE: ALL PERSONS WISHING TO SPEAK ON ANY AGENDA ITEM
MUST REGISTER PRIOR TO SPEAKING. SPEAKERS MUST REGISTER
WITH THE COUNTY MANAGER PRIOR TO THE PRESENTATION OF THE
AGENDA ITEM TO BE ADDRESSED.
COLLIER COUNTY ORDINANCE NO. 2003-53, AS AMENDED, REQUIRES
THAT ALL LOBBYISTS SHALL, BEFORE ENGAGING IN ANY LOBBYING
ACTIVITIES (INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO, ADDRESSING THE
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS), REGISTER WITH THE CLERK TO
THE BOARD AT THE BOARD MINUTES AND RECORDS DEPARTMENT.
REQUESTS TO ADDRESS THE BOARD ON SUBJECTS WHICH ARE NOT ON
THIS AGENDA MUST BE SUBMITTED IN WRITING WITH EXPLANATION
TO THE COUNTY MANAGER AT LEAST 13 DAYS PRIOR TO THE DATE OF
THE MEETING AND WILL BE HEARD UNDER "PUBLIC PETITIONS."
Page 1 of2
January 31, 2011
Page I 2
January 31,2011
ANY PERSON WHO DECIDES TO APPEAL A DECISION OF THIS BOARD
WILL NEED A RECORD OF THE PROCEEDINGS PERTAINING THERETO,
AND THEREFORE MAY NEED TO ENSURE THAT A VERBATIM RECORD
OF THE PROCEEDINGS IS MADE, WHICH RECORD INCLUDES THE
TESTIMONY AND EVIDENCE UPON WHICH THE APPEAL IS TO BE BASED.
ALL REGISTERED PUBLIC SPEAKERS WILL RECEIVE UP TO THREE (3)
MINUTES UNLESS THE TIME IS ADJUSTED BY THE CHAIRMAN.
IF YOU ARE A PERSON WITH A DISABILITY WHO NEEDS ANY
ACCOMMODATION IN ORDER TO PARTICIPATE IN THIS PROCEEDING,
YOU ARE ENTITLED, AT NO COST TO YOU, TO THE PROVISION OF
CERTAIN ASSISTANCE. PLEASE CONTACT THE COLLIER COUNTY
FACILITIES MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT LOCATED AT 3301 EAST
TAMIAMI TRAIL, NAPLES, FLORIDA, 34112, (239) 774-8380; ASSISTED
LISTENING DEVICES FOR THE HEARING IMPAIRED ARE AVAILABLE IN
THE COUNTY COMMISSIONERS' OFFICE.
1. Invocation and Pledge of Allegiance
2. 2011 Evaluation and Appraisal Report (Adoption Hearing)
3. Adjourn
INQUIRIES CONCERNING CHANGES TO THE BOARD'S AGENDA SHOULD
BE MADE TO THE COMPREHENSIVE PLANNING DEPARTMENT.
239-252-2387
Page 2 of2
January 31, 2011
Page I 3
January 31, 2011
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Ladies and gentlemen, the Board of County
Commissioners' Growth Management Plan Evaluation and Appraisal
Report and Adoption hearing is now in session.
(Commissioner Henning is absent.)
Item # 1
INVOCATION AND PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Would you please stand for the Pledge of
Allegiance.
(Pledge of Allegiance was recited in unison.)
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Thank you.
Item #2
2011 EVALUATION AND APPRAISAL REPORT (ADOPTION HEARING)
Okay, Mike, let's see what you've got here.
MR. BOSI: Good morning, Commissioners. Mike Bosi
with -- Comprehensive Planning Manager, Land Development Services
and Growth Management Division.
Today we are going to provide review for the Evaluation and
Appraisal Report. It's the EAR, affectionally known with an acronym
of our planning circles. It's required by Florida Statutes 163.391. And
it requires -- basically it's state law. It says that every jurisdiction,
every county, every incorporated municipality that has a Growth
Management Plan has to evaluate that Growth Management Plan on a
seven-year basis.
Page I 4
.
January 31,2011
The EAR, its design. It's designed to evaluate the performance of
the elements of the GMP, provide for opportunities to arrive upon the
successes and some of the shortcomings that may be identified based
upon the data and analysis that's collected to provide those evaluations.
It also provides opportunity for the local plan for the GMP to
respond to changes in the federal, state or the regional planning
requirements.
And one of the things, and it's really important, and was stressed to
both the EAC and the CCPC at their workshops in their adoption
hearings is it's a two-part process. We're at the final stages of the first
part of the process. It's where we make the assessments of what needs
to be changed, where we raise our hands to say this policy, this objective
within this element, we think we can do better, we intend to make an
amendment to this policy or to this objective.
But the specificity of what that change is going to be is not needed
at this stage, the exact language of the revised policy objective within
the GMP. That's at a later stage. This is simply the time where we are
raising our hands to the Department of Community Affairs and to the
community and saying within the elements of the Growth Management
Plan here are the objectives and the policies that we propose that are
going to be changed.
How did we get here?
It started last -- or it started 2009, in August, and we met with at the
Regional Planning Council with the various local jurisdictions, and they
went over the EAR process in general, but also some of the new areas of
scrutiny and new requirements that the DCA is going to look for. And
the new areas of scrutiny are basically couched under climate change,
which I'll get into a little bit later, in terms of how we've made those
changes.
We also had an intergovernmental meeting. And this is a little
outdated acronym, CDS, or now Growth Management, where we
Page I 5
January 31, 2011
invited all those local jurisdictions, where we talked about what we
heard the DCA tell us that we needed to do and we kind of agreed upon
the data and analysis that was going to be required to make these
evaluations.
One of the things is the cities within Collier County will be a year
later that they're required to do their EAR. And they will take a lot of
that data and analysis that's provided for within the books that you have
before you, and that will be the basis for some of the -- for some of the
conclusions that they have in the relationship between how the county's
plans intermesh with the plans of the municipalities.
In December of2009 the board had entered into an agreement with
the Department of Community Affairs of the eight major issues that we
were going to make the evaluation against, the eight areas where we
thought that where extra scrutiny would be applied to make sure that our
elements were satisfying those individual components.
And then we started the public planning process. The public
planning process took place with three individual separate meetings at
three distinct areas within the county. We had the North Regional
Park, we had the age extension offices out at Immokalee, just above
Orangetree, and then we had this very room. It was the 25th, February
23rd and March 15th.
And the comments that we heard from the public -- and it was a
wide range. We didn't ask -- we didn't put a presentation and say here
is the individual objectives and the policies of anyone element. We
just basically asked the people to come and say what is it that they see
right within the community in terms of growth -- within grown and
managing growth and what they felt we could do a better job at.
And from those comments we received, those make up the bulk of
chapter one within your book. And they're wide ranges of subject
areas. Some are programmatic, some are actually legislative policies
that are applicable to individual elements within the Growth
Page I 6
January 31, 2011
Management Plan.
Between April and July of2010, staff basically went through,
made the evaluations upon the individual objectives in the policies
within each of the elements. A lot of collaborative effort back and forth
between the various divisions underneath the County Manager's office
to make these evaluations and get the draft proposals of what objectives
and policies we thought were appropriate to change.
And then August 11 we had our first of our workshops, and that
was with the EAC. And the EAC reviewed the assessments that staff
had made, had heard from some of the outside groups in terms of the
areas they thought was appropriate and needed to be changed.
And then on August 25th and the 27th we had two full days of
workshops with the Planning Commission where we -- the Planning
Commission evaluated staffs assessment, evaluated the comments from
the EAC, provided further direction to us to where we were on the right
path or we weren't on the right path, or they'd like to see us maybe take
the approach or the assessment in a different direction or consider a
different factor.
After the conclusion of those workshops, we took the book,
modified the book upon the direction that the Planning Commission had
made to us, and the EAC, noted where they had wanted and requested
specific further changes. We sent that book to the Department of
Community Affairs, the Department of Transportation, all of the state
reviewing agencies, the South Florida Water Management District, for
them to review the assessment that we had made upon our Growth
Management Plan and what was being culled out within those books.
On October 15th, we received a letter back from the Department of
Community Affairs. We also had comments from the South Florida
Water Management District and the Florida Department of
Transportation. Those letters are provided behind the CCPC staff report
which was in the introduction portion of your EAR books.
Page I 7
January 31,2011
On November 3rd, we had the adoption hearing with the EAC.
Basically we took the information that we had heard from the
workshops from both the EAC and the CCPC, the issues that were
additionally raised by the state agencies, and modified those books and
presented it to the EAC. The EAC provided a unanimous
recommendation to the Board of County Commissioners to transmit the
EAR document to the Department of Community Affairs.
On December 7th, 2010 we had the EAR adoption with the
Planning Commission. Same procedure, whereas the books were
updated with one additional step, with the results of the EAC meeting
from that November 3rd.
The Planning Commission as well offered a unanimous
recommendation to the Board of County Commissioners to transmit the
EAR document as presented.
There is one area that -- and we'll get into when we get into the
Conservation and Coastal Element of the Growth Management Plan.
There's a couple of policies within that specific document where there's
divergent recommendations from either staff and the Planning
Commission or the EAC and the Planning Commission, and we'll ask
you -- and Michele Mosca will go into a little bit more detail about that,
because she's the staffer who has coordinated all those appropriate
changes. And she'll highlight and seek the direction and the will of the
board for which avenue you'd like us to pursue. But we'll frame those
in a little bit more specific way when we get to the CCME Element of
the Growth Management Plan a little bit later on.
As with that, today's books have been updated to reflect the CCPC
and the EAC's recommendation.
The way that it works now is if the board would see fit to adopt and
transmit this EAR to the Department of Community Affairs, the
Department of Community Affairs would have 60 days to make the
evaluation, to see that the proposed changes are in line with the statutory
Page I 8
January 31, 2011
and regulatory fabric that an EAR is supposed to satisfy. And once
they would find that in compliance, then that's when actually the real
work begins.
At that period of time we would start drafting the changes to the
specific language within the element for the objectives and the policies.
And then from staffs original assessment, we'll move on to the
transmittal hearings. It's just like any other Growth Management Plan,
we'll have a cycle of transmittal hearings with the EAC, the Planning
Commission and then the Board of County Commissioners just so you
can review the specificity of the language that is being proposed for
change.
And then after sending that to the Department of Community
Affairs, it comes back to the county and we'll have another round of
adoption hearings.
So this is the end of the first phase, and then we will move on to the
second phase. So still, opportunities will be provided for individuals,
for outside groups to be able to comment upon the process.
And one of the things that I wanted to mention to the Board of
County Commissioners was a request from the Planning Commission.
And what they had specifically requested with staff was before we
started that transmittal hearing that we have a workshop with the
Planning Commission to go over the specificity of the language that's
being proposed, so when we get to that transmittal hearing that we are in
line and we are in agreement with these were indeed the changes that we
had signaled during the EAR.
So there's an additional step for additional opportunity for public
involvement and for the Planning Commission, your local LP A, to
provide, you know, concrete direction that we are indeed changing in
the manner that we had suggested within these books.
Just to give a real brief overview, how would the Growth
Management Plan -- it's comprised of individual elements. What are
Page I 9
January 31, 2011
those elements? It's Transportation, Capital Improvements, your
Future Land Use Element, your Public Utilities. All those larger
issues -- all of those elements have goals that are contained within those.
And those goals are supported by objectives. And those objectives are
those larger policies underneath the goals that are attempted to bring us
into conformity with whatever the goal is for that individual element.
And then those objectives are supported by policies. So it's three
layers. You've got a goal and then it's supported by the objective and
then the individual policies support those objectives. And that's
structurally how -- that structure designed how the staff went about
making the evaluations for each of the individual elements.
The conclusion from staffs perspective is the Growth
Management Plan as it stands is a working document. It's working as
it's intended. There aren't major holes or gaps in the GMP but there are
definite areas that we can improve upon.
How did staff formulate this conclusion? Well, it's a lot of what
we've done since the last time we've had our EAR meeting. The
Horizon Study, the county's energy audit, the development of the
interactive growth model, the Master Mobility Plan. All these
planning efforts that have been incorporated, have been initiated by the
county, have been all designed to help bring the future into better focus
and identify the areas that need to be addressed.
We all look out into that future. Ever since I've been here working
with Comprehensive Planning we've been trying to get a handle upon
what is the growth that's going to be provided for within our Growth
Management -- or what is the regulatory allowances that are provided
for and how do we satisfy the capital requirements to satisfy the
demands that that growth is -- that allowance for growth is going to be
provided for. And that's an ongoing and continuous effort that this
county has made over the past seven years, and continues to make as we
move forward.
Page 110
January 31, 2011
The Master Mobility Plan, which I believe you're going to hear
presentations from within the next six to eight months, the progress that
takes that focus a little bit more.
You know, I was a staff coordinator for the Horizon Study, the
second phase, where we went out and we talked to the public about what
they would like to see over the next 20,25, 30 years as the county
matures. And one of the things I would like to talk to the public about
is like, when you're on a boat and you're looking out onto the horizon,
you've got a telescope, and that first time you look through it it's a little
bit fuzzy to see what that horizon is. And as you adjust it it becomes
(sic) in a little bit more clear.
And I kind of think that that analogy is really appropriate for what
this county government has been trying to do over the past seven years
since the last EAR, is try to bring that future into a little bit better of a
focus, so with that understanding we can be much more informed to
hopefully make the best decision and make the most wise utilization of
the public investments that we have within our infrastructure within the
services that we provide.
One other thing that has helped staff draw that conclusion is, look
at the major changes to the Growth Management Plan in the last decade.
The rural Land Stewardship Area, which is a TDR program. The Rural
Fringe Mixed Use District, which is another TDR program. The
Immokalee Area Master Plan, which has been designed to try to bring
the concepts of bringing work and residents and more mobility options
to a community that seriously needs those type of opportunities to have
options to be able to get around with, not only just people, but goods as
well.
All these have been strongly entrenched with the principles of
smart growth. Where you have a mix of your land uses, where you're
trying to bring the goods and services closer to the individuals where
they live for increases in efficiencies. To preserve open space, you
Page 111
January 31, 2011
know, farmland, the natural beauty and the critical environmental areas.
And provide a variety of transportation choices.
If there's one thing that I would say in terms of our land use
planning and policies, that maybe we haven't done as great of a job as
we possibly could is providing those transportation options to our
individual residents.
But one of the things that you can see is part of the support
documentations to the climate change talk about the ridership of the
CAT system, a CAT system that started out in its first year in 2001,
2002 with just under 200,000 people, where in the past four years the
average ridership has averaged over a million for four consistent years,
which shows a growing traction within the opportunities of mobility
options that this county is providing its citizens.
Another area that is strongly enriched with the Eastern Lands in the
Rural Fringe Mixed Use District is creating walkable neighborhoods,
creating that range of housing opportunities for individuals. Not
everyone is in the same situation within their life situation, whether they
need three bedrooms, you know, and a backyard. Some people, you
know -- some people transition because of their situations to where
they're empty nesters, and we have a large portion in the expected
requirement population. So the housing needs for that segment of our
population is different than the housing segment from the working
segment.
So housing options is one of the other things that we try to promote
within our Growth Management Plan as well.
Other actions: The Randall Boulevard -- the adoption of the
Randall Boulevard commercial subdistrict at the curve in Immokalee
Road. That was designed in order to bring goods and services closer to
the individuals in the Estates, to provide those options, to provide less of
a dependency upon the long trips to get basic goods and services.
When we adopted the ten-year water supply, it establishes a much
Page 112
January 31, 2011
stronger link between the availability of water and the growth
projections and trying to make a better tie between the allowances that
we have within our Growth Management Plan and the resources that are
available to provide for those.
And also our review of the AUIR and the CIE in on capital
facilities and the levels of service, it strongly indicates that the standards
the community has deemed appropriate, they're being met. But one of
the things in the -- because I'm also the project manager for the
AUIR/CIE, and I've been for the past almost now five years. It's a
constant evaluation that this county is making. what is the appropriate
levels of service that our community is deserving for whatever the
commodity may be, what are the costs to provide those services and
what is it that those levels should be appropriately.
We have that discussion with this community on a yearly basis,
and we will continue to have that discussion on a yearly basis.
The GMP objectives in the policy expressed in the elements,
they're the basis for the regulations within our Land Development Code
and they dictate for how development moves forward.
So these larger policies and objectives that we're going to talk
about, they have a direct bearing, because the specificity of how these
policies are spelled out are manifested within the Land Development
Code. So what we have here, what we say is important is very
important to articulate, because when we want to incorporate a land
development policy, code or regulation, it has to have a tie, it has to
have a direct rational nexus to what's contained within our Growth
Management Plan to be able to be found legally sufficient to justify that
type of a standard, of a regulation.
The GMP provides the framework not only for the individual land
uses that are assembled, but it's more far-reaching in its influence. You
know, when people think about the Growth Management plan, you just
think about how land -- the process of land assembly and development.
Page 113
January 31, 2011
But our Growth Management Plan is so much more sophisticated and so
much more far-reaching than just simply that type of a document.
The GMP dictates the measures for protection of our wellfields, of
our water supply, how stormwater management is coordinated, how
services are to be delivered, and to what standard the community desires
those services. From law enforcement to libraries to public utilities
and transit, they're all contained within the GMP. Economic
development, emergency management, housing, recreation,
conservation, environmental programs, they're all addressed within the
GMP.
And because of that, I think you think of the GMP as a connector.
It's the hub. It's where all the areas that I just mentioned, they're
addressed by the GMP. And as the GMP has evolved and has moved
forward, the effort that this county has put is trying to make that
interrelationship between the individual elements to be much tighter,
more efficient.
You can't separate our levels of service standards contained in the
CIE from their influence on the Economic Element. And the
competitive advantages or disadvantages that this community provide is
based upon the public infrastructures and how that bears upon the future
and the climate that we create for business creation. It has a direct
appearing (sic) upon housing and the types of the housing we provided
for, which has a direct bearing upon transportation, the systems that are
available for this county, which has a direct relationship to the climate
change and the greenhouse gas that this county emits through the
travels.
All of those things are contained and mentioned within the Growth
Management Plan. And sometimes when I think about the level of
responsibility and the sophistication that's contained within the Growth
Management Plan, it can become somewhat daunting as the
coordinator -- or as the manager for Comprehensive Planning.
Page 114
January 31,2011
But each of these elements has individual divisions in the
departments that have expert -- subject matter experts who provide that
level of specificity and expertise to be able to navigate and deal with
issues as they come up.
It's the GMP and those elements that tries to promote and
strengthen the ties in between those individual elements.
And that kind of leads us back to staffs analysis and the
recommendations of the EAC and the CCPC and the goal that we're
hoping to gain from the BCC at today's meeting. To borrow a phrase
from the GMP, we're seeking concurrency from the Board of County
Commissioners.
But what we've asked the BCC to review in the EAR adoption
books that are before you, that provides the direction for the areas that
are designated for future changes and modifications, and that those are
the correct areas, that those assessments that we made over at the public
planning process, of the three meetings we had, of the workshops that
we had in the summer, of the adoption hearings that we had in the fall
and late winter with the Planning Commission and the EAC. All of
those hours that we spent analyzing, assessing these individual elements
as they're proposed, that these are the right and the correct assessments.
And also if there's another area that the board would like us to see us
move into that maybe we haven't touched upon.
The EAR books presented for adoption address only those policies
where we're being recommended for changes. For your benefit, I didn't
provide you a copy of the workshop books. The workshop books is
every individual policy, every objective contained in the Growth
Management Plan and assessment of each one of those policies to
whether they need to be changed or not changed. Those are going to be
provided to the Department of Community Affairs as backup
documentation to this EAR book to support how we arrived upon the
individual conclusions that are contained within this book.
Page 115
January 31, 2011
The policies and the objectives are designed to deal with macro
issues, as I described. The more specific where we are in the details of
the policy, the less flexibility there is in providing -- in establishing and
modifying the implementation or the application of that policy. So we
tried to have our objectives and the policies clearly articulate what they
are trying to accomplish but not to provide too much specificity towards
where it makes it cumbersome when conditions may change or policies
may change.
Which finally leads us to today and how we decide to move
forward. The CCPC recognize, and the EAC recognize, that chapter
one and chapter three were the support documentation, that really it was
the data and the analysis that supports chapter two, which is the review
of the individual elements. And staff was going to seek a direction
from the Board of County Commissioners.
We will provide a general summary of the element and some of the
major changes that are contained within the proposed changes for the
element and then ask the Board of County Commissioners if they would
have any questions upon any further objectives or policies being
suggested. And we can do that element by element, or we could
approach it in any manner that the board would see appropriate.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Members of the board, do you have any
preference?
Previously what we have tried to do is to separate these things into
levels of importance: The things that require policy decision by the
board, the things that require additional funding appropriations by the
board, and those areas where there is a possible disagreement between
the Environmental Advisory Committee and the Collier County
Planning Commission and the staff, and then finally those items that are
merely minor revisions which do not change the intent of the legislation.
Ifwe were to ask you to do that, with that sort of hierarchy, would
you have a problem pulling that information out and presenting it?
Page 116
January 31, 2011
MR. BOSI: No, I don't believe so. And one of the things that
was provided within the EAR books, there's a summary, there's a
summary upon each element of the changes that are being suggested.
And staff will be able to go through relatively quickly just an
assessment of the summary, pull out the changes that are policy in
nature, and speak to those in the hierarchy that you had suggested.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: The other thing we might consider is that
when you're talking about format changes or updates, simple changes
like putting in new organizations or new acronyms that have surfaced
and putting in appropriate references to other pages or sections of the
document, can we ask that you and/or the division head to certify to us
and place on the record that if we were to approve those things, we
would not be changing the intent of the Growth Management Plan?
MR. BOSI: Yes, I believe so. And you will also have that
opportunity during the transmittal and the adoption hearings to confirm
that there are no substantive policy changes other than the ones that you
are directing us to do.
And it almost -- it sets up -- it's a perfect transition or segue to the
last area that I wanted to speak about, and that relates to the direction
that the board had provided to Comprehensive Planning staff on the
25th of January regarding the Golden Gate Area Master Plan.
Within your books, within that individual element of the Golden
Gate Area Master Plan there are a number of procedural changes. But
there's also a number of policy changes that we were deferring to the
public planning process of the restudy.
Based upon the direction that we provided to hold off on that, we
don't want to create a situation where we're telling the Department of
Community Affairs that these policies need to be changed but we don't
know when -- and we're going to initiate the Golden Gate Area Master
Plan, but we don't know when those changes -- when that process is
going to start.
Page 117
January 31,2011
So what I have done is I had pulled out any suggested change in
that element, anything that suggests -- that is a policy change, we're
going to defer -- we're not going to suggest that that's being changed at
this period of time. The only changes that we would suggest for the
Golden Gate Area Master Plan are ones where it's a date that maybe that
we're changing, or the name of the reference, if it's updating a
procedural aspect. But nothing of substance and nothing of policy
would be suggested within that individual element.
So based upon your con -- we will not, and we will certify from the
County Manager down throughout his organization that if there is
no -- if there's no direction from the Board of County Commissioners to
make a policy change, then at that transmittal hearing, whether it be 12
months from now when we start the process again, we will not suggest
any policy changes other than the ones that are being directed to us
today.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. One other question. And Nick,
you might have to get involved in this. Just one request as we go
through this process. The growth management legislation that is
already in existence, and other growth management legislation that is
moving through the process and likely will be enacted this next session
affects a number of elements of our Growth Management Plan.
And that document, that legislation, and a question that was asked
by DCA in their most recent response in October, October the 10th, I
believe it was, they ask a question: If decisions by local government to
decrease density in the urban area unreasonably reduced the value of
property for property owners.
The obvious intent of that question is to support the
implementation of the growth management legislation which
encourages increased efficiency -- increased density in the urban areas,
predominantly in the coastal areas.
That runs counter to our concerns about the possibility of
Page 118
January 31, 2011
evacuating large numbers of people during a hurricane, and it is also
inhibited by our road network along the coastal area, which really
cannot be expanded anymore, or at least to any significant extent.
So I don't want to get into a discussion now about that, but as we go
through this process, if you would be cognizant of the effects of current
and pending growth management legislation on our decisions today, it
would be helpful if you would bring that up.
MR. BOSI: Most certainly. And that comment from the
Department of Community Affairs specifically applied to the urban
area, the coastal high hazard area, meaning the area that we've
designated within the map that has a one unit density reduction because
of that.
The staffs conclusion was that -- the staffs conclusion was that it
has not prohibited, because of the maturity of the development within
that area, it hasn't prohibited the individual rights of the property owners
within the coastal high hazard area.
But I understand the request, and it most certainly will be applied
in terms of how 697 in that focus that the DCA has in the potential
modifications and changes to the Growth Management Plan regulation
and statutes, how that fits, we will be very cognizant to make sure we
point those out.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. And I did not, Nick, see a
specific discussion about the limitations of our transportation network
along the coastal high hazard area, with specific statements that we can't
build more roads there. We have expanded them, we've widened them,
we've improved the intersections as much as we can do. There's
always room for improvements. But we can't build more east-west and
north-south roads in that corridor.
And I did not see it, I might have missed it, but I don't see a
description of that particular limitation in our area. So my concern is if
we're forced to implement the provisions of the Growth Management
Page 119
January 31, 2011
Bill, it creates very serious and prohibitively costly solutions. So I just
need you to be cognizant of that as we go through that process.
Thank you. I didn't mean to take so long, but --
MR. BOSI: One other thing. Over the weekend I received an
e-mail from Mr. James Flanagan, mentioning he was not going to be
able to be here today. I put his comments that he had sent within his
e-mail alongside you. It's a reiteration of the letter that's supplied
within chapter one of your books that you have, where -- it's a ten-page
letter where he articulates a number of areas. It's really the high end
points from those individual letters. I won't read it into the record, but
it has been supplied and will be part of the official record.
I just wanted to point that out to the Board of County
Commissioners.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: And who is James Flanagan?
MR. BOSI: An individual member within the Estates community
who has shown up. He was at each of the individual public
participation meetings, has been to a number of the EA -- a concerned
citizen, I believe.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay, good. Thank you.
MR. BOSI: And with that, and based upon the direction, the first
element of the Growth Management Plan would be the CIE Element.
And I would suggest that we would take the elements as they're
presented within the individual books, if that's the -- what I heard from
the Board of County Commissioners.
And with that, Mr. Corby Schmidt from Comprehensive Planning
will provide just a brief introduction and kind of the -- the policies that
are being suggested, the changes that are substantive in nature.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay, thank you.
MR. SCHMIDT: Good morning, Commissioners. For the
record, Corby Schmidt.
This Capital Improvement Element falls on your list of priorities
Page I 20
January 31, 2011
rather low, because nearly all of the suggested changes that we've heard
either from the public or internally working through staff --
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Corby, can you give us a chapter number
in our document?
MR. SCHMIDT: I certainly can.
MR. BOSI: It will be in chapter two.
MR. SCHMIDT: It is.
MR. BOSI: And it's the sixth tab in the second chapter.
MR. SCHMIDT: A county-wide assessment. Low on the page.
MR. BOSI: County-wide assessment. C.LE.
MR. SCHMIDT: And if you simply refer to the summary of
changes, the first pages in that section, you'll see that a number of the
references have to do with making small minor revisions to correctly
reference other elements, update the statutory cites or items like that.
A few decisions were made along the way, and part of the
recommendation today is in the -- I'm sorry?
COMMISSIONER HILLER: I'm just having a hard time finding
it in what you're referencing to.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: There's a couple of tabs labeled
county-wide assessment. The one that is labeled county-wide
assessment CIE is the one we're looking for.
MR. SCHMIDT: There's a dozen county-wide assessment tabs.
The CIE is the location I'm at now. All right.
And the first pages, there are those summary comments. And
quickly, one of those items that was decided that, although minor, I
would like to point out. In your Public Facilities Element and in your
sub-element such as potable water and sanitary sewer, each of those
sub-elements today has reference to the levels of service for providing
that public facility.
It also is duplicated in the Capital Improvement Element. The
Capital Improvement Element was decided to be the location to
Page I 21
January 31, 2011
centrally reference all those levels of service standards, and simply in
the out documents or in those sub-elements make reference to that
central location.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: And you're suggesting the goal should be
retained as it is?
MR. SCHMIDT: In that case, yes.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Yes, question, Commissioner.
Commissioner Hiller had her light on first.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: I need a clarification on the
section.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Commissioner Coletta?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yeah. And policy, this is on
Page 1, Summary and Recommendation Change, 2011 Evaluation and
Appraisal Report.
Policy 1.5 where it says revision related to multi-element revision
and the comprehensive effort to manage redundancy, revision related to
2010 CIE, adoption, regional parklands, lost change from 2.9 to 2.7
acres per 1,000 population, revision related to FDOT comments to the
DCA.
What were those comments that ever brought that around all the
way from there to Parks and Rec?
MR. SCHMIDT: Those are three separate comments not meant
to be grouped together. The Florida Department of Transportation
comments have no relationship with the park land comment.
The levels of service change that took place during the CIE annual
update and amendment is referenced here because it was deferred until
this point of time, that text change to the CIE itself. And the DOT
comments are separate from that.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: You're losing me on this.
MR. SCHMIDT: Well, the Florida Department of Transportation
made commentary about making sure levels of service references were
Page I 22
January 31,2011
correct for certain kinds of roads.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Okay. I understand roads,
that's the reason I brought it up. But we're talking -- it says regional
park land.
MR. SCHMIDT: No relationship between the two.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Okay, disregard what I see.
Okay, I can do that. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Just as a bit of clarification, during the
CIE hearings or workshop that we -- CIE hearings and workshop that
we had last year, the board I think unanimously agreed to reduce the
level of service for regional park land from 2.9 to 2.7 acres per 1,000
population. And we did that based on a reassessment of the needs by
the Parks and Recreation Department. They told us that that would be
sufficient to meet the recreational needs of our projected population.
And so we did reduce it at that level, to that level.
To do otherwise would have required them to expend funds to
acquire additional property. And I think all the commissioners felt that
it was inappropriate that we spend that money under the current
economic circumstances.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: So may I comment on that?
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Sure, please.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Because it gets better to where I
want to be. And I bet you two to one Commissioner Fiala's got the
same concerns.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: No, it doesn't affect you.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: We're not talking about existing
lands that are already in place, like there is in East Naples for a park that
they're going to be building in Eagle Lake, and also up there in
Orangetree dealing with the proposed park that's there. We already
have that land in reserve. So we're talking about new lands. That's
already figured in your reserve; is that correct?
Page I 23
January 31, 2011
MR. WILLIAMS: Barry Williams, Parks and Recreation
Director.
Commissioner Coletta, you're exactly right. The lands that -- you
know, Eagle Lakes obviously is in our inventory, Big Corkscrew Island
Regional Park is --
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Hers.
MR. WILLIAMS: Yes, sir, absolutely.
Big Corkscrew Island Regional Park is counted in our AUIR in the
10-year window of acquiring the land, so it's not going to affect the
acquisition of those properties at all.
Those properties being included in our AUIR are consistent with
this request to lower level of service for regional parks to 2.7.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Now also, too, the A TV park,
how does that work in? We're also back into negotiations I understand
with water management that there might be a possibility that the land at
Lake Trafford is going to be reviewed and it may be suitable.
MR. WILLIAMS: Yes, sir, there are some conversations that
continue. For the purposes of the AUIR, though, we removed the
regional park land associated with the A TV park. Just it was so unclear
that that was going to happen, we just took it out of the mix.
Another issue though for us was 640 acres, is that usable
recreational land? I mean, we've had this conversation in the last few
years about what's considered usable recreational. And the 640 acres
that we get, if we were to get it from South Florida Water Management,
how much of that acreage would actually be used for active recreational.
It probably would be much less than 640. So this current cycle of
AUIR, we just chose to remove it until that issue settled.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Just to brief the public that's
probably listening to this and wondering how we could go to the Lake
Trafford site that was deemed to be inappropriate because of solidimide
and arsenic in the soil. And the idea -- that was dropped and we were
Page I 24
January 31,2011
going forward.
We had a problem with the fact that water management never took
it to the next step as far as review goes.
And they're coming back now that there's a pending court case
where we're bringing a lawsuit against them. And our risk management
is getting involved to evaluate that land to see if it would work. So it's
back in the mix now. Before it wasn't in the mix, because there was no
evaluation being done for the safety of our citizens.
Thank you.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Commissioner Fiala?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Just another question. This is a
very simple and basic question. When you reduce it from 2.9 to 2.7
acres, not only on this but any park land whatsoever, what does that
really mean as far as people and need and so forth?
I would love to have you explain that to me.
MR. WILLIAMS: That's a good question.
In terms of -- and as you know, we're bringing a master plan
forward in the next couple of months and we think that's going to do a
better job than what probably I'm going to do to articulate that.
We have in our inventory currently in terms of regional and
community park land almost 1,700 acres. So when you're looking at 2.7
acres, 2.7 acres per 1,000 people for regional park land, that means, if
you do the math, we have 330,000 people in Collier County, so to do the
math -- and somebody help me with the math, I can't do it -- it tells you
what type of park land that you need.
I don't have it in front of me, the total acreage. But where we are
with going from 2.9 to 2.7, what we're actually doing is we're lowering
it to a point where we're able to use the park land that we have in our
inventory plus any acquisitions that we're asking for. We're basically
getting what we need versus expanding beyond, you know, with the 2.9.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: So in other words, let me see if I
Page I 25
January 31,2011
understand what you just said. At 2.7 we don't need as much land as
2.9?
MR. WILLIAMS: That is correct. But the 2.7 more accurately
reflects what we're saying that we need in the future. And again, the
consistency with the master plan that we'll be bringing forward to you.
I hope that helps.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: And how many acres did you say you
had in total?
MR. WILLIAMS: It's a little under 1,700 that we manage, that's
in our inventory, of regional and community park land.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Thanks. Okay, any other questions
concerning this item? Anything you want to tell us?
MR. SCHMIDT: No, nothing else to add. The relationship
between the CIE and those sub-elements for the public facilities, my
presentations would be quite the same, where many of the changes are
minor in nature.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: So in summary, if you could just put this
on the record each time, you have resolved any conflicts between the
Environmental Advisory Committee and the CCPC, and there are no
conflicts with reference to guidance received from DCA. If you can
just put all of that on the record at the time we are to consider this, then it
will help us focus on the exceptions.
MR. SCHMIDT: All right.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: So are those statements true for this?
MR. SCHMIDT: Those statements are true. The EAC and the
Planning Commission in the CIE had no conflict. And many other cases
as well.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Commissioner Hiller?
COMMISSIONER HILLER: I'd like to ask for some
clarification. Under objective two, financial feasibility, the statement
included herein basically says: Facility deficiencies measured against
Page I 26
January 31,2011
the adopted level of service standards will be eliminated with revenues
generated by ad valorem taxes and other intergovernmental revenues
received based on economic activity.
We are obviously in difficult economic times. What type of
deficiencies do you see that will be satisfied by these revenue sources?
MR. SCHMIDT: Just a moment.
MR. BOSI: Well, I mean, the -- the question of financial
feasibility relates -- and it specifically relates to the annual review of our
Capital Improvement Element. As yourself, your past work with the
Productivity Committee, I think you're pretty familiar with the AUIR,
the CIE in that process.
The financial feasibility is that within the five years, the CIE only
covers for five years, and within that five years the capital improvement
programs that we are going to be providing, the roads, the public utility
improvements, the new libraries, the new government office spaces, the
new parks, all of those things that we say that we've got levels of service
against, that the projects that are going to satisfy will be able to be
funded by a specific source.
And if that's -- if we can't fund those, annually we go through them
and if we can't find identified revenue, we have to modify and lower our
levels of service to say we can't attain that.
So really, the way that the capital improvement program is set up is
we depend upon our impact fees to provide for the revenue source to get
us to a portion of those improvements, and then it's general revenue that
backfills whatever deficiencies within there.
These past couple of years, because of the decrease in the impact
fee streams, have required us to put more of an onus upon that one-third
of a mill that has been allocated and set aside by the County Manager in
the budget in OMB to provide for that backfilling of debt associated
with those past capital improvement programs.
So that really -- that speaks to the financial feasibility component.
Page 127
January 31,2011
And if we make those determinations through the assessment of revenue
projections that we can't meet the levels of service that we've adopted,
those projects have to drop offbecause we can't meet them, and we have
to subsequently lower our standards as a community. And that's that
process. And that's really what that objective is.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Thank you for the clarification.
And the reason I ask that is because our priority based, as you've
outlined it in this report is, is to the -- is with respect to the maintenance
and the replacement of existing facilities, to maintain the level of service
that we know we can provide. So that still remains.
MR. BOSI: Absolutely.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: We'll focus on that. And we're
not going to do anything that we don't have the monies for.
MR. BOSI: And the CIE that we had just recently adopted on
November 15th basically was reflective of that and will continue to
reflect that recognition.
The only benefit that we've had to growth being stalled these past
couple years is those requirements for new facilities haven't been
initiated against us because we haven't added those new individuals.
But you're absolutely right, Commissioner, the way that this board
has taken action in the past has been pulling back those projects. If we
can't afford it, if we can't find the way to identify the revenue to satiate
the cost, then that project has to be postponed, and then we make the
evaluation, we either have to lower the levels of service or find an
additional revenue source. And those are the determinations that are
made in an annual basis through that AUIR/CIE process.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Because the next sentence
basically talks about increasing revenue sources. It doesn't talk about
lowering level of service.
MR. BOSI: It doesn't talk about the other, but that's the converse.
If we can't identify additional revenue sources, then it has to be a
Page I 28
January 31,2011
reduction within the levels of service because we can't afford the
standards that the community has said was appropriate.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Would it be worthwhile adding
something to that effect in this financial feasibility objective two, since
it's not addressed?
MR. CASALANGUIDA: We can look at that and you'll see that
as part of going forward. But some of these -- for the record, Nick
Casalanguida.
Some of the level of service is set by the state, as we often talk
about level of service for transportation, potable water, things like that,
you have a certain amount of requirements. When we get into those
Category A, Mike, correct me if I'm wrong, a lot of those are set and
cannot be changed. Some can, and you've done so with parks.
Certain categories you have a level of service you can't change.
Just because you don't have the money, I couldn't say to the state, I'm
going to lower the level of service past that on a facility, my specialty,
roads.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: But those I wouldn't expect we
would have any deficiencies in.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: You still do. I mean, again, area of
my expertise in the past six years, roads. You have Golden Gate
Boulevard, which is an existing deficiency . We've been telling the
state we're working on it. We're buying right-of-way, we're planning
and doing the design and we're deferring that construction until when
we have the money for it.
And it's a fine line, because they see you moving forward on that
project by buying right-of-way and doing the design, but I couldn't,
because I don't have the money --
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Are we saying we don't have
concurrency?
MR. CASALANGUIDA: Right now you don't. That's a
Page 129
January 31,2011
deficient facility right now.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Notwithstanding, the issue of
lowering level of service isn't addressed in here.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: And Mike, you're going to have to
assist me, but certain ones you can, like parks, we talked about that --
MR. BOSI: And we had provided that -- there's policies within
objective two, and one of the policies under objective two talks about
the specific actions that are available to the board, whether they be
additional revenue sources or adjustments to the level of service.
You're not seeing it because we're not suggesting a change. But in
existing policy within the CIE specifically states what the options are to
the Board of County Commissioners, both sides of the option, whether
it be additional revenue or adjustments to levels of service.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: So we're not limited to what you
have here under objective two for financial feasibility?
MR. BOSI: No, we're not limited. It's expanded upon within the
policies underneath that individual objective. It's just that one policy
that articulates that is not being suggested for a change, therefore it's not
contained within the book.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Just for clarification, before the board
made those decisions the staff prepared for us a sources and uses of
funds analysis which identified all of our uses of funds and identified a
specific source for those funds so that we would be -- would have a
financially feasible plan. And the board made a policy decision not to
increase taxes at a time when we were faced with economic uncertainty
and the rate of population growth had subsided dramatically.
So that what we did was to essentially say, and I use Parks and
Recs as an example, we're growing more slowly, we won't have to build
these facilities as quickly as we previously anticipated, so we will cut
back on the purchase of land to satisfy a level of service and we'll do it
by reducing the level of service for the future.
Page I 30
January 31,2011
So any time we want to, and any time we have the funds and we
think it is necessary to provide those services to a faster growing
population, we will always have the option of making that adjustment in
the other direction; is that correct?
MR. BOSI: Absolutely.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Commissioner Hiller?
COMMISSIONER HILLER: When the board made that decision
that you're describing, did that contemplate the other sources of revenue
beyond ad valorem and the available bondable revenues, for example,
like gas tax and the half cent sales tax?
Was the decision made not to increase taxes and fees across the
board in such a situation, or was it limited to a discussion only of
bondable revenue streams?
CHAIRMAN COYLE: We elected at that point in time not to
increase any taxes. We did bring certain fees before the board. Some
of them were accepted and others were rejected. It required an
individual determination as to the impact -- the anticipated impact upon
our population. But it did not anticipate the utilization of additional
sources of revenue that we have not yet -- that we have available but
have never used.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: So we basically took the position
that we do not propose generating additional revenues to meet
deficiencies like this by creating new fees, for example?
CHAIRMAN COYLE: That is essentially correct. Except we did
create some selected new fees on an individual basis, but nothing across
the board.
Okay? So what do you want? Do you want a motion for each of
these or --
MR. BOSI: No, I mean, we can -- if we've satisfied the question
and there's no further questions from the board, we'll just transition to
the next individual element. Because the way -- what I have on the
Page 131
January 31, 2011
visualizer screen is the resolution that's being proposed. It would be
the vehicle that would adopt this -- adopt the EAR book and transmit it
to the Board of County Commissioners. It takes a three-fifths of a vote
from the Board of County Commissioners to accept this report and
transmit it to DCA.
So unless there's a specific -- I guess, if there's specific changes
within the individual document, that's when I think would be
appropriate to have an individual vote by the Board of County
Commissioners.
But if you're satisfied with an individual element, I would suggest
we can just move on to the next.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: I hear no changes to this element, so I
guess we can proceed. Where do we go next?
MR. BOSI: The next -- and the sequence of your tabs, the next is
transportation.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay.
MR. BOSI: Mike Bosi, again, Comprehensive Planning. I was
the Comprehensive Planning Coordinator. Mike Green from our
Transportation Planning really did the bulk of the work through
coordination with Mr. Casalanguida and Mr. Feder.
The highest level of change being suggested relates to -- and you
can see it within the summary page, is the proposal of a new objective
within the Transportation Element, and that's in Objective 13.
The Planning Commission was very insistent upon making this
recommendation to the Board of County Commissioners that the county
evaluate the creation of a separate Transit Element within the Growth
Management Plan.
The thinking of the Planning Commission was that transportation,
the Transportation Element has been strictly -- not strictly, but has
been -- the primary focus of our capital improvement program and road
expansion and policies containing that within, but they wanted to see a
Page I 32
January 31, 2011
mobility, a Transit Element option be developed to provide mass transit
and other transit opportunities to -- in equal footing within the status of
the Growth Management Plan.
One of the designs, if we were to make the evaluation, present it to
the Board of County Commissioners, and the County Commissioners
decided that the development of a mobility option or a Transit Element
would be appropriate within our Growth Management Plan would be
creating specific policies that would allow for the concept of
transit-oriented design.
One of the things that the state has recognized the benefits and the
cost efficiencies contained within transit-oriented design, meaning
individual mixed use development based around the primary means of:
whether it be a bus system, whether it be a light rail, traditionally would
be within Collier County would be within the bus, the CAT system, and
the best and most effective means for how those developments could
move forward.
And what we would do within the Transit Element would be
design -- would be design the set of regulations in the models for the
private industry to respond to if they felt that the market was there for
that type of development within the county.
To me that is one of the most significant changes that is being
suggested within this EAR process, the potential development of that
Transit Element.
And one of the things that they were careful -- they don't want to tie
your hands. They didn't want to the say that Collier County must
develop this element, but they wanted us to evaluate it, to bring a report
to the Board of County Commissioners, to the Planning Commission, to
see based upon the conditions that we present to you whether it would
be a good idea for us to take that next step.
And as you read through the summary pages, you can see there are
a number of areas where we do suggest that there's going to be
Page I 33
January 31, 2011
modifications or revisions to the individual policy.
And one of the things I want to point out, the Transportation
Element, there was no disagreement, there was no divergence in terms
of the recommendations from the EAC or the Planning Commission or
the DCA or Department of Transportation. The areas that are being
suggested for change have been incorporated and been endorsed by
those individual entities that I just mentioned. So there are no areas
where we seek sort of arbitration. Like I said, that will be somewhat
contained to the CCME.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay, Mike, this particular subject could
have a substantial impact upon the cost. I have never seen a public
transportation system that pays for itself. As it gets larger, you have to
subsidize it more and more and more.
To what degree does that become a part of this policy change?
MR. BOSI: This policy change is strictly saying we're going to
explore the option of developing it. And I think that would be one of the
focuses of what we present to you.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: Again, for the record, Nick
Casalanguida.
Sir, we're cognizant of that as well, too. I think what you're doing
right now is introducing requirements or discussions about putting
things in your GMP where future development, how we plan
accordingly includes a transit component to it.
But I think you started the beginning of the meeting with saying
you want us to be very cognizant of cost. So as these things come back,
if you say you want to move forward with a transit component, the
guidance is, subject that you're not increasing cost in any way, that these
are good policies that encourage the development of transit but don't put
the burden on the ad valorem side of the house to subsidize it.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Well, not just ad valorem, it could be
anything. If you get into a bind, if you commit yourself to doing
Page I 34
January 31,2011
something that has a major cost impact on the county, you might have to
look at other sources of revenue to do that. So it wouldn't just be ad
valorem property taxes.
So it's something we have to be cognizant of and just be careful as
we go forward.
Commissioner Coletta, go ahead.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yes, thank you.
When it comes to public transportation, you've got to remember,
when you're talking about the dollar, there's only limited amount of
dollars we have to spend on transportation in general, where are you
going to get the best bang for your buck?
Undoubtedly, subsidizing, as you say, you're going to subsidize
something. You're going to subsidize more roads and put more people
on the roads in individual cars or your going to subsidize a small part of
it into public transportation where federal government and state
government pick up the majority of the cost of it. And that would
effectively move people in our system in a more effective manner than
building more roads.
So we have to balance that all out. What is the cost gain of
keeping public transportation whole and keeping it moving forward
against building more roads and creating more avenues for people to
have to drive their own personal cars, which only add to more
congestion. So that's the only thing we have to keep in mind as we
move forward.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: The cost-benefit analysis, right?
MR. CASALANGUIDA: One of my notes I've taken in the back
of the room from the beginning of the meeting is that anything we do
bringing forward has to have that cost to benefit analysis, and the
guidance is try not to increase cost where at all possible.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: And the policies you're suggesting will
not back us into a corner where we don't have flexibility to deal with it
Page I 35
January 31,2011
appropriately.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: Right now it's so broad what they're
recommending is that you look at policies for a separate Transit
Element, that you haven't -- you're not giving us any guidance to do
anything like that right now. You're going to have ample opportunity
to review that cost to benefit when we come back.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Thank you.
Commissioner Hiller?
COMMISSIONER HILLER: I'm looking at the comments that
Mr. Flanagan provided. Have you addressed his concerns with respect
to his transportation questions, of which there are quite a number?
And have his concerns been -- let me restate that.
Have the answers and the solutions to the concerns he's raised been
incorporated in what we're looking at today?
MR. CASALANGUIDA: I have not reviewed this letter, period.
I've met with Mr. Flanagan several times. So if there was a specific
question you want to refer me to, I can maybe address it if I could.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Okay. I just want to make sure
we're referring to the same document. It's the one dated November
30th, 2010, that he sent. That's what I'm looking at.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: If this is the document you're talking
about, I have met or discussed with Mr. Flanagan some of these issues,
and so has my staff.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: The first one that he brings up is on
Page 2, item eight: Connect the disconnect between transportation and
growth management. And he talks about, you know, the disconnect
between the MPO and long-range transportation's plans reflective of
approved DRIs only, and that there seems to be nothing addressing the
future population growth, future land uses and current conditions, such
as RLSA.
I'm not going to read the whole thing, because it will be a matter of
Page I 36
January 31, 2011
the record. So that would be the first question.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: You want to take that one at a time?
Yes, we have, and that's your master mobility plan. Required by
Federal Highway you have a 25-year look on your long-range
transportation plan. We've always kind of been frustrated because you
have divergence between your financially feasible and your needs plan.
You almost say, why are you adopting a long-range transportation plan
that shows your needs and feasible don't match.
So one of the things we've talked about is having a master mobility
plan that looks at those items and talks about land use or other criteria
you could use in your land development regulations or your Growth
Management Plan that tries to bring those two together.
So that's one of the avenues we're trying to move on to try and
answer that question number eight.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: The next issue that he raises is the
difference between the rural and the urban standards. And quite
frankly, that, with respect to transportation, is material, for example the
type of guttering that you use materially affects the cost. Has that been
considered in this plan? Do we have recognition that there should be
different standards?
MR. CASALANGUIDA: Well, again, you're talking about an
area of Golden Gate Estates. Not only just Golden Gate Estates but as
well as the rural lands. And it has been discussed at length.
The board always makes a decision and gets the CE for the public
meeting process, the 30, 60, 90 plans, what is the appropriate
cross-section for a certain facility and where it's located in the county.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: But are there any policies in here
that address that differing standards should be considered because of the
differences in the communities? Or is there a reason that none is
included?
MR. CASALANGUIDA: Not specifically. But we do it
Page I 37
January 31,2011
anyway. We go through that process right now. We had several
meetings with folks in the Estates for the Horizon Study where we
looked at different typical sections and what the community wants.
But a major issue, I guess, is the Golden Gate area Estates. And
they said to leave that area alone. But like I said, I'll give you a couple of
examples. The Vanderbilt Beach Road extension. It's like a suburban
cross-section. We put a multi-use pathway on one side, we didn't do
typical urban section.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Well, I understand we have the
option of doing that. I mean, if we have it as a directive, as a matter of
policy that we have to consider it, it eliminates the politics, if you will.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: It's not an issue. I agree with you and
concur. If you'd like to make that a recommendation that we look at
that, it's easy enough for us to do and it doesn't tie the board's hands or
our hands.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: I would like to suggest that.
The next thing that he identified is -- and I'm not quite sure I
understand what this means, and if you've spoken to him you can
explain this to me. Number 11, caution against a master mobility plan as
parallel Growth Management Plan. And he talks about that the
disconnects will result in a diluted and disjointed process.
Maybe you explained that in part in your first response.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: Well, we asked him to go forward with
us and spend time going through the master mobility plan, because it's
in phases.
I don't know, that's a pretty broad statement. I think he's got an
ample opportunity to make clarification as we go through the process.
I don't know how it would be diluted and disjointed. They're all
looking at different things. Your long-range transportation plan is
Federal Highway required. Your Growth Management Plan and your
LDC -- I think the whole point of the master mobility plan is to what can
Page I 38
January 31, 2011
we change in the Growth Management Plan and the LDC to get rid of
the disjointed, you know, financially feasible versus the needs issue.
So other than since we're in the early stages of it and spending time with
Mr. Flanagan and letting him participate, I think that's all we can do.
It's just a note of caution, but I think we're taking that into
consideration.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: As a matter of policy, on the next
page where he addresses transportation, he says road systems are being
proposed that bisect Golden Gate Estates to serve urbanized RLSA and
eastern lands. Other alternatives are necessary.
Do we have any policy with respect to road system development to
avoid bisecting the Estates?
MR. CASALANGUIDA: Again, this is a challenge,
Commissioner, because we build roads in all parts of the county. And
I've gotten this comment in the urban area, Livingston Road, who does
that service? It goes through a community yet it carries southern
Collier all the way up into Lee County. I've had that discussion with
Mr. Flanagan.
Roads that we build service everybody. They would service
Golden Gate Estates and where Golden Gate Estates is in the heart of
Eastern Collier, there's going to be through traffic that goes through
there.
So it's a concern he has about the character of Golden Gate Estates,
and that's something we'd have to be cognizant of as we move forward
on this.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: The next thing he addresses are the
eastern lands. Let's see. Again he references transportation with
respect to that.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: If you notice his comments are fairly
consistent. I've had the discussion with Mr. Flanagan. His frustration
is that we can't -- although we have a pretty good idea where these
Page I 39
January 31,2011
communities are in the long-range transportation plan process and the
RLSA, since it's a voluntary program I can't turn those developments on
if I don't know they're moving forward.
One of the ideas about that master mobility plan is to use our best
information possible, turn everything on and then run those impacts on
the transportation system.
And again his comments came up many times through the LR TP
process, why aren't you showing these DRI's and these future towns?
And my response was I can't, they have not come forward and put an
application for it. I can only test what has come materially forward.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: An application for what?
MR. CASALANGUIDA: Development in the RLSA. A
Stewardship Receiving Area, a town, a Big Cypress, another Ave
Maria.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: But they're part of the Growth
Management Plan, aren't they?
MR. CASALANGUIDA: Well, the rural land stewardship
program is. But until a project actually comes forward and is --
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Like Ave Maria has come
forward?
MR. CASALANGUIDA: Right, yes.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: So other than that, you can't
consider it?
MR. CASALANGUIDA: I can only consider it as far as our
growth projections allow us to say a certain amount of growth will
happen. Specifically where and what type, I can't.
And I explained it to Mr. Flanagan is you get an update every five
years on the LR TP, and you can update it any time in between. And
things that's required by Federal Highway and both the Regional
Planning Council is, say a new town does come in, they would have to
update the transportation plan at the same time, because it would be
Page I 40
January 31, 2011
such a dramatic change to our Growth Management Plan or the LR TP.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: So basically we're not bound to
what's before us now, we have the opportunity to modify --
MR. CASALANGUIDA: Yes.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: -- this document --
MR. CASALANGUIDA: Yes. And we're going to go through
that process --
COMMISSIONER HILLER: -- to work like that?
MR. CASALANGUIDA: Right. And any time something
comes up that's dramatic, an amendment can be brought forward in
relation to that development.
And that's one of the things I think Mike did a good point in
presenting to you today. This is really recommendations for areas to
look at for changing. It's very, I would say, 50,000-foot view today.
We're going to start drilling down at lower levels as this comes forward.
And as the Chair pointed out, with a focus on financial issues, not
binding the county to certain requirements.
I think we just want to make sure we're clear, this is a 50,000-foot
view, we want to head in that direction, but you're not making any
binding decisions today. You're going to get a second or third bite at
the apple as these amendments come forward.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: One of the dangers here is accepting Mr.
Flanagan's statements as fact, and they clearly are not. They're clearly
impacted by his view from his community. We are looking at a
Growth Management Plan that covers the entire county.
And just to give you some examples, transportation planning
through the MPO does not address future populations, future land uses
and current conditions such as the RLSA. That is flatly false. You
know, we use all those factors in our transportation planning throughout
Collier County.
And the fact this statement that infrastructure for future growth is
Page I 41
January 31, 2011
being funded by today's taxpayers and concurrency is not functioning in
a practical or fair manner.
The infrastructure for future growth is not being funded by future
taxpayers. There is very little ad valorem property tax going into the
funding. And if we do, it is a loan that will be paid back by impact fees
when we get the impact fees in.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: Sure.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: So most of our roads and infrastructure
have been developed by impact fees by people who are building new
homes and developments, not by the existing taxpayers.
So these statements are entirely false.
And perhaps from his viewpoint within his neighborhood he sees
some things that are unfair about the county-wide transportation plan,
but certainly the things he brings up here are simply not supportable.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: Jim Flanagan's a bright guy and he has
strong views of what's going on in his community, and we have spent
time with him and we will continue spend time with him trying to
educate where our requirements limit ourselves and where we're
looking at different opportunities.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Well, there's no doubt he has some
observations that deserve consideration. But there are a number that
clearly are biased. And I think we have to be careful about placing
overwhelming weight on those comments.
Commissioner Hiller?
COMMISSIONER HILLER: How does that reconcile to our
earlier discussion about transportation within the coastal high hazard
area where we were specifically addressing, you know, what we can and
can't do and that that should be a function of -- you know, that should be
a matter of disclosure in the policy because of the physical limitations of
the coastal high hazard area?
I mean, it almost seems like we're treating one area -- maybe I have
Page I 42
January 31, 2011
misunderstood, but it seems we're specifically addressing one area as to
policy issues, but then we're excluding another area with respect to
those same types of concerns. Maybe from a different angle but, you
know, transportation is transportation and, you know, we're talking east
versus west.
So west seems to be specifically included and limited and east
seems to be, you know, a free-for-all.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: Actually--
CHAIRMAN COYLE: If I could, there really is no comparison
to the two situations. And maybe it's best exemplified if I try to
describe what has happened in the eastern -- I'm sorry, the western
coastal corridor.
As that coastal corridor grew up and became more dense, decisions
were made that limited the ability to build roads. There are only six
east-west roads and six north-south roads between the beach and 1-75.
And we are at the point in that particular area where we have
expanded the road. Every road has been widened. We have built new
roads, Livingston Road being an example. We have improved
intersections. We've done everything we can to make sure that we can
get traffic flowing through there properly. We now, if we wanted to,
have a traditional road network.
By the way, if you drive north on Goodlette Road from U.S. 41
East, you'll find you've got to drive about a mile and a half before you
can turn right on Golden Gate Parkway. You've got to drive about
almost two miles before you get to Pine Ridge Road. You drive
another mile and a half to two miles before you can get to Vanderbilt
Beach Road, and so forth. We don't have a regular road grid.
In order to create it, we would have to bulldoze through existing
communities. And that gets very, very expensive. It's almost
impossible to accomplish.
In the -- what the board has essentially said is we don't want to
Page I 43
January 31,2011
make the same mistake that our predecessors made along the coastal
area. What we want to do is to make decisions now about a road
network further east in a way that will not require bulldozing through
existing neighborhoods. We have to widen the roads, we have to create
some new roads, but we want to try to minimize the impact on existing
communities to the extent possible.
So the statement that I was referring to that Mr. Flanagan made, is
transportation planning does not address future population, future land
uses and current conditions is just simply not true. Because we have
addressed all of those. And that's why we're trying to take the action
we're taking in the eastern part of the county.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: To add to your answer, sir, and there is
that Golden Gate Area Master Plan sub-element, we just had a
discussion at the last board meeting, where Commissioner Coletta had,
you know, spoken to some of the folks from the community months
back and said maybe it's time to revisit it. And we said well, not right
now, money's tight, things are okay, let's get through a little period.
A lot of those specificities are in that Golden Gate Area Master
Plan, what they desire. And we have to be careful as staff, because we
have to look at the entire community. So when they come forward and
say we don't want this or we'd like that, we say okay, how does that
interact with the RLSA, Immokalee and the urban area.
So they do have a plan for that area that they'd like to see move
forward. And I think when we go to revisit that, that will be a hot topic
in the discussion as how their desire for a certain community character
would interact with the rest of Collier County.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Commissioner Hiller?
COMMISSIONER HILLER: I appreciate your explanation,
Commissioner Coyle.
The thing that I come back to is that I understand why the western
corridor was developed the way it was with respect to transportation
Page I 44
January 31, 2011
planning. When I look at the eastern corridor, I see inherent
limitations. Maybe not identical to what we had in the west, but they are
worthy of consideration from a policy standpoint. For example, we
have a tremendous amount of environmentally sensitive lands in eastern
Collier.
So again, I just -- I don't understand the disconnect between
having, you know, specificity and policies with respect to western lands
and no specificity with respect to policies in the eastern lands. Because
that's what I'm hearing is what we're boiling this down to.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Well, yeah, and then Commissioner
Coletta wants to talk.
But I have to ask you what you mean by lack of specificity in the
eastern lands. I mean, we've been very specific about where
Livingston Road extension is going to go. We've been very explicit
about where Immokalee Road was being widened. We have been very
clear about Oil Well Road and Camp Keis Road. We have identified
corridors through Golden Gate Estates where we would make them
continuous roads rather than stopping them at canals. And not all of
them, just certain ones that would require -- and we're trying to do that
without -- by minimizing the impact upon existing residences.
But yes, some people are going to have through roads there, just
like some people have through roads on the coastal community. But I
don't -- I think it would be inaccurate to say that we don't have
specificity in the eastern area.
Now, if you're only talking about the Rural Land Stewardship
Area, I think Nick has already addressed that issue.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: I can give you a couple other
examples. We brought together a bridge study several years ago where
we identified bridges in a location, to be specific and talk about that.
We've done Vanderbilt Beach Road extension. The existing Golden
Gate Area Master Plan talks about an 1-7 5/Everglades interchange, talks
Page I 45
January 31,2011
about a bridge on 23rd, talks about prioritizing certain projects.
Again, I want to be careful how we categorize this or classify this.
There is a Golden Gate Area Master Plan that covers Golden Gate, the
eastern part. The question has come up, is it time to redo it. And I
think that's been answered already by the board, let's wait another year
and come back to it.
A lot of Jim's comments, Mr. Flanagan, gets to that point. We
want to look at again, we want more specificity, we want to revise some
of those points. The board's made that decision, we're going to wait a
year or two.
But I think you have an area master plan, you have a bridge study,
you have a road network that you've identified, so there is some
specificity there. I just think some people want to change it and want to
look at it again. And that's -- that's been discussed.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Commissioner Coletta?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: And you're right, this is always
up for review. Public opinion changes as time goes forward. I can
remember years ago we never thought there would be any kind of roads
going through Golden Gate Estates and fighting for Golden Gate
Boulevard for 20 years before they got it four-Ianed up to Wilson. It
was a major accomplishment. Then it followed by Immokalee Road
and now Oil Well Road. These things do take place.
But it's not done in a vacuum. It's done over a long period of time.
And we're working on -- we're working to redefine the future now with
the plan we have before us. And it will go from one step to another, as
it has before.
However, with that said, in somewhat defense for Mr. Flanagan,
his concerns I believe are the fact that we haven't reached some of the
goals as he interprets them. And as far as public input and how we
reach out to the public, you know, we'll never get to the point that we'll
have a level of perfection unless we bring everybody into our living
Page I 46
January 31, 2011
room here on a daily basis, which we do for the most part. But not
everybody can participate on a moment-by-moment venture as we go
forward with it.
One of the things I would suggest is Mr. Flanagan does have a lot
of concerns here. They're very well written. Most of them I can't
quite agree to, but it means we should always consider them. We need
to take a look at them. When we get to the point for reappointments to
the MPO advisory group, I think Mr. Flanagan would be an excellent
choice to put on there to bring him into the whole process so he has a
better understanding how we're getting from point A to point B. And
maybe Mr. Flanagan will see some way to be able to reach out to the
public even further in the future. That would be my suggestion.
I mean, these suggestions that he's making here, even though
they're well stated, the assumption is they're being done in a vacuum,
and it's not true.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Commissioner Hiller? Can we bring
this to a conclusion?
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Yeah, I'd like to talk about
objective eight: The county shall establish and maintain a concurrency
management system for scheduling, planning and timely construction of
necessary road facilities.
And this is tying back to our earlier discussion about capital
improvements and the adequacy of funding and the priority of what will
be done. You indicated earlier on when we were talking about that that
we are deficient with respect to concurrency.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: Yes, ma'am.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: And -- it's Page 10.
So I'm presuming with respect to objective eight, the priority is to
first get -- satisfy the transportation concurrency requirements before
undertaking any new development, new transportation projects?
MR. CASALANGUIDA: You are. You prioritize your CIE
Page 147
January 31, 2011
every year, so you do get an opportunity. And your AUIR. So this
policy basically says -- it basically gets us the AUIR and CIE. What it
says is I'm going to use the concurrency management system. I'm
going to do a snapshot evaluation, which is your Annual Update
Inventory Report. Based on that, I'm going to bring you a CIE that's
financially feasible. And then the board with staff discusses with
public comment what's a priority. And we--
COMMISSIONER HILLER: But the priority, according to the
policy that we described in the capital improvements component, is to
first satisfy existing deficiencies --
MR. CASALANGUIDA: Yes, ma'am.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: -- as opposed to new development
for higher level of services than what is required.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: Yes, ma'am. And how you satisfy
that is a board decision. In other words, we could say do you want to
not do anything else and put all our finances towards Golden Gate
Boulevard, or do you want to, you know, buy the right-of-way, do the
design, keep moving on that project but finish this other project in the
urban area. That's where the board has some discretion to say how
you're satisfying that concurrency.
And I've discussed with the County Manager, DCA looks at that,
and I'm always worried that they're going to change their minds and
want us to do something different. I think right now DCA has been
extremely lenient with communities, due to the fact that nobody has any
money.
I think six years ago if we were putting Golden Gate Boulevard off,
a little bit like we are right now, I think they would have comments
coming back to us. But I think they recognize that based on this policy
and DCA requirements we're moving on it, buying the right-of-way,
doing a design, and then the board has that decision process of how
much of a priority it is, where do you -- how much money do you want
Page I 48
January 31,2011
to spend on it.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Ijust want to ask clarification from
the County Attorney. We have a hierarchy of capital improvement
spending highlighted by a policy in the other section, and that's what
we're adopting. Now, do we have flexibility to disregard that, or is that
a hierarchy that we are bound to respect?
Because that obviously makes a big difference.
MR. KLATZKOW: You're trying to manage growth. And part of
managing growth is having the money to manage growth. And as Mr.
Casalanguida was saying, in this environment right now we're more
flexible on putting projects oft: more flexible on not meeting the goals
we really would like to meet. It's reality.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: No, I understand. My concern is a
little bit different. My concern is not about putting projects off, but my
concern is where projects are being advanced ahead of our stated policy
being first to maintain and secondly to cure deficiencies.
MR. KLA TZKOW: People have a right to develop.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: I understand.
MR. KLATZKOW: And, you know, we're going to have to meet
those needs. It's a balancing act with this board.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: So would then if someone wants to
develop, we just have to raise fees in order to fund that? Because we
can't take fees that are committed to the priorities of maintenance and
deficiency.
MR. KLATZKOW: No. During the development world we
were in five years ago, we spent a lot of time doing developer
contribution agreements to get that done. We had impact fees that
were coming in that paid for a lot of that work that was done. You had
more gas taxes coming in. It was just a different environment.
Frankly, I don't really see the growth right now. At this point in
time it's a good time to look at the backlog and take care of that while we
Page I 49
January 31,2011
can -- probably can take a breath.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: And that's what I would like to see.
I would like the policy to be as was enunciated in the capital
improvement section, where basically first we're maintaining, then
we're curing deficiency, and only after that, you know, do we address
increasing levels of service by developing new infrastructure.
MR. KLATZKOW: These are policy decisions of the board then.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: That's what I'm questioning. I
mean, since we're stating it as a matter of policy that we have a
hierarchy, is that hierarchy binding as stated or do we have the
flexibility to shift within that policy?
MR. KLATZKOW: You're the legislative body, you have a
tremendous amount of flexibility in meeting the people's needs.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: So we do have the --
MR. KLATZKOW: Yes, you have the flexibility.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: All right. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: And that is one of the reasons that staff
has said they do not want to see the GMP become too specific, because
they want to retain that flexibility.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: Yes, for your benefit.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: For our benefit.
One example of that is that, as Nick has stated, we have continued
to approve the purchase of land for future widening of roads or building
of roads, because the land cost is less expensive now. Ifwe have a
funding source for that, we have permitted those to go forward, because
in the long run it will save the taxpayers money.
So if we can buy land now for future expansions or future capital
improvements, it sometimes makes sense to do that. But that's a
determination that must be made on a case-by-case basis.
Okay, any further discussion on this one?j(No response.)
Page I 50
January 31, 2011
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay, you have the guidance that you
need?
MR. CASALANGUIDA: Yes.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: I don't know, you want to break? Okay.
All right. We'll be back here in 10 minutes at 10:46.
(A recess was taken.)
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay, the BCC meeting is back in
.
seSSion.
Are you finished with this one?
MR. SCHMIDT: We are.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: You're finished, okay. Let's go to
something else more interesting.
MR. BOSI: Chair, I did want to mention, we did have members
of public that did want to speak on this item.
I'm sorry, Jeff may want to chime in. But I'm not sure--
MR. KLATZKOW: I don't have a speaker slip. But I'll take care
of that.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Nobody's registered? Would you please
get registered.
MS. REV A Y: Sure.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: You get registered and we'll have a
speaker.
MR. BOSI: And with that, we left off on the Transportation
Element. The next element in succession would be the sanitary sewer
sub-element. Corby Schmidt.
MR. SCHMIDT: And Mr. Chairman, if you look, because of the
similarities between the two, sanitary sewer and potable water, I'll
address at the same time.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: I don't see the similarity.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: What you don't know won't hurt
you.
Page I 51
January 31, 2011
CHAIRMAN COYLE: If you guys in the utilities division see a
similarity, we need to have a serious conversation.
MR. SCHMIDT: Could I rephrase that?
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Yes, please, please.
MR. SCHMIDT: In many ways the items listed for change and
recommended to you are similar between the two sub-elements.
Again, we're looking at some minor reformatting for continuity
between the sub-elements and other elements of the document. Not
much else to mention here. As with some other ones, no major
changes.
And as those between the two groups, recommendations from the
Environmental Advisory Council had no dissimilarities with the
recommendations from the Planning Commissioners.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: And they have all been
incorporated?
MR. SCHMIDT: Yes, ma'am.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay, any questions?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: If there's no questions, might I make
a comment? It will be a simple and fast one.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Yes, ma'am. Go ahead.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I've been giving tours of the water
department and the wastewater department, and I'm telling you that
people are so impressed with the plants and how clean they are and how
well run they are. And I just want to say how proud I am of you guys
for doing such a great job. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: It's one of the best utility operations any
of us has ever seen. You guys really do a good job, really do.
MR. DeLONY: Thank you, sir.
MR. KLATZKOW: And, Mr. Chair--
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay, any questions, comments?
(No response.)
Page I 52
January 31,2011
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Let's move to the next one.
MR. KLATZKOW: Mr. Chair, I have two speakers. But they
were for the Transportation Element.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Let's start with the first one.
You're not going to say the same thing, are you?
MS. REV A Y: What's that?
CHAIRMAN COYLE: You're not going to say the same thing,
both of you?
MS. REV A Y: No, I don't think so. Not exactly the same way.
MR. KLATZKOW: The first speaker is Stacy Revay, followed
by Michele A vola.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Are you going to tell us you're from the
Health Department, and you've injured yourself, is that what you're
going to tell us?
MS. REV A Y: Yeah, it is, but it's not -- it's an old injury. It's an
old sporting injury. My name is Stacy Revay. Good morning,
Commissioners. My name is Stacy Revay from the Collier County
Health Department. And I'm currently chairing the Smart Growth
Coalition.
As you may know, nearly 60 percent of our residents are
overweight or obese. And the alarming increase in our -- the obesity
epidemic and the lack of physical activity amongst our youth is
shameful.
When reviewing some of these changes, please keep in mind
health and the built environment, connectivity, walkability, bike-ability,
public transportation, which Commissioner Coletta also already hit on,
which I thank you for that.
And then also, Commissioner Fiala, you've done a great job,
Bayshore Triangle. They've done an absolutely fantastic job with their
bike-ability and walkability. The interesting part is they haven't had as
many accidents on Bayshore Drive as they might even have on Airport
Page I 53
-~
January 31, 2011
with the crossing of people on bikes and people walking, because of the
infrastructure.
Studies show that people who use public transportation get their
recommended of 30 minutes of physical activity every day, which is
important to note.
And the Smart Growth Coalition made many recommendations for
the EAR, the Evaluation and Appraisal Report, to promote health in the
planning process. So our recommendations were submitted and we
were there for the hearing with the Collier County Planning
Commission. We made many policy objective and goal
recommendations, and we worked diligently with the Comprehensive
Planning Department, Mike Bosi and his staff. They have been
instrumental in hearing our concerns and putting some of those things in
the revisions.
Transportation Element and the Future Land Use Element are the
two elements that we are most interested in, in making an impact. And
the Collier County Health Department really endorses the walkability
and bike-ability of the county, because it does increase physical activity.
And there are some cost feasible analyses that we will be able to share
with you in the later date.
And I have actually made a couple of meetings with you in
February, Commissioner Fiala and Commissioner Coletta. And I have
a few others to contact to make meetings, to have meetings with.
Thank you so much for listening.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Thank you.
MS. A VOLA: Good morning. Michele A vola, the Executive
Director of Naples Pathways Coalition. And I've also been a part of the
Smart Growth Coalition.
And I just ask that when you review the changes that you evaluate
them with the health, the productivity and the financial needs of this
county at the forefront of your mind.
Page I 54
January 31,2011
As the population ages, as gas prices continue to increase and as
childhood obesity increases at the alarming rate that it is, planning for
people to get to where they need to go on foot, on bike and using transit
is more and more important.
Transportation and future land use are just vital elements of this
entire huge document that you are being asked to look at. We need to
plan our communities and transportation systems to accommodate all
users. To do that effectively we need to build and maintain complete
streets that move vehicles, cyclists and pedestrians safely and
effectively. We need to contain sprawl and direct travel that reduces
vehicle miles traveled.
Thank you.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Thank you.
Okay. Let's resume our review.
MR. SCHMIDT: All right, thank you. The drainage
sub-element will be next.
And like the other sub-elements for Public Facilities, no special
comments to make, except that of course between the EAC and the
Planning Commission there were no conflicts or dissimilarities.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Any questions?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN COYLE: No questions. Okay, let's move on to
the next item.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Could I?
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Commissioner Hiller.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: One of the concerns I have is the
potential problems with respect to drainage created by the development
of new transportation corridors, and how that can potentially interrupt
sheet flow and cause flooding problems.
Has that been considered as a matter of policy in this? Is there
some sort of tieback to ensure that how we build roads will not
Page I 55
January 31, 2011
adversely impact drainage?
MR. CASALANGUIDA: Nothing specific, Commissioner, but I
can tell you that our permitting process that we go through the Corps
and Water Management District requires our pre versus post to meet
those standards.
Additionally, we are looking at a Surface Water Master Plan.
We're working with some of the folks in the Estates as well as the
Eastern Lands where we're looking at a nontraditional drainage system.
Where we're doing typical hump and sump, where you're taking the
water treatment, attenuating it and just discharge in the canal, we're now
looking at a process of, I won't say as fancy as the Gordon River water
quality park, but something similar that meets that Estates-type
character desire, where we're taking water, treating it and doing a
rehydration project as part of that.
So, interesting you bring it up. It's something we're doing. I
don't, without going though in detail the element, I'm not aware that
there's something specific to that, but we are doing it anecdotally as part
of our design right now.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: I think it would be worthwhile to
include as a policy so that, while you may be conscientious and you may
be doing it, I would hate to see that missed.
And I think, and the reason I bring this up, because I do think there
has been road development in the past that has not given proper
consideration to the overall drainage impact of the grids that have been
created.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: Again, at that level it's not a problem
for us to put it as long as --
CHAIRMAN COYLE: I don't see any reason why you couldn't
do it as a policy, but be very careful about describing specific methods
of accomplishing it, because you're going to want flexibility to adapt
newer methods as we move forward.
Page I 56
January 31, 2011
MR. CASALANGUIDA: Exactly, sir.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: But now, with respect to the permit that
you get from South Florida Water Management District and others
before you build a road, do they not require that you address this issue?
MR. CASALANGUIDA: A pre versus post type design, but not
to the extent we're looking at right now. But it's a good comment, and
we're doing it now. And to put it in as a general policy that we do it is
fine by us. I think it's a good statement to make.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: All right. Very well.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Is there any other comment concerning
this item?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay, then let's move on.
MR. SCHMIDT: All right. Then if you'll allow me to present
together solid waste and the natural groundwater aquifer recharge
sub-elements.
And again, the similarities here would be minor revisions, and
none of the comments from EAC and the Planning Commission
conflict.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Any questions concerning this
one?
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Commissioner Fiala.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I can tell you that I'm also taking a
tour of the landfill, or taking a tour onto the landfill. We could even -- I
bet there's lunch right there if -- no, the birds eat the lunch, never mind,
I'm just kidding.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: But she has had lunch on top of the
landfill. She really has, it's true.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Remember when we did that?
Anyway, Ijust want to say that it's very impressive. No odors up
Page I 57
January 31, 2011
there. It's just amazing. And how you've handled the leachate and
some of the new things that you're doing on the landfill, gas to energy.
Anyway, I just think that's all a wonderful thing.
Yes, sir.
MR. BOSI: In this -- and I wanted to just offer this just for the
record, the five years that I've worked with the utilities system. And it's
related to the landfill and also to the water reuse programs that Mr.
DeLony and his team have implemented.
Within the major issues in the back of your book is climate change,
and there's about 40 pages that describe the specific activities that we
are doing. And one of the greatest accomplishments of this county in
response to climate change is contained within the work of our solid
waste team but also within the potable water and reuse water.
But solid waste in particular, in 2000 per capita was 1.19 tons per
capita of garbage disposal rate for this county. That rate in 2011, 11
years later is .57. We've more than half that number in terms of less fill
going into our landfill, and it's able to extend the life of our landfill from
in 2005 it was looking like it was within the next 10 years that it would
have to be addressed to we're well out til the 2030's. And with the
request to go higher, we've extended that even further, you know,
further giving this county opportunities to address an important issue.
But I really wanted to put that out, that our utilities has been a
primary factor within how we've responded to climate change in the
measures that we've taken.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: And let me add, as I finish this
subject, that our rates, the rates that our taxpayers pay I believe are the
lowest in the state, aren't they?
And yet we have two pickups a week. And it's amazing even with
our neighboring counties how much lower our fee is than anybody
else's.
MR. DeLONY: For the record, Jim DeLony, ma'am, your Public
Page 158
January 31, 2011
Utilities Administrator. Ma'am, our rates are the lowest for the level of
service we provide. There are folks that have lower rates but do not
sustain, as you mentioned, our level of service with regard to our white
goods, brown goods and our recycling program as well as our household
waste.
So you're right about it. But I want to make sure on the record,
there are others that are cheaper, but they do not provide our level of
.
service.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Thank you for clarifying that.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Commissioner Hiller.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: One of the things that I think is so
important about this section on the groundwater aquifer is the
importance of protecting our water quality. And what I learned is that a
number of counties across the state have adopted low impact
development policies to ensure that water quality is protected. I mean,
the key is attenuation at the source not remediation after the fact.
And I was going through this, and unless -- can you help me out, is
there anything in here that would address, you know, that as an
objective? Because I think as a matter of policy we should be working
to that end.
MR. SCHMIDT: There are some policies that address that but
none which them are proposed for change. We're satisfied, as well as the
EAC and the Planning Commission, with the way they're stated and the
results from them.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Do we have a low impact
development policy?
MR. SCHMIDT: We have policies that include provisions for
low impact development. We have none that require or incentivize it
in any manner. We encourage it through those policies and we monitor
it.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Are you familiar with the Sarasota
Page I 59
January 31,2011
policy on that?
MR. SCHMIDT: No, ma'am.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Would it be worthwhile
incentivizing?
MR. SCHMIDT: That's the note I'm making, yes.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Any other comments?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay, let's move along.
MR. SCHMIDT: Thank you.
MR. BOSI: The next element is the Housing element. And
Michele Mosca was the Comprehensive Planning staff.
MS. MOSCA: Good morning, Mr. Chairman, Commissioners.
For the record, Michele Mosca with the Comprehensive Planning staff.
F or the Housing element there are two substantive changes
proposed. The first change affects objective one and objective two,
which are found on pages one and five of the element.
For these objectives, staff proposed an affordable housing
production rate of 850 new units per year, or 10 percent of all units
being built. And this was based on projections from the University of
Florida Shimberg Study. And this is actually down from the existing
rate within the housing element of 100 units per year or 15 percent of all
units approved.
The Collier County Planning Commission further suggested
reducing the production rate to 500 units per year, based on the current
housing market, as well as units already approved but not yet built.
And staff has no objection to the proposed change.
The second change that is proposed by staff is to include an
objective in policies to address a 2008 statutory change which requires
energy efficiency in the design and construction of new housing and the
use of renewable energy sources -- resources, rather. And this is
Page I 60
January 31, 2011
objective nine and the associated policies found on Page 12 and 13 of
the housing element. So those are new -- that's a new objective and
new policies.
Other than that, the changes are minimal throughout.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: You know, I'm looking under
affordable housing, I don't see 12 or 13. I must be -- I'm at the -- oh,
okay --
MS. MOSCA: If you go to the very back of it, you'll find
objective nine. Maybe I have a different page numbering.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: You know what, I'm under
affordable housing, way in the back of the book.
MS. MOSCA: Okay, it's actually under the Housing Element tab.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: County-wide assessment, Housing.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: There it is, okay.
MS. MOSCA: The affordable housing document that
Commissioner Fiala was just -- just mentioned, that's in the back of the
binder, and that's in support of the major issues.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. And to what extent did you
incorporate the recent study of the housing availability?
MS. MOSCA: We're also going to provide that as data and
analysis to the Department of Community Affairs and work closely with
the Department of Community Affairs to address the demand in the
county.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Good.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I think I was first, then Hiller, then
Coletta.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay, Commissioner Fiala.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Okay, I was glad to hear that you're
going to incorporate this study. It did not reveal that it any place in
here. I notice that the figures were woefully missing in any of the other
affordable housing, which brought us to the conclusion many years ago
Page 161
January 31, 2011
that we were 30,000 units short, which indeed we were not. They were
all sitting here and being lived in, it's just that they weren't counted
because of DCA requirements that they had to be built with SHP funds.
And I was very pleased to read that the CCPC took that into
consideration to reduce how much we needed to build each year to
reflect that the figures that we've been basing these things on are
actually erroneous, to be perfectly honest with you. And so I wanted to
note that.
I notice that it said they wanted to avoid the concentration of
affordable housing units only in specific areas of jurisdiction. And
maybe I could even add to that, avoid the concentration of low and very
low income housing in specific areas. Because it seems when you do
that, affordable housing and work force housing I think are very, very
productive, but the low and very low creates another challenge.
And I would suggest that maybe we could add those words to not
concentrate the low and very low income in one area.
MS. MOSCA: And Commissioner Fiala, to respond to that
suggestion, staff will be working with the Habitat folks to come up with
some language in that specific policy that you reference to make sure
that it is in fact consistent with the state statute but also allow for the
affordable housing throughout the county. And it may include, as you
suggested, focusing on perhaps the low and very low income. And
we'll work through that during that 18 month process for the
amendments --
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Because their effort right how, the
Habitat people, is to concentrate all of their housing in East Naples, as
you well know. And it becomes a challenge to us when our Parks
Department won't even provide a community center to have programs
for all of these children to have after school programs or summer
programs or feeding programs. We don't have the provisions to take
care of all of those low and very low income children that are
Page I 62
January 31, 2011
concentrated in our area. And I'm very concerned about that.
I noticed also, although Habitat is building or redoing a lot of the
homes in Naples Manor, 1351 units in Naples Manor alone, it's never
even mentioned in this report at all. And I wanted to make note of that.
And let's see, I have a bunch of other notes. Obviously the
Triangle, Bayshore, Thommason, Golden Gate Estates and so forth are
not mentioned in this report either. But I guess that's because they were
created before SHP funds were created. And again, that's what -- that's
what is -- that's what causes this -- this --
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Disparity?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: -- yes, disparity in how much
affordable housing there is and how much we actually count.
Thank you very much for that word.
So I think --
CHAIRMAN COYLE: I don't know what it means, but I just --
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Okay, now, I think that I have
mentioned everything. Thank you.
Oh, here was one also. And it says the need for additional
restricted affordable work force housing. Now, that restriction, how
long is the restriction? I know we've seen three and five and 15. What
is it?
MS. MOSCA: I believe for the most part it's 15 years. But you
have other developments such as Ava Maria, which vary. It really
depends on the development and the contract, I guess, assigned for
affordable housing.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: One of the things that has been
happening one of the Habitat villages, and I can't speak for the other,
just this is one. It's not Habitat's fault, by the way. I do not want to the
point a finger, I want to say that right up front. Habitat has nothing to do
with it. But what the people have found in that particular village is that
they can, for some reason they were able to borrow money to payoff
Page I 63
January 31, 2011
Habitat and payoff the county and then they rented out.
And it's interesting, because a person working with the Sheriffs
Office had to go in to remove somebody from one of these houses that's
being rented out. And when they came there at quite an early hour, 27
people were living in that house, eighteen of them were minors. And I
think that's appalling. And those things are happening.
I see where one person has bought up some -- she bought one for
$10,000. It's amazing what's happening. So -- and the restriction,
apparently, even though they're restricted to 15 years, does not apply.
And I don't understand, is it because they've been able to refinance their
home and pay it off so they're not a part of that restriction? And of
course then they also cannot comply with the rules that Habitat for
Humanity has because they're not a part of that organization any longer.
MS. MOSCA: I'm not sure who monitors that. I know for the
affordable housing commitment, the agreement, they have to abide by
that agreement. But the monitoring, I'm just not certain.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yeah, see, that becomes a real
problem. And that's why I wanted to focus on restricted here, because
there is no enforcement of restricted. Okay, thank you.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Michele, could we get clarification on
who is responsible and what the procedures are?
MS. MOSCA: Yes.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay, thank you.
Commissioner Hiller.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: I agree with Commissioner Fiala, I
think the lack of specificity and the lack of uniformity with respect to
the deed restrictions as to affordable housing is problematic. Because
if the deed restriction -- if there is no deed restriction, per se, then the
problem you have is it's labeled affordable and then it gets flipped and
then it's no longer affordable, and then the problem is now another
developer comes along and an imposition is made on that developer to
Page I 64
January 31, 2011
provide affordable housing, because now suddenly we have a
deficiency yet again.
So I absolutely agree. I mean, if there's going to be a requirement
to have affordable housing, deed restrict it because to that degree we are
actually creating that inventory and not constantly recycling this issue.
So I agree.
How -- the Planning Commission said 500 units per year. We've
got a lot of developer agreements out there that are requiring developers
to provide affordable housing when they start building again. How
does that reconcile, you know, giving the existing inventory of
affordable housing that we have, which is very high right now, plus the
inventory of homes that are projected to fall into this pipeline through
these developer agreements, where do we stand? What's the
reconciliation?
Because I question about 500 units for the time frame of this
particular policy document is the right number.
MR. RAMSEY : Yes, ma'am, thank you. For the record, Frank
Ramsey, Housing Manager.
To address the first question about monitoring and enforcement of
the restrictive covenants, based upon the assistance provided, but most
often a mortgage or a lien agreement is recorded against the property,
thereby, upon sale or conveyance or transfer, the funds are repaid or
recaptured by Collier County. And it's monitored through our office
each year.
F or the issue of maintaining the affordability --
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Can we just go one item.
That doesn't address the deed restriction.
MR. RAMSEY: That's what I was going to go to next, ma'am. I
completely agree with you about the need to keep them affordable.
And in fact, one of the programs you've implemented recently keeps
them affordable for 15 years, as well as your density bonus agreement
Page I 65
January 31, 2011
keeps them and restricts the resale provisions on how much the home
can appreciate.
One of the challenges we've had lately in our office is that the
number of foreclosures against affordable housing units or rental
developments. And it is my understanding that upon foreclosure the
restrictive covenants are wiped from the deed. And thereby the new
buyer can elect to keep these market rate or to keep -- I mean, excuse
me, to make them market rate or to keep them affordable.
I was just, for example, was just notified by the City of Naples that
the purchaser of River Park Apartments had decided to turn them condo.
So, fortunately we're still working to find how we can hopefully prevent
some of this from happening in the future.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: County Attorney, can you explain
that? If you have a deed restriction, how is a deed restriction that's
recorded and runs with the land being wiped out by a mortgage
foreclosure?
MR. KLA TZKOW: I'm going to have to review the individual
one at a time. I don't know that there is a deed restriction.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: But that's my concern. It doesn't
sound like there it is. Because I've never heard of a deed restriction that
runs with the land being wiped out by a foreclosure on a mortgage.
That doesn't make sense.
And I guess that's my question, I don't -- what I'm hearing is there
are no deed restrictions that are running with the land. So there is no
protection to give Commissioner Fiala the satisfaction that these
properties are being maintained as affordable and we're not recycling
over and over again.
MR. RAMSEY : Yes, ma'am. I'll work with the County
Attorney's office to make sure that we address that issue. '
MR. KLA TZKOW: I don't know that you can. You're primarily
in the SHP fund business. Do SHP funds require a deed restriction?
Page I 66
January 31, 2011
MR. RAMSEY: No, sir. SHP funds don't require it but the
county does require them to enter into a security instrument in the form
of a second mortgage to secure the assistance provided --
MR. KLATZKOW: That's right, but when the mortgage is paid
down, it's over. And that's where the whole thing falls apart.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: But we could require --
MR. KLATZKOW: But it's a state program. We're simply--
COMMISSIONER HILLER: But couldn't we be more
restrictive. Could we, I mean, say if you participate -- I mean, I don't
know as a matter of law. If you have a state program, say, you know,
locally if you'd like to participate in that, you know, we have a
requirement that the deed restriction run with the land. Otherwise the
intent of the state program isn't being achieved because the minute the
property -- as you say, the minute the loan is paid off and the property is
either retained free and clear or flipped, you don't have what you tried to
achieve with those funds, other than that it comes back and we're
recycling again.
So trying to achieve what Commissioner Fiala wants, which is,
you know, this distribution gets wiped out every single time that
happens.
MR. RAMSEY: Correct. And to just answer your question, the
grant agencies provide a minimum standards you must adopt, but the
county is more than capable of making those more strict, should the
board so desire.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: This is a legal issue. And I question
whether we have the authority to apply additional restrictions on federal
and/or state funds. But it is an issue. We have discussed it before.
And we have been told that the federal and/or state government grants
specify the minimum qualifications and we can't exclude people from
those if they meet those federal and state minimum qualifications.
That mayor may not be true, but that's what we have been told before.
Page I 67
January 31,2011
So it is good to get this answered. And I would hope that we would
look into it.
MR. KLATZKOW: I will look into it. I will get the
memorandum out to the board on that.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay, good. Thank you very much.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Thank you.
So question number two, the inventory, the reconciliation.
Because again, I question whether 500 units, given the number of
abandoned homes, foreclosed homes and the effect on price, coupled
with all these development orders, where do we stand now? How
many years in the pipeline have we satisfied the affordable
requirement?
MS. MOSCA: And that's a good question. We have -- when I
spoke with the Planning Commission when they had suggested 500 new
units per year, we really didn't have any supporting documentation at
the time. So we had suggested that we would look at that figure, work
with the Department of Community Affairs, allow them to see or have
them see the inventory that the board just recently accepted in
December, and come up with a reasonable number based upon on the
existing inventory, the units that have been built and those not
yet -- those that have been approved but not yet built.
So we don't -- at this point the 500 number is sort of a best guess.
So we need to --
COMMISSIONER HILLER: So why don't we -- do we have to
have a specific number? I would suggest that the statement be based
on a reconciliation of what exists, what will be developed, you know,
based on agreement, and then, you know, concur with whatever
deficiency might exist.
I mean, I'm just concerned requiring 500 is just going to glut our
market and depress prices that much more.
MS. MOSCA: And that's correct. I think the problem that we
Page I 68
January 31, 2011
have as staff, we're required to use the Shimberg Center's figures. And
based on those figures, based on the existing and projected amounts,
that we're looking at over 800 units per year. And that information -- I
understand. And that information is based on the 2000 census.
So what we're suggesting is that we do in fact take that inventory,
which doesn't address demand, unfortunately, the one that you folks
reviewed in December, and look at arriving at a better number for the
county.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: I think it's extremely important.
And then I would say you've got, you know, nonprofits that you have
required to, you know, generate a similar volume. And I think that's
really problematic. I think everything that ties back to this objective,
every single objective that you have included in here that ties back to
that 500 number, like objective two under--
MS. MOSCA: Right, it's objective one and two of the housing
element.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Right. Yeah, I think those really
have to be very, very carefully reviewed and modified so as not to
further depress prices and create unreasonable expectations of the
development community.
MS. MOSCA: And, you know, what we probably could do as
part of the adoption, sending it to the Department of Community
Affairs, is identifying just what you said, perhaps eliminating that
number or some discussion about that number to arrive at a better
number as part of that objective one and objective two.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: I would love to see how this is
reformulated and, you know, somehow incorporate whatever the
County Attorney comes back with with respect to our ability to deed
restrict so we don't have a constantly growing number because of these
rollovers, as well as the inventory, the reconciliation of housing as we
discussed today. Thank you.
Page I 69
January 31,2011
CHAIRMAN COYLE: If I could just interject something, it
might be a good idea to reference our past study and to update that study
every year. Because right now we're making decisions about the future
based on data that's 10 years old, and based on a policy that was made
during different economic times.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Absolutely.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: I can't imagine that the federal or the state
government would tie our hands under current economic conditions.
And I think we can make a good argument that essentially says what
Commissioner Fiala has said, let's take a look at the real circumstances
in Collier County. Let's determine what our need is and make our
decisions based upon that need.
And I believe you can probably talk about it in those terms and
commit to a reasonable updating. If once a year places an
unreasonable burden on staff, then maybe you do it every two years, or
even three years.
But our problem is that we are making decisions that have a long
range impact. And if we make them on faulty -- on the basis of faulty
information, we are going to do damage to our communities.
And the other thing we have to be cognizant of is studies is
throughout Florida have shown that homes valued at $250,000 or less
do not pay their fair share for the services they consume. So you can
see what happens as you increase that segment of the market. And if you
increase it dramatically, it transfers a significant burden to the other
members of the community. And I'm not sure that's what we want to
do.
So it's important that we keep a balance between what our real
need is and what we are authorizing or incentivizing to be done in
Collier County.
Commissioner Fiala.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Oh, I --
Page I 70
January 31,2011
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Were you next? Go ahead,
Commissioner Coletta.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Thank you. I'm listening to
everybody, and you're all right. But here's the problem we got. If this
was back about four or five years ago, I probably would have dominated
the conversation much to the dismay of everyone else in here.
Affordable housing was --
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Not all.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: -- on everybody's lips. It was.
It was the big thing. I mean, chamber of commerce, the EDC, church
groups, nonprofit groups, everybody wanted to get into the mix to be
able to cover something that was at that point in time there was a great
deficiency. People were moving farther and farther out, trying to find
something affordable.
Well, the market corrected itself in one of the cruelest ways it ever
could. And we're still feeling the reaction to that. So I guess in the
future what we're looking at is trying to deal with this great big ship
that's moving down, going through a long process of discovery. And
we can't react too fast. There needs to be some sort of matrix set up that
will fit everything into place, that will change the numbers that have to
take place, and maybe right now the number should be zero for a
number of years until we get to that point in time when there is a need.
Now, I'll tell you some of the problems we've got out there right
now. It's the way that we're still approaching the affordable housing
issue. We haven't turned the ship around. I recently went to a
groundbreaking for affordable housing for farm laborers. And I
walked in a beautiful -- down to Eden in Immokalee, beautiful facilities,
you know, I mean, fairly plain in construction, but I mean, high ceilings,
nice countertops, the whole business, everything's there.
So I'm asking them why would you build this now when the need
for migrant and labor has fallen way off and we have so much of a
Page I 71
January 31,2011
surplus out there. Well, the reason they built it is because the money
was available.
So now what happens is they're able to subsidize it with a newer
type of unit. People in other units that are in town are going to be
moving out of the older ones and going into there because of the
subsidies. And the private people that have put money out and even
some nonprofits that put money out in the past are seeing a decreased
occupancy. Farm Workers Village, they're talking about taking and
scrapping a whole section of that. Well, they're older homes too, but
there's absolutely no need for them. People refuse to accept reality
sometime, especially when money's there.
So these things have to be kept in mind. Of course, we can't tell
the federal government, especially the Department of Agriculture, they
can't come up with subsidies for farm housing, but we can't have them
competing with existing markets that are out there. That's number one.
Number two, if anything's going to be done as far as future homes
being built for affordable housing, and Habitat is starting to go in that
direction and they're doing it more and more, it should be for the
rehabilitation of existing homes that are out there to bring them up to
snuft: to be able to put people into mixed neighborhoods, to be able to
get them in there into an affordable type of house and we're not
competing with the market by building more houses when we have so
many empty homes out there.
It will take up some of the inventory and help move everything
forward. Of course, that program will be dated by the valuation of
properties as eventually they get to the point it's no longer affordable
and they go back to building with free labor. They'll go back to doing
that. I mean, there'll be a need at the time.
But sometimes you have to enter in some of the more realistic
goals of what we're trying to accomplish. And we need to have it set up
so that our yearly numbers and everything are automatically adjusted.
Page I 72
January 31, 2011
I know we do that for impact fees almost on a -- well, on a couple year
basis, based on what happens. There's a whole matrix in there. You
plug in certain numbers and it goes right on through and it tells you what
you have to do.
Now, right now, maybe that number should be zero. And if we
have to, maybe -- how does that sound, could we do something like
that?
MS. MOSCA: Well, what I'd like to do, only because the
inventory that was presented in the December really lacks the demand
side. And that's what's concerning. We really need to get a handle on
the inventory and the actual demand.
One way that we can do that is looking at the new numbers coming
out from the census in 2010 so we have a better understanding of who
those individuals are in those affordable categories.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Will that census also show you
the inventory of homes?
MS. MOSCA: No.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: See, that's the problem. You
can't assume because you have six percent or eight percent of the
population qualifying for affordable housing that there isn't enough
affordable housing. You need to go out there and just actually make
inquiries from the vendors that supply the product how many empty
units do you have. And if they say we have so many empty units that
qualify as affordable housing, then at that point in time you know you
have to adjust your numbers by that.
The percentage of people is almost meaningless without the
corresponding number of available units.
MS. MOSCA: I was just going to ask David Weeks ifhe knew if
the census information contained the categories for the pricing on the
houses.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: But then again, too, they will be
Page I 73
January 31, 2011
dated by a year.
MS. MOSCA: Right. Yeah, it's constantly moving.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: But at least it gives you a point.
And you might be able to set up your matrix from that and to keep
plugging in the numbers and we'll only be one year behind.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: Good morning, Commissioners.
Again, we were just talking at the back of the room. We want to have a
smart policy that's more reactive to what's actually going on. David
and I were discussing the ability of looking at population growth and
always having a percentage of the growth be affordable housing as we
go forward, rather than a fixed number. Fixed number makes no sense.
I think we all agree with that.
And I think coming back as we do these GMP amendments, give
us a chance to maybe make a proposal to you on some ideas that are
more --
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Sure. But the percentage has
got to be based on some realistic numbers.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: Realistic numbers.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: And we've go to realize too,
we're not just out there to make them build houses, we're there to be able
to meet a need. We don't want to exceed the need. We don't want to
hurt the private market out there. We want to make sure this whole
thing flows.
That's a concern of mine now. We're building home when there's
a big surplus of homes. That's something that shouldn't happen. We
should use up the surplus in a meaningful way first.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: The first pass we did this year just
showed you what units qualified and the range. You can add a filter onto
it to say how many of those units are available --
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: There you go --
MR. CASALANGUIDA: -- where are they available, and what
Page 174
January 31,2011
percentage are we growing. If they're available and we're not growing,
then why do we need to add more. If now more units come in, in other
words, our inventory starts going up and that percentage isn't available,
then we need to acquire one. Something that's more reactive to that.
And we're going to work on that.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Thank you.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: You're welcome.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Commissioner Fiala.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Boy, this is the topic, huh?
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Yup, this is your favorite.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes, it is. Smart growth. And you
were talking about that. And I think that that's very important to put a
policy in regarding smart growth. For instance, Commissioner Coletta
referred to how Habitat is now focusing more on rehab, rather than
building new.
I suggested to some people in our Housing Department, though,
that -- and to Habitat people themselves, maybe if they rehabbed
it -- and I was hoping our own Housing Department could do this, but
apparently they can't -- say a Naples Manor. What's happening is when
they rehab them, they rehab them only for very low income. So what
you're doing is concentrating all the very low income. And I suggested
that they make it for affordable so that then that community itself would
have a better balance instead of stacking all of that stuff in very, very
low income into the one area, which is not smart planning.
And so I wanted the county to come in and do some rehabbing in
Naples Manor as well, to give it a better balance, because we do a little
higher rehab than Habitat does. Our people have told me that they're
not allowed to go into the manor, because of an agreement, or this is
what I was told. Anyway, so I think we need a better balance in that.
And somebody else was talking about the Shimberg report. And I
questioned this a few years back when I identified the fact that our
Page I 75
January 31, 2011
figures were very erroneous. And I said -- and they said well, this is
what Shimberg said. I said, where did Shimberg get their figures?
From us.
And then we give them the figures and then they figure out what
they say. And I thought how can they give a report -- they were the
ones that came up with 30,000 units short. But that's because we only
fed them the information that led them to 30,000 units short. Well,
they can't come up with anything if we don't give them the proper
figures.
And then lastly, somebody was talking about also a burden on the
taxpayers. Because, don't forget, for every low income and very low
income housing, and even many affordable housing units, we're going
to pay the health care, our taxpayers are going to pay the health care for
those people, pay for the WIC programs, pay for any of the food stamps
and so forth that help these people to live in these homes. So there is a
burden on our taxpayers as well.
I think I've said it all.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Commissioner Hiller.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: What Commissioner Coletta said
about basically having a zero requirement until the need comes up I
think is very valid. You know, let the free market run itself. And as
far as the comment about, well, we know what the inventory is but we
don't know what the demand is. You do know what the demand is by
virtue of the fact that you see such high inventory. There was no
demand. Because if there was a demand, these units that are out there
in the market would be bought up and you would see a shrinking
inventory .
So the argument that you have to have a demand number in order
to justify zero, I logically don't see the connection there.
As far as a percentage goes, I see the same problem as, you know,
the demand-side argument. You have to deal with, as Commissioner
Page I 76
January 31, 2011
Coletta said, reality. To arbitrarily, you know -- and of course I'm sure
they're -- I should retract that arbitrarily. But to come up with some
percentage when we know there's no need based on existing and future
inventory, which is verifiable, doesn't make any sense.
MS. MOSCA: Commissioner Hiller, the inventory, actually, that
was presented in December showed a need in the, I think it was the very
low 50 percent. So we may look at perhaps policies addressing that
need side, that 50 percent or below. But to go with zero somewhat
concerns me --
COMMISSIONER HILLER: But help me out. Because let's
take the facts Commissioner Coletta presented. He just described a
situation where a development was built which was low income housing
and it's not being occupied because the individuals who used to occupy
those kind of homes have moved from the area because there's no longer
work here. And so as a result there's no demand for that type of
housing.
So, I mean, we're dealing with the reality of the market. I'm not
sure how the study came up. And of course that was like my first
meeting and I remember the discussion and remarks Commissioner
Fiala made. I'd have to look at that more closely. It's just not
reconciling to what Commissioner Coletta is stating.
MS. MOSCA: Perhaps with the situation with Commissioner
Coletta, there may be restrictions on that housing, so somebody within
that 50 percent range or lower may not be able to live in those units.
I'm just not sure, I don't know the specifics.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Commissioner Coletta.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: There is a restriction, you have
to be a farm worker or 50 percent or more of your income comes from
farm labor.
The problem is, is that there's been a decline in the amount of farm
labor that's needed because of mechanization they're doing for
Page I 77
January 31,2011
harvesting. And because -- but it's things like -- but that's an engine
that takes place almost independent of us. It's kind of hard to tell the
federal government you can't do this.
Meanwhile, we can concentrate on what we can do and can't do. I
understand what Commissioner Fiala is saying, you know -- Naples
Manor, and the way that just low income is going in there. However,
Habitat, they're particular direction, I've been involved with them for 17,
18 years now. It's specifically for the low income. And I don't think
they can really go the next step up.
However, with that said, there is other agencies out there.
Remember John Barlow and his different group working for the people
that were the next step up for affordable housing? Affordable housing
covers a whole range of people. When you go to the very low to the
medium, the medium starts to cover a larger variety of people.
Maybe what we could do is, I mean, just for thought, is look at
something like a neighborhood that's already established and what could
be done to renovate parts of it that would be able to meet the needs of
what might be considered the middle income, low income type of
people, somebody like John Barlow could come in and be able to one
section of the neighborhood or whatever. They do it in so many gated
communities. They have condos at one end, they have great big
monstrous mansion homes in other part in the community. There's no
reason why, when they're retrofitting, we can't probably reach out for
mansions, but we certainly could reach out for some, maybe some area
of the community that could be dedicated for, might be called a higher
income home or whatever. Maybe the tile roofs, maybe a different kind
of siding, a little bit bigger yards. Who knows what.
But the thing is, who else can we bring in the mix to be able to
bring a balance to this whole thing? That would be the question.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Do you have enough guidance now to
proceed with what you need to do?
Page I 78
January 31, 2011
MS. MOSCA: We believe we --
CHAIRMAN COYLE: I'm just, you know, I think we're beating
this horse again. But nevertheless, Commissioner Fiala.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I think Commissioner Hiller was
first.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay, Commissioner Hiller.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: As a matter of policy, I think what
we need to do is instead of constantly focusing on the supply side, which
there seems to be an abundance, I think we need to focus on demand.
And we need to do what's necessary to incentivize demand so this
inventory starts moving downwards, which will be to the benefit of
everyone in the community.
So to the extent there are programs there, instead of rehabbing
more houses, why not put money in the hands of qualified buyers, create
a program that gives them the ability to go out and buy the homes that
are out there. I think the problem is, is that people can't buy the house,
not that we need more affordable housing.
So as a matter of policy, I think we need to redirect focus and we
need to let the market manage itself.
MR. RAMSEY: That's an excellent point, Commissioner.
A number of the grants that we operate out of our office do address
a lot of what's being discussed thus far.
For example, Commissioner Fiala, we have a grant of about $7.3
million received in 2009, and I'll be bringing to you in the February
meeting an additional allocation from the federal government that
allows us to go up to 127 percent of median income, which none of our
other grants allow.
And I have spoken with Habitat and they are very open to the idea
of a partnership where we build the higher end housing and they build
the, as you know, other, the mixed income community or other
opportunities such as that.
Page I 79
January 31,2011
Also, the state provides us a grant that we do down-payment
assistance to help clients that are prequalified and have been through
home buyer education go out and purchase a home.
One of the things that -- currently the way the program is working
is we used to give 15 percent of the purchase price as assistance. We
then, at your direction, revised that to be a three to one match, meaning
if the client put down $1,000, we'll give a $3,000 grant.
As the credit market has tightened and the banks have tightened
their lending, buyers are being asked to come up with more and more
down-payment for a conventional loan or qualify for an FHA loan. So
there may be an opportunity to change policy on the down-payment
assistance to increase the demand side. And I'd be happy to meet with
our banking partners to get information.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: That's exactly what we need to do.
And, you know, talking about us building more, we have so many
unsold units that we have already rehabbed, and we're carrying that
unsold inventory. So I think we absolutely have to focus on demand
and really start dwindling things down. We don't need more at this
point, we need to help buyers. If there's going to be any involvement in
the marketplace on the part of government, let's help the community as a
whole in that fashion. Because I believe the opposite is going to hurt
the community as a whole.
MR. RAMSEY: Yes. And we have -- we've been doing a
combination of both in that we're not building new, we're buying
foreclosures, we're rehabilitating them and then selling them to people
up to 120 percent median income.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: But don't we have unsold
inventory of units just like what you describe?
MR. RAMSEY: Not owned by the county. If it's owned by an
organization that is unsold units, the opportunity, Commissioner, as you
mentioned, may be to go to that organization and offer clients of theirs,
Page I 80
January 31, 2011
if they qualify, some form of assistance to make it possible to buy that
unit.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: So the county doesn't own unsold
rehabbed homes that they acquired and rehabbed? They sold everything
that they acquired and rehabbed?
MR. RAMSEY: I believe right now we're finishing up two that
don't have buyers. But we offer incentive to those buyers to purchase
those homes. So we're being to have an open house next month and
we're going to continue to try to market those homes.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: There's something that you haven't really
told us about that, though. As I look at the number of houses that we
have bought and then spent money on rehabilitating, the amount of
money we have coming in for those when they're sold is well below
what it cost us to acquire and rehabilitate them. We can't sustain that
kind of operation.
We should be able to make the right decisions about how much we
would pay for these homes, abandoned homes in most cases, how much
we need to put into them, and then recover our investment. We cannot
continually be running a deficit in this program. So it's very important
that we begin to turn that process around.
The other thing that is important is that we understand that it is
impossible for everyone who wants to own a home to buy the home.
That's what got us into this real estate mess in the first place, the
financial mess in the first place.
So there are many people who simply don't have the income to
own a home. And we somehow have to address their housing
requirements in Collier County. And we have to address them in a way
that's different from the way we address satisfying the housing needs of
people who can qualify to buy a home.
And I'm not at all sure that significant subsidies to help someone
who is otherwise unqualified to actually buy a home that they might not
Page I 81
January 31, 2011
be able to sustain merely creates a cycle of bankruptcies. And we need
to have plans that are tailored to the segments of the market who need
housing, from rentals up to including purchases of homes.
And I hope you're getting a lot of guidance. I think the best thing
to do is just let you absorb that and come back with your best guess or
best estimate as to what you think is good for us. But use real data,
okay.
Commissioner Fiala?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Regarding -- let me say, last year
Sam Durso came into my office with Lisa Lefkow and Nick, and he
said, you know, I'm going to be pulling back from the organization.
And we had the best conversation Sam and I have had in years.
And I explained to him what a problem it is building all that very
low income or buying up the homes in Naples Manor. I said, could you
raise them up a level so that you'd have a better balance in the
community and maybe help to have that community recover a little bit
and make it a safer neighborhood as well.
And he said, we could do that, but we choose to build 50 percent
and below. And I showed him some pictures of houses that Habitat has
built, beautiful homes. I think I might have showed you, Nick, the
two-story ones and everything. These are in Ohio. They really can do a
great job. But they choose to build 50 percent and below. And I know
that you're aware of that.
So what I'm saying is, if that is their choice, and that's fine, but then
they shouldn't concentrate it in one area, because it's not healthy for a
neighborhood. It's not smart growth. They need to sprinkle it with
other housing or the county needs to go in and buy up some of those
homes in Naples Manor to bring some of them up so that you give it a
better neighborhood. Not better, a better balanced neighborhood.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Commissioner Hiller.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: I think Commissioner Coyle
Page I 82
January 31, 2011
brought up some good points. The county should not be in the business
of pre-qualifying these buyers when assistance is given. But rather,
when a buyer has been qualified by the bank, and right now the lending
standards are much tighter, and the possibility does exist to provide
assistance to basically get them that loan based on their income and so
forth and their credit history, it does make sense.
The other point that's very important is, in considering the
inventory that's out there, it's not just the single-family home on a piece
of land, it is absolutely the rental units, the condos, trailers. There are
many different types of housing. The intent of the federal law was to
provide a roof over your head, not a single-family home. And I think
that's always -- or overlooked -- I shouldn't say always, but often
overlooked in the discussion of providing housing. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay, you've got it.
MS. MOSCA: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: What's next?
MR. BOSI: That would transition us to the Recreation and Open
Space elements. I was the -- Mike Bosi, I was the coordinator for this
element, worked with the Parks Department.
And from the summary page you can see that the -- you know, we
are going to make the modifications based upon the direction the Board
of County Commissioners provided to us at the AUIR CIE for the
modification to the levels of service.
We're going to delete the provisions within the -- within the
element related to the provision for neighborhood parks. We do not
have a standard, we don't have a requirement for the provisions of
neighborhood parks, therefore we're going to delete those references
from the recreation and open space element.
And the rest of the proposed changes are just minor modifications
to the element.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Commissioner Fiala.
Page I 83
January 31, 2011
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes, is -- I'm sorry, I haven't found
this. But is there anything in this element that mentions that all
community parks should have a community center? There's one that
doesn't.
MR. BOSI: No. That level of specificity wouldn't be provided
in this type of a document. That would be where the Parks Master
Plan, which Mr. Williams had indicated will be coming before you. It's
currently in --
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I'll be there at the his meeting on
Wednesday anyway. I've read the master plan. We'll have a lively
conversation.
MR. BOSI: That's where that type of specificity would be
provided. We really don't get into the specifics of what is and isn't
within the various regional community parks within these policies.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Commissioner Hiller.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: One of the concerns I have is how
the inventory of regional parks is calculated. And in the past what I
found was that the regional parks inventory did not include the state
parks, even though the state parks are part of our park system. And I'm
afraid that what that can do is drive policies to increase regional parks
above what is actually necessary, given what we have.
And the by-product of that is that it has the effect of increasing
impact fees above what is necessary to supply the level of service that
we're committing to. So it has an inflationary impact. And that
concerns me.
So I want to be sure that as a matter of policy we are including all
parks, regardless of ownership, in the inventory for purposes of, you
know, setting policy, evaluating what our level of service is, and
consequently what impact fees and other fees might be.
MR. BOSI: That concern was the prime motivation behind the
action of the Board of County Commissioners by lowering the level
Page I 84
January 31,2011
service for regional parks from 2.9 to 2.7, was that recognition of the
state and federal lands that are available and park opportunities.
So the board is concurrent with that line of thought and has taken
actions within the past three months that have basically recognized
that -- a list of amenities that, because of the way the restriction for
impact fees, they can't be included within our inventory but our citizens
enjoy those recreation opportunities. And based upon that, we
inventory those every year as a matter of policy, and the board has taken
the actions to adjust the levels of service in recognition of those
recreational opportunities.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: So since you say it is as a matter of
policy, we should make sure that it is included as a policy provision that
non-county-owned regional parks are considered in the overall
calculation of the level of service.
MR. BOSI: We will -- and the recognition of all recreational
facilities as a matter of policy will be something that will be provided
for within this EAR review that will be sent to the Department.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Commissioner Hiller brings up a
very, very good point. Something I didn't -- I don't know is do we also
consider some of the lands that Conservation Collier has purchased that
we now -- we wanted to make sure has public access and can be used,
whether it be for hunting or for fishing for just for passive walking or
parking spaces to just have a pleasant day looking at nature.
Are those included in here?
MR. BOSI: Those are included as part of the inventories. The
only ones that are included as part of the inventories that count against
our levels of service are the ones that we have specific agreements.
Pepper Ranch is a good example. A portion of Pepper Ranch is
managed by the parks system -- anticipated, is anticipated to be. That
will be incorporated within to the inventory that is transmitted to the
Department as part of the category A facilities. But it's also
Page I 85
January 31,2011
inventoried -- all of the land holding are inventoried and recognized
within the Recreation and Open Space element as available
opportunities to provide for recreation, whether it be passive or active.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Thank you very much.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Commissioner Hiller, you want to talk
.
again.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: I just want to clarify what you just
said. Because Commissioner Fiala raises a very important point. I see
two different arguments on the same point.
I mean, either those lands in total, regardless of whether by
agreement they're being used as a park now, like Pepper Ranch, are
included in this inventory or not. I mean, I don't think it's -- whether or
not it's currently designated or agreement will be designated, all those
Conservation Collier lands should be considered part of the inventory
and we shouldn't be double-counting if they're omitted.
MR. BOSI: We do not. You have to remember the purpose,
there's two primary purposes being taken care of. Right now currently
as exists, there's 66 percent of our land is federally and state protected
conservation open space. Now, if we want to include those as part of
our inventory, we would never build another park, ever.
But for the purpose of how we categorize, classify the category A
facilities, our regional and community parks, there's a limitation
towards what we can and can't include with those. And those are
related to impact fees.
We inventory all those recreational opportunities. It's just for the
purpose of category A for concurrency for the CIE, we can't count all
those for that purpose. But we do and we will inventory all of those
available so the Board of County Commissioners can continue to say,
all right, we look at this inventory and we still think that we're a little bit
high on our levels of service, based upon the recognition of everything
that you've presented to us. And that's how those evaluations
Page I 86
January 31, 2011
interrelate. And that's why they have to be separate but that's why
they're part of the whole.
MR. WILLIAMS: Barry Williams, Parks and Rec Director.
Just one point, I think Commissioner Fiala got to it earlier, is the
question of with reduction of level of service are we going to have
adequate level of service to meet our current needs. And the master
plan is laying out some of those needs.
You know, the point that would be made in terms of the state and
federal lands and conservation lands, and this discussions has gone on
for years now, I believe, in that with the community and regional park
lands, what we're looking at for the most part is active recreation. And
we distinguish that from the state and federal lands.
Active recreation for us in a lot of ways tends to be things like
athletic fields, soccer fields, baseball fields, little league fields, those
kind of things.
So you want to be careful where I think you reduce your level of
service and appropriately so, that you don't hem yourself in for the
potential -- because we do have some needs in the community that aren't
addressed yet with -- and Commissioner Fiala, certainly with Eagle
Lakes, the community center is one. Big Corkscrew Island regional
park. You know, in the Estates we have a tremendous need there. So
there are some needs that we sill have in terms of build-out.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Where would you classify, for
example, Picayune, which is used for a lot of recreational activity, or
Wiggins State Park, which is also used for a -- you know, to a great
degree by the public?
MR. WILLIAMS: Picayune is the wild, wild west as best I
understand. But it is an open space area that is enjoyed for a lot of
different reasons. You won't see a lot of soccer or little league out
there. But it is a unique recreational aspect that people enjoy.
Delnor Wiggins is the same. I mean, it's very unique in terms of
Page I 87
January 31, 2011
what it offers to our community and surrounding area. If you were to
classify Delnor Wiggins, if you were able to, you would call it a
regional park in essence. We've approached Delnor Wiggins in the
past about possibly taking over that operation, for a variety of reasons,
but that hasn't -- and understandably the state park is very proud of that
location.
But Delnor Wiggins is a place to enjoy the beach, enjoy to -- a
place --
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Right. But is that in our
inventory?
MR. WILLIAMS: No, it is not. Delnor Wiggins is not.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: So if I have a park, if it doesn't
provide a -- you know, a -- if it doesn't service a little league team, it's
not calculated in the inventory?
If there is a green piece of -- I mean, there are parks in the
community that are not little league parks.
MR. BOSI: Those are part of the overall inventory. They're not
part of the inventory that we -- that we say that we own. The way the
category A facilities works, and this discussion will be hashed out as a
number of times during the CIE. The category A facilities, when it
comes to park, they want to know are we meeting the standards, the
levels of service standards that we have for community and regional
parks on parks that we own. This is only parks that we owen can that
be concluded as category A facilities.
As part of a policy we inventory all of the open space and all of the
recreational opportunities that are available to the public. But for the
purpose of the category A for CIE planning, we can only count what we
own, because that's what we're being charged to provide.
Now, what the board has done is recognize that there is a
plentiful -- there's an abundance of open space passive recreation
opportunities. Based upon that, we're lowering our level of service to
Page I 88
January 31,2011
take into account for it. But legally, because of the way the impact fee
structure is, we cannot include everything within one inventory.
We have to have two inventories. One that says this is the
whole -- this is everything we have. And then other is this is what we
own, this is what we manage and this is what we hold our standards
against.
And I understand that that doesn't -- that to a person who enjoys the
park systems, they don't care. But for the way that we have to go about it
and put forward these inventories, there has to be that type of a
distinction. And it's never been one that has settled well with the
advisory boards or the Boards of County Commissioners. But we
haven't been able to figure out how we can get out from underneath
these requirements of the DCA.
MR. WILLIAMS: One other comment, if I may. Just to clarify,
too, with -- and you've had this conversation for many years now, I
know.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Yes, I have, every year. And I've lost.
MR. WILLIAMS : Well, the one point I would make, and this is
just a small point, is that when Mike says properties that we own, we
have been able to, it's beyond just owning properties. Where we have
an agreement where the Parks and Rec Department manages a particular
property, that also is able to be counted in our inventory.
So what we've done throughout the last few years, we have
interlocal agreements with the school board where we manage green
space associated with the school board. That allows us, for the most
part, to economically provide for the public in terms of green space for
soccer, for little league, for those kind of activities, where we don't have
to necessarily build facilities.
So the category A is not only just those that we own but also those
properties where we have some type of an agreement on.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: And it is in my opinion a very subjective
Page I 89
January 31, 2011
determination for many of those reasons. The things we haven't touched
on, and I don't want to get into this debate again, is that there are
recreational facilities all over this county in the form of golf courses,
tennis courts, swimming pools that service their residents in gated
communities. And believe it or not there are children in those gated
communities. And those facilities don't enter into our calculations at
all.
So this whole process of level of service for recreational facilities
is extremely subjective. And 2.7 is about the best I've ever been able to
get after five, six, seven years of debate. So I'm not going to start again
today.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: I echo Commissioner Coyle's
concern. And I -- if what Commissioner Coyle says is correct, that it is
subjective and not a legal requirement, and if it is a legal requirement,
I'd like to see it, I'm very concerned. Because the burden on the
county -- and this ties into policy very much from the standpoint of
fiscal policy. The Board of County Commissioners now is responsible
for how they calculate, you know, for the burden of proving how they
calculate impact fees.
I mean, if there's this much subjectivity at play, I would really have
a concern. Because when it comes to subjectivity and money and
assessing fees, I think as a matter of law we have to be conservative.
We can't take the side that pushes the fee up to -- you know, because of a
subjective determination.
And the question also becomes who makes that subjective
determination? I would think it's the board. It's something like what
Commissioner Coyle just described from the board's perspective as to
what should or should not be included if it's based on subjectivity.
Not -- I don't know who's actually coming up with it, but I would have a
real concern about that.
Because I could see -- I mean, based on everything that's being
Page I 90
January 31, 2011
discussed today, I could see a legal challenge.
MR. BOSI: I understand. What I will say is I will coordinate
with Amy Patterson to get you the most recent impact fee study for
parks. All the legal sufficiency and how those were determined, how
those were arrived upon, there's criteria that they have established. I
don't think there's a lot of agreement that they like the criteria, because
there was lots of assets they had put outside the boundaries. But
because they do not meet these specific criteria for impact fees, they
can't be counted. And that impact fee study will provide, this sort of
ambiguity I think that you're hearing, it's provided for. That the way
that we've proceeded for the past five years is within the regulation of
the law. And the regulation of the law has been the thing that has
prevented I think wide acceptance for how we go about doing it.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: I'd like to see the law. And to the
extent that there is any subjectivity that the law allows, the subjectivity
should be a determination made by the board.
MR. BOSI: I agree. And I will get you the most recent impact
fee study.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Thank you. We're going to break for
lunch. We'll be back here at 3:30. Can you--
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: You've got to correct the record.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Can you cover the rest of it in an hour?
MR. BOSI: Sir, I will do whatever the board directs.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: We'll be back at 1:10, okay? Thank you.
(A lunch recess was taken.)
(At which time, Commissioner Henning is present.)
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Ladies and gentlemen, we're back in
.
session.
Where do we go from now?
MR. BOSI: The next element in the sequence of events would be
the CCME, with Michele Mosca from Comprehensive Planning Staff is
Page 191
January 31, 2011
the coordinator.
MS. MOSCA: Again, for the record, Michele Mosca,
Comprehensive Planning Staff.
You'll find in your executive summary in attachment Exhibit B
where there are several differences in the objective and policy
recommendations.
What I'd like to do is just go over the Exhibit B items.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Where are we going to find the Exhibit B
items?
MS. MOSCA: If you'll look -- actually if you'll go to the
county-wide assessment labeled CCME tab.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Yeah, we got that.
MS. MOSCA: And then we can just go quickly through the
pages.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay.
MS. MOSCA: Beginning with Policy 1.1.3 on Page 2.
And staff is recommending no change to this policy, as the
workloads are addressed annually and adjusted as necessary.
So staff would make that recommendation.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay.
MS. MOSCA: The next one, Page 3, Objective 1.2. And that's on
Page 3 of the CCME.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Go ahead.
MS. MOSCA: And staff is recommending no change to this
objective. The objective is already being met with the GIS base
system.
And then the next one is Policy 1.2.3. And that's a data quality
item as well. And we're just going to revise for clarity consistent with
the Planning Commission's recommendation.
The next one is on Page 5, Policy 1.3.1. Staff is recommending
the removal of the specific references, just to broaden the scope of the
Page I 92
January 31, 2011
state and federal policies.
Next item is Page 6, Objective 2.1. And staff is recommending
that we hold off on any changes until the Watershed Management Plans
are completed. The Watershed Management Plans should address the
comments provided.
The next one is Policy 2.1.3. Again, we would recommend
holding off on revising this policy until such time as the Watershed
Management Plans are completed. The Watershed Management Plans
will include performance and measures and improvements.
Next one is Policy 2.1.6. We recommend again no change, as the
plans will identify the data needs.
Page 10, Policy 2.2.1. The reference to reuse is not applicable to
the policy objectives. And we would suggest, based on board
direction, adding a policy to address reuse.
Next item, Page 12, Policy 2.2.5. No change is being
recommended. The county is presently following the development of
the Florida Department of Environmental Protection's State Stormwater
Rule for uniform standards.
The next item is on Page 17, Policy 3.1.1. And this is going to
require additional monitoring activities that need to be programmed and
funded. So this is one that we would definitely need the board's
direction on. And Ray Smith is available to answer questions on that.
And that deals with the salinity, improvement of groundwater
monitoring.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: What page are you on?
MS. MOSCA: I'm sorry, on Page 19. Just at the
recommendation where you see post workshop and adoption hearing,
staff comment, on top of Page 19.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: All right. And you need board guidance
on Objective 3.3?
MS. MOSCA: 3.1.1. And then following that, Objective 3.3.
Page I 93
January 31, 2011
But initially Policy 3.1.1, the Environmental Advisory Council
suggested addressing the improvement of groundwater monitoring in
order to assess saltwater intrusion. And staff is willing to do that, but it
will require additional monitoring activities that must be programmed
and funded.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: How do we know what the cost is likely
to be?
MS. MOSCA: Let me defer to Ray Smith.
MR. SMITH: For the record, Ray Smith, Pollution Control
Department.
At this point we don't know what the cost is going to be. I can
offer this, is the Big Cypress Basin board is in the process of putting
together a proposal to identify those wells that would need to be placed
or located throughout the county. And the proposal would have to go
out to bid.
And in my conversation with them, they had requested do you
have any money for this? So the answer is we don't know at this time.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: We gave them our money. Why aren't
they doing it?
MR. SMITH: I'm only conveying what I was told.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: So there is no estimate of the cost of--
MR. SMITH: Not at this time. They need to determine the
number of wells, the location of the wells, depth of the wells and how
often they need to be sampled.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Now, is that the Big Cypress Basin or the
South Florida Water Management District? I know they're all in the
same organization, but which one is tasked with doing this?
MR. SMITH: The Big Cypress Basin would have to go to South
Florida Water Management District and receive their authorization to
proceed.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: And they don't have that yet; is that
Page I 94
January 31, 2011
correct?
MR. SMITH: It's just in a proposal point at this point.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. So what are the options with
respect to forwarding this particular objective to Tallahassee? Can we
send it as it is without a definition of the monitoring wells?
MS. MOSCA: Yes, we can.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Awaiting the definition of the
requirements by South Florida Water Management District and the
availability of funds.
MR. SMITH: Yes, sir.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. So that is an option we could
pursue?
MS. MOSCA: Yes.
MR. SMITH: Yes.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Commissioner Hiller?
COMMISSIONER HILLER: I'm not as familiar with this
particular topic. Can you tell me what the current problems are with
saltwater intrusion? I mean, is there a major problem that we have
throughout the county?
MR. SMITH: Well, saltwater intrusion, you have this constant
pull and tug is about the best way to say it, where you have to have
enough freshwater in the ground to -- and as you pump that out, it
reduces the pressure of the head, allowing saltwater to infiltrate into
existing wellfields, for example.
So if you keep enough freshwater in the ground, it will keep the
saltwater from intruding from the Gulf and contaminating those sites.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: I understand. What I'm trying to
get a better understanding of is, is this a problem that we're having
throughout the county?
MR. SMITH: That would have to be -- that would be part of the
study, to determine the extent of the problem and if there is a problem.
Page I 95
January 31, 2011
COMMISSIONER HILLER: So we're doing this just to find out
if we have a problem?
MR. SMITH: The--
COMMISSIONER HILLER: In other words, we don't have
any -- we're not suffering as a result of this happening right now, there's
no adverse impact on us? Is this -- what kind of a--
MR. SMITH: I don't have enough information on that to
comment on that, ma'am.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Yes, we have had saltwater intrusion into
fresh water wells. And staff has been trying to figure out how
extensive that is and why it occurs. It's only occurred with a few well
sites, it's not widespread.
And the fact that we are drilling deep into brackish water anyway
to draw it out and to treat it through the reverse osmosis process
probably makes it less of a concern. But as those wells get more -- get
a higher and higher salinity content, it's going to have an impact on us.
So we need to find out through widespread monitoring whether this is
likely to become a major problem in the future.
But without the money to drill the wells, the test wells, it's a very
difficult thing to do. And without the standards and the locations
specified by South Florida Water Management District, we would be at
great risk to go out and just start drilling wells without knowing where
we should drill the wells to make sure that we've got the best data and
the best coverage.
So I don't know how we give definitive guidance, given the
information we have. If we can do as I had suggested, saying that we
intend to work with South Florida Water Management to define the
location and number of monitoring wells that would be necessary and
evaluate potential funding sources, if we can do that, that might be the
best course of action at this point in time. And then we can become
more specific once some of our questions are answered. Is that -- can
Page I 96
January 31, 2011
you tell us if that would be an acceptable thing to do?
MS. MOSCA: That definitely would be an acceptable thing to
do. We'll go ahead and revise the policies --
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Well, not yet, not yet, you don't--
MS. MOSCA: No, not revise the policy, revise the statement.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. I just want to make sure the
Board of County Commissioners agrees --
MS. MOSCA: Okay.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: -- with what I said. We're going to need
at least three nods to do that.
Yes, Commissioner Henning?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Yeah, I agree.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Was that two nods or is that just
one nod?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Yeah.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Count on me.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay, we've got three nods.
MS. MOSCA: Okay, and then the next item is Objective 3.3 on
the same page, 19. And that -- this is also an item where we need some
direction, because there is additional cost involved in adjusting the
model. And I'll let Ray address that, if you have additional questions.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. How much cost for adjusting the
model?
MR. SMITH: Again, Ray Smith for the record.
The last -- well, let me explain what I'm talking about about the
additional cost.
We have an existing model that models a one-year, a two-year, a
five-year and a 20-year travel time zone. In the request their focus is a
1 O-year travel time zone.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: When you say "they", who are you
talking about?
Page I 97
January 31, 2011
MR. SMITH: The EAC. I'm sorry -- yes, the EAC.
And if we needed to change the model, the last time the model was
updated it was about 90 to $100,000.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Well, why has the EAC chosen a 10-year
interval rather than selecting either a five or a 20-year interval?
MR. SMITH: The only -- I can just assume at this point why they
selected it.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: So this is not something that's mandated
by the state or federal governments?
MR. SMITH: No, sir.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: I don't know why we want to spend the
money on it. Do others agree? We have --
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Yeah, I agree.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I do, as long as we haven't run into
any problems where we need the 10-year.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Well, if we're monitoring it five years,
then it seems to me we catch it a little bit earlier than if we substituted a
10-year interval for the five.
MR. SMITH: It would just be the opposite.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay.
MR. SMITH: If you were monitoring it at 10 years, you would
then see it approaching your five-year, so you'd catch it a little bit
earlier.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay, I got it. Well, we're monitoring it
at 20 years, then why wouldn't that tell us?
MR. SMITH: Well, let's be clear on the term monitoring. We
have land use requirements associated with each one of those zones.
And if you put a 10-year in there between the five and the 20, we would
then have to rewrite the Land Development Code and adjust the land
uses. But there is no monitoring of groundwater associated with a
20-year, five-year, two-year and one-year travel time. These are risk
Page I 98
January 31, 2011
management zones.
Did I lose you?
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Yeah, you did. Tell me how you
manage the risk in the management zone if you don't monitor it.
MR. SMITH: The monitoring is based on land use, okay? You
have specific types of land uses that are prohibited or allowed. And it
becomes more restrictive as you approach the well head. Thus the one
year is more restrictive than the two, the five and the 20.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Commissioner Henning?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Yeah, I might be able to help
you out. In our LDC we have, you know, circles that doesn't allow gas
stations.
That's what you're talking about, right?
MR. SMITH: Businesses that could contaminate, not necessarily
gas stations.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, that's an example of it.
Or dirty diapers or something like that. If that helps out.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay.
MR. SMITH: Did I answer your question?
CHAIRMAN COYLE: I think so. But you didn't give us any
alternatives. We're going to reject the 10-year because of the cost of
adjusting the model, right?
MR. SMITH: Yes, sir.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: And because of the effect that it's likely
to have on our land development codes; is that correct?
MR. SMITH: Yes.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: And we're not ready to do that right now,
are we?
MR. SMITH: No.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay.
MR. SMITH: I mean, that's the board -- that's a policy decision at
Page I 99
January 31, 2011
this point. But at this point we do keep a very close eye on our land
uses within those protection zones that I mentioned within the certain
protection zones. We do go out to businesses once a year. And we
issue certificate to operate. And so we are keeping an annual look on
these types of land uses that the LDC requires us to do so.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. All right.
Then the board, as I recall from the last question I asked, would
agree with not spending the money on upgrading or changing the model
to provide a 10-year report; is that correct?
Looks like we got five nods.
MS. MOSCA: The next item is on Page 28, Policy 6.1.6. Staff is
recommending no change. The EAC comment is already addressed
within the CCME Policy 6.1.2(6), the preserve management
requirement.
Next change is on Page 29, Objective 6.2. No change is
recommended. The Watershed Management Plans will address
impacts.
Next policy is on Page 30, Policy 6.2.3. No change is
recommended at this time, as the Watershed Management Plans will
address the EAC comments regarding wetlands.
Next policy is on Page 35, Policy 6.2.7. Again, staff is
recommending no changes at this time. Wetlands and mitigation for
wetland impacts will be addressed as part of the Watershed
Management Plans.
Next policy is on Page 36, Policy 6.3.2. No change is being
recommended due to dredging is regulated by the state and federal
government. And the Florida Manatee Management Plan addresses
sea grass management.
Next policy is on Page 37, Policy 7.1.2. No change is being
recommended. Environmental staff is concerned about the EAC
recommendation that -- to preserve slash pines for RCW habitat. And
Page 1100
January 31, 2011
if you need further clarification, Steven Lenberger is here.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Anybody need clarification on this issue?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN COYLE: All right.
MS. MOSCA: The next item is on Page 46, Objective 10.3. And
then this is simply a change to the reference from the LDC, as requested
by the EAC to the federal coastal barrier resource system. So instead
of using the LDC reference, we'll use the other.
Next item is on Page 46 again, Objective 10.5. Staff is stating that
there's no change needed at this time. The mangrove systems are
already protect by the federal coastal barrier resource system.
And that was your last change. And that was everything included
in Exhibit B.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay, Commissioner Henning?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Yeah, go back to wastewater
treatment plants, 2.2.1. Is there any existing wastewater treatment
plants that discharge into the rivers, canals or wetlands?
MR. HATCHER: Good afternoon. Mac Hatcher with
Stormwater and Environmental Planning.
The City of Naples and Everglades City both have permits that
allow them to discharge. Primarily they dispose of their effluent in
other ways, but they do have permits. There aren't any in the county
area.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. And this is the only
thing that concerns us is the county, because we can't adopt rules
affecting the municipalities.
MR. HATCHER: Correct.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay, good.
Now, my last question is about -- and it might not be in this
element -- requiring in industrial land preserves on platted lots. Is that
in this element?
Page 1101
January 31, 2011
MS. MOSCA: No, it should be in the Future Land Use Element.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. And they're coming up.
I would like to talk about that. I don't know who's going to deal with
the FLUE.
MS. MOSCA: David Weeks will be addressing the Future Land
Use Element.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay?
MS. MOSCA: Thank you.
MS. VALERA: Good afternoon. Carolina Valera, Principal
Planner.
Your next element is the intergovernmental coordination element.
Both the Environmental Advisory Council and Collier County Planning
Commission did not have any additional changes. The changes we
propose are minor. So if you have any questions, I'll be glad to address
them.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Questions?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay, thank you.
MR. BOSI: And that would bring us to the Future Land Use
Element. And Mr. David Weeks coordinated this element.
MR. WEEKS: Good afternoon, Commissioners.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I'm trying to figure out where
that tab is.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: It's county-wide assessment FLUE.
MR. WEEKS: Commissioners, I'm David Weeks of the
Comprehensive Planning Section.
And behind the tab county-wide assessment FLUE,
F-L-U-E -- and Commissioners, unless you object, I'm going to skip
over those which I would say are not substantive, such as changing a
date or cross-reference and whatnot and identify to you those that I
Page 1102
January 31, 2011
believe are or could be deemed substantive in nature.
I'm going to skip over the summary page, which is Pages 1 and 2,
and jump to the portion entitled an assessment of the success and
shortcomings and recommendations for the Future Land Use Element.
And within that document, starting on Pages 10 and 11.
The first issue again that I would describe as substantive is a
proposal to change the density rating system for the residential infill
density bonus. This is a provision that has existed since the plan was
adopted in 1989. And it provides for qualifying properties, those of a
certain size threshold or smaller that have central water and sewer
available and some other criteria, that would be eligible for a density
bonus of three units an acre. The intent is to encourage infill
development.
In 2002 when the county adopted the rural fringe amendments,
Growth Management Plan amendments, one of the things we did was
increase the size from a 10-acre threshold up to 20 acres. But most
significantly we added a requirement that of the three-unit per acre
bonus the first unit per acre bonus must come from TDR credits,
transfer of development right credits, from the rural fringe mixed use
district.
And our objective was to try to help that program be successful by
making it a requirement. You want to use this density bonus, you're
going to have to buy some TDR credits.
The opposite has happened. It has completely shut down use of
this density provision. To my knowledge, it has only been used once
since 2002, since this TDR requirement was added. Prior to that time it
was used on several occasions. I can't give you a number, perhaps 10
or 15 times.
So it is not being utilized, it is not helping in any way to make the
TDR program be a success.
Staffs recommendation, and that of the EAC and Planning
Page 1103
January 31, 2011
Commission, is to eliminate the TDR requirement. Take it back more
to the way it used to be when the plan was originally adopted. And
then hopefully it will fulfill its original intent of promoting infill
development.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Are you suggesting that the density
bonus remain the same, however, except for the requirement to use the
TDR?
MR. WEEKS: That's correct.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: How can you determine if it was that
requirement that caused this process to shut down, as opposed to the
economic impact that caused it to shut down?
MR. WEEKS: My thought process is the economic slowdown
didn't occur until around 2006 or '07. But the use of this provision
stopped -- has not occurred other than one time since 2002 when the
requirement was added. The point being that there were just a few, but
a few years of robust economic conditions and the provision was not
used.
We had inquiries, staffhad multiple inquiries from different
landowners, different locations, and once they are aware of this
requirement, no one has gone forward with their proposal.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Have they sought alternative proposals?
MR. WEEKS: Where other density bonuses were available, yes.
In some cases they simply did not pursue the rezoning.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Commissioner Hiller?
COMMISSIONER HILLER: If I understand correctly, what
you're suggesting is that if someone wants to develop there, density
allows so many units, they'll get it, there doesn't have to be any offset in
another part of the community. By eliminating the TDR requirement
that's essentially what you're doing.
MR. WEEKS: Correct.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: And that basically means you're
Page 1104
January 31,2011
allowing for more development in that area.
MR. WEEKS: Yes.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: How does that relate to for
example the RLSA where there's a similar situation? I mean, it's pretty
much a TDR program as well, and that program has stagnated like this
one. I mean, you only have Ave Maria that has acquired anything.
And you have about what? I mean, how many -- I think only 20,000
units have been sold and there are like 30,000 units up for sale and no
one's buying anything.
MR. WEEKS: I'm not sure if I understand the question, but let me
start by going back to Commissioner Coyle's question and make sure I
was clear on it, because I'm seeing a relationship in your questions.
My comment is that this density bonus provision has not been used
since it was amended to require the use of TDR credits. My comment
was not anything to do with the success or the use or activity within the
TDR program itself: within the rural fringe.
And so I'll make the same comment regarding the RLSA.
Whatever activity is occurring there to establish stewardship sending
areas to generate credits or the use of those in creating stewardship
receiving areas, I view that as completely unrelated to this density bonus
provision. And more --
COMMISSIONER HILLER: But isn't it all about -- maybe not
necessarily density bonuses, but permitted uses/density bonuses? I
mean, isn't it, you know, conceptually all the same thing?
MR. WEEKS: I'm going to say no. Because this density bonus
provision is only -- all of the density rating system is only applicable to
the urban designated area. It does not apply to the rural fringe area, it
does not apply to the RLSA or any other rural estates or conservation
designated properties. Only the coastal urban area. Roughly
speaking, a mile east of Collier Boulevard over to the city limits or the
Gulf.
Page 1105
January 31,2011
COMMISSIONER HILLER: But you just have to help me so I
have a better understanding. I mean, we're basically now saying if
there's no TDR requirement that these sending lands, if you will, don't
necessarily have to be sending lands, do they remain sending?
MR. WEEKS: Commissioner--
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Because I thought they were
creat -- I mean, I thought you basically had sending lands versus
receiving lands. And those that were on the sending side were
essentially going to get value for losing the right to develop because
they had these TDR's that they were going to sell on the other side.
And we would have a balance in development where we would have no
development over here and that non-development was compensated for
and development over here in effect that has been mitigated through the
acquisition ofTDR's.
But if you eliminate the TDR's, I mean, I'm just not sure -- you
know, what does a guy who has property in the sending category get if
no one's going to buy his TDR's?
MR. WEEKS: Okay, I think I understand now.
It is only within the Rural Fringe Mixed Use District that we have
the establishment of sending and receiving areas.
The TDR credits that are generated from sending lands in the rural
fringe can only be used on receiving lands within the rural fringe, with
two exceptions. One of those is the one-mile corridor on the east side of
Collier Boulevard known as the urban residential fringe; that's a
different provision called density blending.
And the other provision is the one we're discussing right here. So
this is the other -- this is the exception --
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Can you describe that other
condition that we're talking about here?
MR. WEEKS: The--
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Residential infill.
Page 1106
January 31,2011
MR. WEEKS: Oh, the residential infill, okay. Let me back up
then.
This is a provision that's existed since the plan was first adopted in
1989. And it is a provision to encourage infill development, parcels at
that time that were 10 acres or less in size that had urban services
available and so forth.
The rationale was in many cases these properties may be on a
major roadway and/or may be abutting projects of a higher density or
intensity .
So by allowing those qualifying properties that have a density
bonus, more density on the property, the concept was that we'll allow
the development to occur that will be more compatible with the adjacent
higher intensity or density properties or may be a major roadway.
The decision to add the TDR requirement again came about in
2002 when the rural fringe amendments were adopted. And it did not
change the concept of promoting infill development, but it changed how
you would receive the density bonus.
Before it was simply a discretionary choice of the board. Now it
is a combination of the board's discretion and the applicant actually
acquiring TDR credits to use on their property.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: I do understand that. So now
you're reverting back to it being fully discretionary.
MR. WEEKS: That's correct.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: But my concern is how is that
going to affect those people that have been labeled sending? Now all
of a sudden I think where they had an expectancy of some level of
assurance that their TDR's would be acquired in order to satisfy this
need, that's now gone.
MR. WEEKS: Right. And I have to go back to my earlier
comment, Commissioner, that this provision has not been used with one
exception.
Page 1107
January 31, 2011
What staff is experiencing, both through the lack of applications
requesting the use of this density bonus provision and the conversations
we've had with property owners or applicants that were considering
initiating a rezoning action to use this density bonus provision, what
we're seeing is people simply are not using it.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: And that goes back to
Commissioner Coyle's question and that is, is it because it's market
driven? Because the market is down and there's no activity. So are
you depriving those sending area property owners of: you know, some
assurance of compensation for having lost the right to do anything on
their property?
MR. WEEKS: I don't think so. And again, that's because the
discussions that I and other staff members have had with the applicants,
they find out about this requirement, they're not saying oh, the economy
is the reason, they're coming in to talk to us about a rezoning because
they're interested in pursuing a zoning change on their property. Once
we point out to them that there's this requirement to go buy TDR credits,
they walk away.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: But it's for a density bonus.
MR. WEEKS: Correct.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: It's for above and beyond what
they're legally entitled to it. So now they just want that as a matter of
discretion, at the board's discretion? I mean, I can understand why they
would like that.
But I just think -- my concern is I just -- you have to weigh the
balance as against these other people who are in the sending area and
where they thought they were going to have potential sales -- or certain
sales, actually.
MR. WEEKS: The use of this density provision was and remains
part of the rezoning process. That is to -- maybe finally the light bulb's
going off.
Page 1108
January 31, 2011
To get the density bonus for the TDR credit still requires coming
before the Planning Commission and the Board of County
Commissioners for a rezoning action. It is not an administrative process.
The use of the TDR program in the Rural Fringe Mixed Use Subdistrict
is an administrative process. Unless you're going to develop a rural
village, extending landowner sells their TDR credits to a receiving
landowner or there could be intermediaries. That receiving landowner
comes to the county staff with a site plan, whatnot, and that's how they
use it. They never have to come before you.
But to use this density bonus provision, including for that TDR
credit usage, still requires this board to approve the rezoning action.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: I understand.
MR. WEEKS: I'm still not --
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Yeah, but my concern still remains
that the people in the sending area, you know, basically had a certainty
that they would be able to, you know, have sales when the residential
infill area would begin developing.
MR. WEEKS: Commissioners--
COMMISSIONER HILLER: And I just don't -- I don't know
enough of the history of the development of this fringe program, but it
seems -- and I don't know when this particular process, this TDR
requirement, was implemented. If it was concurrent with them being
labeled sending, and now you're taking away that requirement, I think
there's potentially a financial impact on the sending side.
MR. WEEKS: It was concurrent. And I was just going to say,
Commissioners, obviously your option is don't make a change.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: The fact that --
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Commissioner Henning?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: The fact is there's very little
20-acre parcels in the urban area. Would that be a fair assessment?
MR. WEEKS: I have the number, Commissioners.
Page 1109
January 31,2011
CHAIRMAN COYLE: It's 20 acres or less, I think, isn't it?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: No, up to 20. Yeah, you're
right.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Twenty acres or less.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Twenty acres or less.
MR. WEEKS: My research shows, Commissioners, for
properties that would qualify for this infill bonus, roughly 225
properties.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. So that is substantial.
MR. WEEKS: Right. Now, what is not known of course is how
many of those properties would pursue use of this density bonus
provision, with or without a TDR requirement.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Has that been financially
quantified? How much are these TDR's? I mean, it's -- is it traded in
the free market? Is it set by the -- is the price set by the open market?
MR. WEEKS: It's set in the open market with one limitation.
County Commissioners established a floor of$25,000 per credit.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Can they legally do that?
MR. WEEKS: I hope so. County Attorney at that time was
certainly aware of that occurring.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: I just am not familiar with that. I
mean, it seems -- and it may be completely legal. I just question, you
know, because you're setting a price in a free market. Can you regulate
a market like that?
MR. KLATZKOW: My predecessor signed off on that. I'm going
to assume it's --
COMMISSIONER HILLER: It's his license. No, I'm just
kidding.
Yeah, I just find it interesting. I think I would have to explore that
further.
MR. WEEKS: And certainly there was information
Page 1110
January 31, 2011
provided -- county staffprovided a variety of information to the TDR
expert consultant, Dr. Nicholas from the University of Florida, a variety
of information about properties, property values and so forth. And it
was through his analysis and the public hearing process that it was
determined what the average value was. And it was approximately
25 000 --
,
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Well, if that's the case, you're
talking -- I mean, assuming that it is valid and you can do that, that's a lot
of money. I mean, you're probably talking about a lot of units that
these sending area property owners expected to collect on. If you've got
225 properties on the other side, that would potentially qualify.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Mr. Chairman?
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Yes.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I'm more -- after hearing the
debate, I'm more in favor of leaving any or not. I mean, I don't have an
emotion about it. The effects are -- I mean, that's 220 parcels. That
could be 600 TDR's or 600 units more in the urban area.
So there's a cause and effect. By removing it we might not get
more density in the urban area, or we might have less available TDR's in
the fringe.
So like I said, I can go either way. But I'd just as soon leave it in
there and let's see the effects of it another 10 years from now.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Commissioner Fiala?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes. In this market, present day, if
I were going to be buying a TDR and yet you can buy land so
inexpensively right now, maybe I wouldn't buy a TDR just because of
the price. And I was wondering if maybe, not now, but at some point in
time soon maybe we ought to discuss, even if it's just a little workshop
or something, we ought to discuss that, the price of those TDR's and
maybe adjust them so that they do sell. But that's just -- I'm just
throwing that on the table.
Page 1111
January 31, 2011
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Let me just hopefully briefly go back to
the fundamental question. Do we really want to or do we have to
encourage greater densities in the urban area?
You remember my comments at the beginning of the meeting, you
have pretty much a fixed roadway system in the coastal corridor. You
have limited flexibility as to how you deal with greater densities and
more traffic. So the question really is, is it in our best interest to
encourage high density infill development? And I don't know if you
want to answer that now, or --
MR. WEEKS: Sure.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: But if you've got an opinion, I'd like to
hear it.
MR. WEEKS: First of all, these density bonuses, none of them
are requirements. You don't have to have them. You could eliminate
them all, to the best of my knowledge. I can't think of any exceptions.
There would be consequences. I mean, since I said all, one of
your density bonus is provision of affordable workforce housing. And
we've discussed that a lot this morning.
The purpose for this density bonus is an accepted planning practice
to promote higher densities within your urban designated area. That's
where you provide most of your urban style services. The higher your
densities are, generally speaking, the more potential for success of a
mass transit system. Low density is the opposite.
But would eliminating this density bonus break the bank in that
regard? No, I don't think so.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Would it violate any of the growth
management legislation principles? Would we be required to increase
the density through bonuses in the urban infill area, or not?
MR. WEEKS: A straightforward question, Commissioner, my
answer won't be so straight. The 2008 legislation, House Bill 697 that
encourages reduction of greenhouse gasses, reduction of vehicle miles
Page 1112
January 31,2011
traveled, the more density is -- the higher density you have, the greater
the potential to have again a successful mass transit program.
The more densely compacted your development is, the greater the
opportunity to have commercial located closer to that, say within
walking distance, for example. Both of which have the effect of
lowering greenhouse gasses, less vehicle miles traveled. But that's a
very broad principle.
Would eliminating this density bonus violate that principle? I'd
say yes. But is it enough that DCA might find the proposal not to be
sufficient or acceptable? I can't say, Commissioner.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Well, here's what I think are probably the
factors resulting in the underuse of this particular zoning category.
One is the urban infill area has the most valuable property. It's
expensive to buy it. If you're going to develop it, you have to develop it
with expensive homes to get your money back or a lot of homes. And
if you also have to buy a TDR at 25,000, or maybe more, that
substantially elevates the cost.
And that -- if we want to encourage this, it seems to me that what
will happen is that we will naturally be driven toward providing
additional density bonuses to encourage people to do this. And I'm not
sure that market conditions are such right now or that they will be
favorable toward doing this kind of development any time in the next
two or three or four years, except on rare occasions.
So at least from my standpoint I tend to agree with Commissioner
Henning, I don't have enough information to tell me which way to go.
I'd almost rather stay where we are and continue to observe and evaluate
and then make a decision, hopefully based upon a recovering economy.
Who was next? Commissioner Coletta or --
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I think Commissioner Hiller is
next.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay, Commissioner Hiller?
Page 1113
January 31,2011
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Yeah, I would have to agree. I
mean, the development can still occur on those 225 parcels that you
were talking about. And if someone sees the economic return of
making that investment by building more and buying, you know, the
TDR's to allow for more density, it becomes a business decision. So
they're not precluded from doing that if there's profitability in it.
The problem I see is that this was done at a time when people who
got their property zoned sending had certain expectations. And I just
question if you can legally turn that around if that was a certainty then
and they basically, you know, became part of that program as a result.
I'm just -- I would have to say, it's a very difficult question and I
would recommend leaving it the same.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Commissioner Coletta?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Thank you.
Well, the basic premises this was all built on is still sound. Where
it's failed is the economy went south. The reason we came up with the
density bonus and the -- to be able to get everybody moving forward is
to give value to something so the taxpayers didn't have to personally
step up to be able to buy all the conservation lands throughout Collier
County. Put together a plan in such a way that they made
themselves -- they vested (sic) in it in such a way that they compensated
themselves for their loss. In other words, you turn 40 percent of your
land, 60 percent of your land into conservation easements, we'll allow
you to build in a condensed form within a certain area.
In order to move it forward to try to be able to prime the
pump -- and correct me if I'm wrong on this, we came up with density
bonuses that we extended out to a point in time, and that was to get
people moving forward on turning these in to be able to secure the
program. However, it doesn't matter what the price is, if there's no
market for it because there is such a drop in the demand for housing, the
program never got a chance to be able to see the light of day.
Page 1114
January 31, 2011
As far as density goes, I'd rather see density in small little areas
than spread around like it was planned to be in the beginning with one
house per five acres, or in the agricultural land what was it there, one for
10, or what? I can't remember.
MR. WEEKS: One for five historically.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: One for five.
So in other words, if this whole program collapses and we decide
to say okay, no one is getting by it, Ave Maria's the only person that ever
got into it, but no one else looks like they're going to come in, looks like
Big Cypress has got it on the shelf or way off in the distant future and
nobody knows when that's going to be, so we'll scrap the program.
So what do we do then? You have to go back to square one where
you have it every five acres is eligible to be able to build a house. And
I think we all agree that we don't want to see that. Because then we'll
lose the ability to be able to have these lands, these environmentally
sensitive lands protected in perpetuity. It just won't happen.
So you're right, all these things have to be brought up. We got to
bring the players back in to be able to see where they stand on it and
what their views are.
I don't know of any other way we're going to get to be where we
need to be, unless the federal government comes up with a tremendous
amount of money just to buy all these lands outright. That may happen
too.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: I don't think so.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Well, there is an effort under
foot now for the Big Panther Preserve to buy a considerable amount of
land in Eastern Collier County that's in private hands. So, I mean,
anything's a possibility.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Yes.
Do you want to just agree that we have three nods to just leave it
alone?
Page 1115
January 31,2011
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I'm with you.
MR. WEEKS: I hear you.
Next item, Commissioners, is -- runs from Page 11 through Page
13. This is another proposed change to the density rating system, and
this is to the traffic congestion area. And this is a density reduction
factor. If a property lies within the traffic congestion area, then its
eligible density is reduced by one unit per acre.
The traffic congestion boundary roughly runs from Airport Pulling
Road down to Davis Boulevard, east to County Barn Road, south to
Rattlesnake Hammock Road and then east to Collier Boulevard. All
lands seaward of that line -- and it's shown on the Future Land Use Map,
which it at the back of this section, by the way -- all properties would be
subject to that one unit per acre reduction.
The proposal here is to delete that traffic congestion area
boundary, replace it with a coastal high hazard area boundary and apply
that density reduction factor of one unit per acre to parcels lying within
the coastal high hazard area.
The rationale is that we don't need that traffic congestion area
reduction factor any longer. This was actually something that was
proposed in the last EAR in 2004. And it was accepted at that time, but
ultimately when it came time to adopt the EAR-based amendments
there was disagreement about other density bonus provisions, other
changes to the density rating system, and as a group they were all not
adopted.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Who was --
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I think I was first.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Commissioner Coletta.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yeah, sir, if you would.
Either way we do it, would that be considered a taking? Or is that
something I should ask the County Attorney?
MR. WEEKS : You should, but I'll respond as well, if you don't
Page 1116
January 31, 2011
mind.
This is -- the density rating system provides for eligible density.
The density provided for is not an entitlement. When someone comes
before you asking for a rezoning, you are not obligated to approve that
rezoning request. We have discretion, you have criteria in the zoning
code regarding compatibility, infrastructure, impacts, et cetera.
So what this provision says is that of your eligible density you are
now one unit per acre lower. Most properties start at a base of four; in
this case properties in this area would drop to three.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Any opinions on that, County
Attorney?
MR. KLATZKOW: Any time you drop density you're opening
yourselves up to a claim by somebody. This claim has a defense to it.
Could be that nobody makes a claim, the Statute of Limitations runs and
that's the end of it. Could be somebody makes a claim, the board
decides to just allow them the increased density. You've got options if
you decide to pass this.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Ifwe go with the high hazard
area, then there's nothing to discuss, it's already been drawn. Ifwe go
with the density reduction, then we have the ability to be able to
decipher whether there's a public good to it; is that correct?
MR. WEEKS: I didn't quite follow that. But please allow me to
make this important point. All properties within the coastal high
hazard area presently are also within the traffic congestion area. The
amount of property that will be affected by this change is less.
You have this much property affected now by the traffic
congestion area. If you change this to the coastal high hazard area, it
will be far fewer properties that are impacted.
Again, if you wish to look at the Future Land Use Map, that coastal
high hazard area boundary is further seaward than the traffic congestion
area. So you are making more properties eligible for a higher density.
Page 1117
January 31, 2011
You are removing properties that today are subject to that density
reduction.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Commissioner Henning?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Yeah, I had the same concerns
as Commissioner Coletta. But David really articulated it. It's not a by
right density, it is something that you can ask for and they still have the
right to petition the government to change. But I think this is a great
amendment and I think it's well thought out. I support it.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Commissioner Hiller?
COMMISSIONER HILLER: I have a concern about the takings
issue. I mean, to the extent, you know, that you're affecting a smaller
area really doesn't make much of a difference to me, you're still
affecting an area. These people bought the land expecting that they
could petition up to. And I understand that it still is with the approval
of the board, but they had a right up to that number of units and now
you're depriving them of a right that they had, had they come forward
and petitioned.
I mean, it's a tough call, but I certainly wouldn't want to see
properties, you know, filing takings claims based on this. And
particularly since you're saying it's going to affect a smaller area
than -- I'm not sure why you're doing it.
MR. WEEKS: Let me try to answer it.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: And just so I understand, you
know, the area that you're talking about from a transportation corridor
standpoint has been fully developed. And so the infrastructure that is
there is there because it anticipated, for example, 10 units per acre. So
I'm not sure that changing this in this manner accomplishes anything,
because the infrastructure is intended to accommodate what exists.
That's how it was developed. So it doesn't make any sense to me.
MR. WEEKS: When the Growth Management Plan was adopted
in 1989, of course that was pre-Burt Harris enactment, this density
Page 1118
January 31,2011
reduction factor was adopted. So it's been here since the plan was
adopted. So properties that fall within the traffic congestion area have
been there since 1989. The action taken here -- and I hear you,
Commissioner, I think you're saying you understand this, but I just want
to make sure everyone is clear -- this is a shift of that boundary seaward,
so fewer properties are going to be impacted. But those properties that
will still be impacted are impacted if you don't make this change. They
have been since 1989.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: For one unit less?
MR. WEEKS: Correct. For what they could ask for, what
they're eligible to request.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Okay.
MR. WEEKS: And I didn't give you this information: Staff
analysis shows approximate -- the difference, if we make this change, is
that approximately 806 additional dwelling units could be approved
through rezoning actions. And that's throughout the corridor from up
around the Lee County line all the way down close to U.S. 41 East.
And Commissioner Hiller, you asked about--
COMMISSIONER HILLER: So really, this is -- so it's not -- so if
I understand you correctly, because that's not how I understood it
earlier, and that wasn't how the discussion was going earlier.
If I understand you correctly, what you're basically doing is
reducing the area that was subject to this one unit less that was in
effect --
MR. WEEKS: That's correct.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: -- since 1989? So it's not a takings
of those properties because of the fact that it existed?
So I don't really understand why the County Attorney gave an
explanation the way he did, because that's contradictory to -- I mean, he
interpreted it as a takings also. Or could be challenged. I mean,
I -- what did you think --
Page 1119
January 31,2011
MR. KLATZKOW: What I said was any time you reduce
density, you're opening yourself up to a claim.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Right, but he's saying it's not being
reduced.
MR. KLATZKOW: My understanding from the conversation,
David, we were taking away a potential unit? Or did I mishear you?
MR. WEEKS : We are reducing the number of properties that
would be subject to a reduction and eligible density.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: So what he's saying is he's
increasing -- he's basically -- there are properties who now have been
limited, but he's saying that he's actually increasing their right; they're
going to get one more unit than they had previously. And those
properties in the coastal high hazard area are going to stay the same as
they have always been?
MR. WEEKS: Correct.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: So based on that -- I mean, I--
MR. KLATZKOW: Well, if you're saying he's increasing
density, there's no issue.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Right, that's -- yeah. But I was as
confused as you, Jeff. I was -- that's --
MR. WEEKS: I apologize if I caused that confusion. I think
your question to the County Attorney came before I made the statement
that we're impacting fewer properties.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Okay.
MR. WEEKS: If I might quickly mention, I also want to mention
this, because it goes back to something, Commissioner Coyle, you had
said much earlier in the meeting.
We have stated on Page 12 part of the rationale for the traffic
congestion area -- and this has been around since 1989 when the plan
was adopted -- due to physical and social constraints in this area,
construction of new major roads and significant widening of existing
Page 1120
January 31, 2011
roads would not be possible.
That's for the traffic congestion area, but that also includes entirely
the coastal high hazard area.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay, thank you.
Commissioner Fiala?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes. Can you tell me why you're
proposing to do this? What prompted this in the first place?
MR. WEEKS: It originally -- it goes back to 2004. I guess to start
with, I'd say put it under the category of unfinished business. Because
in 2004 this same proposal was included in the EAR. And then when
the amendments to the Growth Management Plan based on the 2004
EAR came about, as I mentioned earlier, there was some disagreement
on other bonus provisions, and ultimately just all of them got thrown
out.
And that happened during the public hearing itself. I'll say me or
other staff members, we didn't catch in time to be able to pre -- you
know, ask, wait, do you want to throw them all out? What about this
one over here? And so it went out the window.
But more to the point, transportation staff have told us, and they
did back in '04, there was a -- that we except that there was a valid
purpose for this density bonus provision when the plan was adopted in
'89.
It's our professional opinion that it's no longer needed. And I
think it ties back in part perhaps to what was stated earlier, that road
construction, the amount that can occur for the most part has occurred
within the coastal high hazard area. And for the most part, not
completely, but for the most part properties within the coastal high
hazard area and for that matter even within the traffic congestion area,
are significantly zoned out. Not built out, but the zoning is in place.
And so we just don't see a reason any longer to limit the density for
this part of the urban area.
Page 1121
January 31,2011
COMMISSIONER FIALA: And did you say that that only goes
up to 951? But yet the traffic congestion area really goes on beyond
951 along U.S. 41, correct?
MR. WEEKS: The traffic congestion area at its eastern limit goes
to Rattlesnake Hammock Road at 951, Collier Boulevard, circles
around a density band and then goes off to an imaginary line eastward.
So all of the properties along U.S. 41 east of951 would also be within
that traffic congestion area.
And as far as the coastal high hazard area, it presently follows U.S.
41. So the properties north of it would not be within this boundary.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Okay, thank you.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Commissioner Hiller, did you want to
speak again?
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Yeah. Ijust was reading what you
referenced, and it appears the DCA had concerns about this, because
basically allowing an increase in density in the traffic congestion area
would basically be obviously an incremental burden on the existing
infrastructure which was built to the current density. And so they are
concerned that, you know, how is that going to impact the facilities for
the long-term horizon and the short-term horizon.
And I'm reading your explanation here. I just want assurances,
because your -- the explanation doesn't really come to the conclusion
that, you know, no, it will not adversely impact the facilities where we
will see the increase in the density. And I think that has -- that
statement has to be clearly made. Because reading this paragraph, I
mean, I can see the DCA when this gets submitted just turning this back
around and saying well --
MR. WEEKS: That's certainly possible. The staff perspective is
when we provided the draft EAR after the workshop with the EAC and
CCPC, we did not have any quantification. We did not identify to them
how many acres, how many properties. And I believe that's what
Page 1122
January 31,2011
generated their response. They had no concept because we had not
I I
January 31, 2011
generated their response. They had no concept because we had not
provided to them how many properties are affected, how many acres,
how many vehicle trips could this generate? Are we talking about tens,
hundreds, thousands, tens of thousands? They had no idea.
That's why staff went through the exercise of trying to quantify that
and putting some figures into the EAR report itself.
But Commissioner Hiller, you're right, we have not directly said
here's exactly how many vehicle trips will be added and what will the
impact be to our network. We have generalized that we don't think it
will be a concern.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Right. I mean, they're asking for
an area-wide traffic study be conducted to accept this. And we
certainly haven't done that.
MR. WEEKS: No. And staffs opinion is that we think that's
overkill. Because we've not quantified how, in my opinion, relatively
few dwelling units could be increased by this action.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: So the fact is, is even if we accept
this, it's likely the DCA could reject it, since we haven't provided this
study.
MR. WEEKS: They could. I don't think it's likely, but--
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Okay.
MR. BOSI: And let me offer that per the statutes, the EAR has to
be based upon available data. You cannot be required to produce new
data to make the evaluation. So statutorily they cannot assume that
position in terms of finding us out of compliance, because new data was
not created to address the point.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Commissioner Fiala. And then I hope
we're going to get some guidance, okay?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I'm done. All I wanted to say was I
just can't see the need for -- maybe I just haven't understood it
right -- the need to change it. As long as it's been working since 1989
Page 1123
January 31, 2011
and we've had no complaints or problems with it, I don't see the need to
change it.
MR. WEEKS: I'll just simply say that certainly one option of
course is to leave it as is. I don't -- I'm trying to think of what is the
harm if you leave it. The harm, if you will, is simply that properties
that arguably should not be limited by this one unit per acre reduction
will continue to be so limited.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Is there something that maybe we're
just not seeing that we should know as far as what you're referring to?
Because most of the area that you have listed here is already built out.
MR. WEEKS: Commissioners, this is not some compelling need.
This is not something where I want to stand up here and make a strong
fight for. I'm just trying to articulate a rationale.
Would there be any particular harm to the county if you don't make
this change? I don't think so.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Well, let me state this and see if I have it
right, see if you agree with this.
You're going to eliminate the traffic congestion area density
reduction, and you're going to replace it with a coastal high hazard area
reduction. And what that will do is let more properties that were in the
traffic congestion area density band have one more chance, one more
unit per acre?
MR. WEEKS: Commissioner, I'm glad you asked that question.
It has three impacts. The most notable is the one that you just stated,
and that is that those properties that today would start asking for a
rezone at three units per acre, if this is approved, ultimately the plan is
amended, they could ask for four. That would be their eligible base
density, from three up to four.
It will have two collateral effects. There are properties within a
residential density band that presently if a property is in the traffic
congestion area it is not eligible for certain density bonuses. If you
Page 1124
January 31, 2011
eliminate the traffic congestion area boundary, then one or two other
bonuses will now be eligible for some properties.
The first one that comes to mind is the residential roadway access
bonus where a property has access to two or more arterial or collector
roads. They would be eligible for a one unit per acre bonus. And the
other is the residential density bands around activity centers. But
those --
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. All right.
MR. WEEKS: Good, I'll stop.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: I'm in favor of agreeing with the staff on
this one. Do we have enough nods on that one? We've got two nods so
far.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Staff says to change this?
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Yes.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: No, I don't agree.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: (Shakes head negatively.)
CHAIRMAN COYLE: We've got two nods for -- three nods for,
two nods against.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: No, three nods, going for four.
Just trying to help you sir.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: We don't need four, we only need three.
MR. WEEKS: Commissioners, I started seguing into the next
item because it is related to our discussion we were just having.
On Page 12 is the explanation. It's the last paragraph that is not
italicized. So it's the next to the last paragraph on Page 12 where I
mentioned the roadway access and residential density band, density
bonuses. If the traffic congestion area boundary is shifted, then we
would need to make correlating changes to no longer reference the
traffic congestion area in these other two density bonuses, the roadway
access and residential density band.
And then there's another change in that same paragraph that refers
Page 1125
January 31,2011
to conversion of commercial zoning. This would -- the proposal would
eliminate this conversion of commercial zoning density bonus from the
coastal high hazard area. It's not a provision that's been used very
often; to my knowledge only two times. The last time was the
Cocohatchee Bay project. There was considerable amount of discussion
about the density that they were requesting, and part of that discussion
was the fact that a portion of the property was within the coastal high
hazard area.
And generally speaking the coastal high hazard area is an area
where we want to discourage development, because that's the areas that
are most vulnerable to the impacts of storm events. In particular,
hurricanes. So the fewer people there, the fewer properties that are
developed there, the less economic impact, and social impact, if it
comes to the standpoint of loss of life.
But we also have to balance that with affordable housing demand.
And there is not a proposal to eliminate the ability to have the affordable
housing density bonus within the coastal high hazard area. But again,
we are proposing that the conversion of commercial zoning density
bonus be eliminated from the coastal high hazard area. All other
bonuses are already not allowed in the coastal high hazard area.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Who was first?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Ladies first.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Commissioner Hiller?
COMMISSIONER HILLER: David, could you explain the
conversion of commercial bonuses? What do you mean by that?
MR. WEEKS: Certainly. For properties that are zoned
commercial presently.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: In the coastal high hazard area.
MR. WEEKS: Okay.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: I just want to limit it to that.
MR. WEEKS: Certainly. For properties within the coastal high
Page 1126
January 31, 2011
hazard area that are zoned commercial that do not conform with the
Future Land Use Map, which has mixed use activity centers and a few
other provisions to allow commercial development, those are -- you can
think of those as nonconforming properties. They are identified on a
part of the land use map series as consistent by policy. Because that
commercial zoning would not be allowed by the future land use
designation, but it preexisted, the plans adopted back in 1989.
So these nonconforming properties are the only ones that would be
eligible for the conversion of commercial density bonus. And that
bonus goes back also to 1989. It was an incentive to have those
properties rezoned from this nonconforming commercial to residential
zoning that would conform with the plan.
And this provision as proposed then would eliminate that density
bonus from being applicable to the coastal high hazard area. It will
continue to be applicable for the remainder of the coastal urban area.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Can you give me an example
within that -- I'd like a project. I'm trying to visualize what you're
talking about.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Cocohatchee.
MR. WEEKS: I made reference to one earlier by the name of
Cocohatchee Bay. And I'm not sure that's quite the right name.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: And how would this conversion
provision affect that property?
MR. WEEKS: That property was formerly zoned C-4. It was the
site of the Wiggins Pass Marina. And the applicant submitted a
rezoning petition to the county, asking to rezone that property from C-4
to a residential PUD. And this conversion of commercial zoning
density bonus was one of the provisions they used to request the density
of I think it was maybe 11 acres or so to start with -- 11 units per acre to
start with.
There was a considerable amount of discussion about the
Page 1127
January 31, 2011
appropriateness of the density and other unrelated matters, unrelated to
this point of discussion, because a portion of that property lies within the
coastal high hazard area.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: And so what happened?
MR. WEEKS: Ultimately it was approved at a lesser density.
Still using the density bonus, but less than they had initially requested.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: So this wouldn't affect them
because their density has already been approved?
MR. WEEKS: That is correct. It would only be applicable to
other properties zoned commercial within the coastal high hazard area
that are identified on the consistent by policy map, those nonconforming
properties.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: And for example, Cocohatchee, if
Cocohatchee came back and wanted to increase their density from
whatever the lesser density was, they would not be able to do it because
of this provision? Or they still would because they were grandfathered
in from before?
MR. WEEKS: I would argue they could not, because the position
no longer exists. So my position would be no, they cannot rely on this
provision. Or if it gets eliminated, a former provision to request the
density bonus.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: I have a concern about the
affordable workforce housing density bonus continuing to apply. And
it ties back to Policy 6.3 on Page 8 and relating where it says including
affordable housing, minimum of25 percent of the units within the
development within the areas identified in 6.3.
And again, it goes back to our discussion this morning. I mean,
I'm not sure I understand, you know, why you would eliminate for
example the commercial conversion bonus and yet leave in the
affordable work house (sic) density bonus. Because quite frankly, the
effect is the same. I mean, you're increasing the density. So, you
Page 1128
January 31, 2011
know, it's like saying yes on the one hand, no on the other. And yet
you're -- if you're going to do it, you have to be consistent across the
board. You can't just single out one or the other.
MR. WEEKS: The reason for the distinction is in the case of the
commercial zoning it was a -- it is a bonus provision to encourage those
properties to rezone from commercial to residential. That's the reason
it exists. The affordable workforce housing bonus of course is to try to
get more affordable housing developed in the county.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: But that's not the issue. And I don't
mean to interrupt, but I just have to clarify. The issue we're talking
about here in the coastal high hazard area is density overall, regardless
of the type. We're not making excuses. We're not saying, okay, it's
okay to increase density, because it's a good cause, so we don't care
about the quote, risk of hurricanes, we don't really like commercial, so
we're not going to, you know, encourage commercial and so we're going
to eliminate this, you know, conversion provision.
And the whole argument about, you know, being in the coastal
high hazard area, I mean, I understand to a degree. But that area is
pretty much fully developed. So, you know, to change the rules of the
game related to just -- it almost seems like we're developing policy to
target a limited number of undeveloped properties out there. And that
density and hurricanes -- I mean, I don't see the nexus. And especially
in light of the fact that you're allowing these affordable workforce
housing density bonuses to stay in there.
MR. WEEKS: Commissioner, we're looking at it as a matter of
balancing competing interests. Most particularly, if you go back a few
years ago, I understand the climate's changed today, but the demand for
affordable housing. And again, this is something that goes back to
1989, so it's not just a matter of going back five years, it's going back all
the way to the original plan adoption, even, that there was a recognized
need for affordable workforce housing, balancing that need with the
Page 1129
January 31, 2011
affordable workforce housing density bonus.
MR. WEEKS: Okay.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Commissioner Henning?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Yeah, I guess I wasn't here for
that discussion. But the item on the -- that we're discussing now, I
mean, I support. I think it's a good amendment.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: The -- I still have the original
question about preserves in industrial land. I just haven't seen it. I think
it's in the CCME.
MR. WEEKS: There was a misunderstanding on staffs part
about what the question was.
MS. MOSCA: Again, Michele--
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I think we need to get disposed
of this first. And then I think it's worthy of addressing, going back and
addressing the other.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: What?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: We need to finish the FLUE and
then I'd like to go back to the CCME.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: That means we've got to provide
guidance on the question that David has just brought up.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I like it, myself.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Commissioner Fiala?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes. I had the same concerns. I
brought this up in 2004 and I said just about the same thing as
Commissioner Hiller just said. Because of safety, we have decided that
we want to in the coastal high hazard area, or even in the TCA, we have
decided that we need to reduce the density. Same with the reduction in
commercial. Except when it comes to affordable housing, their density
can stay the same, even though their houses are filled with little kids and
there are more residents in each house, and they're much more of a
Page 1131
January 31, 2011
safety hazard, but it's okay for the safety -- for their lack of safety, so
we'll keep their density but just not for everybody else.
You know, I said that before and I say it again, I just don't
understand it, and I do not agree.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Suppose you eliminated the affordable
housing density bonus and the coastal high hazard area also --
MR. WEEKS: If that's the direction of the board, we'll do it.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: -- and made them consistent?
MR. WEEKS: Okay.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Then everything's the same. Yeah,
then it's fine. Then at least you're not putting people in harm's way.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: I would agree.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: You don't have an objection to that, do
you?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Well, no, I have comments to
make on it.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay, go ahead.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: We've been through this before,
and I can remember bringing Dan Summers up here and we went
through the whole routine of identifying coastal hazard area and exactly
the dangers that would be attributed to hurricanes, tsunamis or
whatever, and they were next to nothing. There's plenty of time for
evacuation.
The only thing this does -- and mind you, right now there's not a
need for affordable housing; I think everybody's agreed to that. But
what that effectively does is it redlines the whole coastal area as being
unfit for affordable housing, because you cannot do affordable housing
without density.
And there I draw the line. I mean, I want to make sure that if all
my commissioners want to go that direction, that I go on the record
emphatically opposed to changing it for that reason.
Page 1132
January 31,2011
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay, everybody's heard the arguments.
How do you feel about it?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Yeah, let's do it.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: You want to approve the elimination of
both densities, is that what you're --
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Yeah.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: -- suggesting?
Commissioner?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: What does both densities mean?
CHAIRMAN COYLE: The affordable housing, as well as the --
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Then I can go along with it. That's
only fair.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Do we have three? Okay, there's one,
two, three, four, I guess. Four nods for approval.
MR. WEEKS: Thank you.
And Commissioners, I've mentioned it, but I don't know that you
specifically gave your nod of approval or not for the density rating
system change. This correlates with replacing the traffic congestion
area with the coastal high hazard area density reduction, a request to
revise the text for the residential density band and roadway access
density bonuses to not be applicable in the coastal high hazard area.
They're presently not applicable in the traffic congestion area, but
since we're replacing that with the coastal high hazard area, following
the logic that that same prohibition would apply to the new location.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Makes sense to me.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Yep.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: (Nods head affirmatively.)
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Yep.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Looks like three, David.
MR. WEEKS: Okay.
Pages 13 and 14, this is the mixed use activity center concept.
Page 1133
January 31, 2011
And also going over to Page 15, 13 through 15.
There's presently a provision within the mixed use activity centers
that you can have a mixed use development. That's something that the
plan has encouraged since its adoption in 1989.
Over time we have amended the plan to specifically provide that
mixed use projects within the coastal high hazard area would be capped
at four units per acre. Whereas properties within an activity center that is
not within the coastal high hazard area could have the full density of 16
units per acre. Both mixed use and residential only projects.
But we have a disparity because the plan -- I'm sorry, I misstated
that. Mixed use projects are allowed to have a density of up to 16 units
per acre, even if they're located in the coastal high hazard area. But for
a residential only project, if it's located in the coastal high hazard area,
its density is reduced to four units per acre.
Staffs position is that's illogical. Why does a mixed use
development get to have a greater density but residential only is capped?
The staff position is we believe that all residential development within
the coastal high hazard area in an activity center should be capped at
four units per acre.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay, Commissioner Fiala?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yeah, just a fast question.
So say that one more time, all residential communities built in a
coastal high hazard area would be at four units per acre rather than 16
units per acre?
MR. WEEKS: Within an activity center within the coastal high
hazard area, correct.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Oh, okay.
MR. WEEKS: There's a disparity now. Mixed use projects are
limited to four units per acre, but residential only can be at 16 if we --
COMMISSIONER FIALA: And haven't we run into some
problems with that in some of the activity centers? I think mainly of
Page 1134
January 31, 2011
Pine Ridge Road and Airport Road where all of that density is allowed
and you can't drive because you're so crowded with the traffic
congestion and we can't even, you know, widen the roads any.
MR. WEEKS: Well, that may be an issue, but that's outside of the
coastal high hazard area.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Right, I understand that.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Commissioner Henning?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Could we either lower the
thermostat or open up a window in here? Anybody else hot, warm?
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Yeah, it's warm.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: You know what, I have a --
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Can I make a motion on that?
CHAIRMAN COYLE: No, we can just look for nods. Do we
have three nods, do you agree that it's warm?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Only if you concede on the
affordable housing issue.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Skip, can you hear?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: No, it does make sense and is
consistent with whatever we did. And I think we should adopt it.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Commissioner Hiller?
COMMISSIONER HILLER: I need clarification on this.
You're saying right now these mixed use projects are capped at four, but
100 percent residential is 16? And what you want to do is you want to
cap the residential to four also?
MR. WEEKS: That's correct.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Wouldn't that be a takings? Jeff?
MR. WEEKS: It's eligible density.
MR. KLATZKOW: Any time you reduce density you run the
risk of somebody making a claim. That doesn't mean it's not good
public policy to do that. Part of the thing with the Burt Harris claim is
that you're allowed to go beyond your ordinances and settle them and
Page 1135
January 31,2011
allow them back their density.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, this is not allowable
density, this is --
MR. KLATZKOW: I understand. I'm just saying a claim on
this.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Can you explain that?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: It's not allowable density. That
means you can come on and ask for up to 16 units per acre. But what's
applied on the land, you have a right of four acres.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Four units per acre.
MR. KLATZKOW: Right, it's not a vested right.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Four units per acre.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: The 16 is not vested but the four is?
MR. KLATZKOW: It's up to 16, right?
MR. WEEKS: It's up to 16. And the other language would be up
to four. Even the base density is not an entitlement.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: What if -- if you've got a piece of
property in the coastal high hazard zone that has let's say a density of 12
now, because that's a vested right that will remain, notwithstanding this
change?
MR. WEEKS: Correct. If the property is zoned RMF -12 right
now --
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Right.
MR. WEEKS: -- it will still be --
COMMISSIONER HILLER: So that will remain.
MR. WEEKS: -- that 12. This is only for
. .
rezonlngs -- up-zonlngs.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: So this basically will preclude
up-zonings to the new cap of four?
MR. WEEKS: Correct. Or it will impose that cap of four.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: In the coastal high hazard area.
Page 1136
January 31, 2011
MR. WEEKS: In a coastal high hazard area within a mixed use
activity center.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Just within a mixed use where --
MR. WEEKS : We're looking at activity centers within the coastal
high hazard area.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: I'm just -- I'm trying to reconcile.
Because, you know, this goes back to the other issue of what you just
did with the commercial. You're not allowing the commercial
conversion density bonus, so you're eliminating the right to increase the
residential density. And now you're further limiting the right where
they had the right -- well, no, no, no, because this affects the residential,
not the commercial. This is not affecting mixed use. The mixed use is
already capped at four. You're looking to change the outright
residential.
MR. WEEKS: That's correct. Residential only is presently
allowed at 16. We want to bring it in alignment with mixed use, limit it
to four.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Why such a major change? I
mean, that's a big change to go from 16 to four as the max.
MR. WEEKS: Four is the base density that we have in the density
rating system. All properties -- most properties within the urban
designated area start at an eligible density for rezoning at four units per
acre, and then the density bonus provisions have the potential to
increase that. And if there's a density reduction factor applicable, that
could decrease that base by one unit per acre.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: But you don't need density bonuses
right now to go up to 16. It's at the discretion of the board.
MR. WEEKS: Yes, yes. My mistake. We changed that a few
years ago.
Within a mixed use activity center we no longer apply the density
rating system. It's just a flat figure. You get "X" number of units per
Page 1137
January 31,2011
acre that you're eligible for or it's something else. It's 16 for residential
only, it's four for mixed use.
The rationale is why should residential only projects be treated
differently than mixed use.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Because the commercial properties
are getting so much more traffic as a result of the commercial sites. I
mean, the impact of commercial is very different than the impact of
residential. So typically that's what you would have, you would have
higher density in a -- I mean, throughout the rest of the county do you
have mixed use and residential capped the same way?
MR. WEEKS: Not outside the coastal high hazard area, no.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Right. So, I mean, I just don't see
the justification. It doesn't follow logically. I mean, Ijust don't see the
justification for it. I mean, you may want to -- if you want lesser
density, you may cut it back a little bit. But, you know, to cut back a
residential development from 16 to four is a very extreme cut.
And all the development, all the infrastructure that has been
developed in that area was intended to accommodate the existing 16.
And we don't have over-burdened infrastructure in that coastal high
hazard zone. And when 16 was adopted, it was adopted with full
knowledge that that was a coastal high hazard zone and, you know, the
hurricanes then are the hurricanes now.
So I just think it's a very extreme modification. And I'm not sure I
understand the rationale, particularly given that this rationale is not
adopted anywhere else throughout the county. I mean, it's -- there
doesn't seem to be a rational basis for this.
MR. BOSI: The rational basis exists within the motivations
behind the coastal high hazard area. We want to limit the level of
residential density within the coastal high hazard area. And to be
consistent, which I've heard a number of times, and which I agree, we
wanted to be the same application, the same consistency within how we
Page 1138
January 31,2011
treated all properties within the coastal high hazard area, and that's why
staff was making the suggestion.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: But you can't -- but they're not
comparable. A mixed use project and an all-residential project are not
comparable projects. They're not the same. And they -- you know, the
traffic impact of a commercial project -- I'm sorry, of a mixed use
project is not the same as a residential development.
MR. BOSI: It's not to worry about the intensification of activities
at the site, it's -- the worry is the number of residencies you place within
the coastal high hazard area, not about the intensity or activity at the
actual site.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Well, you're worried about people
being there.
MR. BOSI: Yes.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Okay. And the commercial -- this
basically is -- I mean, the commercial site attracts a lot of people.
MR. BOSI: But in a storm event they don't live there. You
go -- they're attractors. They don't generate trips, they attract trips.
And you generate trips, you have people living at residential units.
So what we were thinking through the motivation, in other words,
what I was trying to offer, the motivation behind it was strictly the
consistency of eliminating high densities within the coastal high hazard
area. That's the strict motivation behind the change to this policy.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: What -- review the base density
allowance or requirement for both residential and mixed use.
MR. WEEKS: The present language for mixed use activity
centers within the coastal high hazard area is that mixed use
development has a density cap of four units per acre. F or a residential
only development at the same location, mixed use activity center and
the coastal high hazard area allows 16 units per acre.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: But it's up to 16.
Page 1139
January 31, 2011
MR. WEEKS: Correct.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Is there a base entitlement?
MR. WEEKS: No. Because the activity centers are not part of
the density rating system. It's not starting at a base and building
through certain bonuses.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: So it's whatever the board would grant
them.
MR. WEEKS: Correct, it is.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: So you're placing a cap on --
COMMISSIONER HILLER: On the board.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: -- what the board can approve.
MR. WEEKS: Correct.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: And you're doing it for two reasons:
One is because of the high hazard area itself, you want to reduce the
number of dwelling units there. But there is another reason, and you
touched upon it. Residences generate traffic, commercial attracts
traffic.
So if you have a commercial facility and a residential facility in an
activity center, the commercial facility is going to attract traffic and the
residential component is going to generate substantial traffic. Whereas
a mixed use development would generate substantially less traffic, and
the commercial would capture most of the traffic of mixed use units in
that commercial area. So you'll have substantially less traffic flow in a
situation where you limit the number of residential units in an activity
center with commercial.
So you say that your objective is to reduce the number, the density
of residential units in the coastal high hazard area. That is a -- is that
the state -- is it not true that the state encourages us to do that?
MR. WEEKS: The state encourages that, yes. They don't
require it, they encourage it.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. So what you're trying to do is
Page 1140
January 31, 2011
respond to the state's encouragement to reduce the number of residential
units in the high hazard area, particularly at activity centers, right?
MR. WEEKS: That is number one. And number two, looking at
equity. When we made the -- previously mixed use development was
allowed at 16 units per acre also. When we made a change to this
provision several years ago we limited the mixed use development but
we failed to limit the residential at the same time.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Well, we're going to have to take a break
here in a minute if we don't bring this to a conclusion. Let's try one
more time to try to bring it to a conclusion, and then we'll take a break.
Commissioner Hiller?
COMMISSIONER HILLER: You can't make the equity
argument. It just doesn't work. You would have to look at the rest of
the county. And you don't use the same type of equity argument across
the county, so you can't for this area argue that they have to be equal.
And again, you know, the hurricanes then are the same as now.
So, you know, 16 units is the maximum. The board has the
discretion on a case-by-case basis to evaluate if there is a need to keep
the density at a lower level in order to protect citizens in the event of risk
because of the location.
But I think to arbitrarily reduce the cap to -- from 16 to four and
take away the board's discretion where the argument for equality is not
justified because they are not similarly situated properties and where
this isn't the philosophy across the county I think opens a Pandora's box.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: What's the pleasure of the board?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I agree with being consistent
with the other elements to adopt staffs recommendation.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Do we have two more nods?
You've got one, two. We've got two, you and me.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Say it one more time, just so I heard
what you just said.
Page 1141
January 31, 2011
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, I think to be consistent
with what we have done in the previous past with David on these
elements within the coastal high hazard area, it's consistent.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Reducing it.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Reducing it.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes, I agree.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Can I ask how it's consistent?
Maybe it's a history I'm not familiar with. How is it consistent with
what we've done in the past in the coastal high hazard?
MR. WEEKS: I believe Commissioner Henning's referring to
what I stated a moment ago, that in the past previously the activity
center allowed mixed use development at a density of 16 units per acre,
as well as residential only. And a few years ago we amended this
provision to limit the mixed use development to four units per acre.
But we failed to limit the residential only to four units per acre.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: I wouldn't be surprised if back then
it was because we had a discussion about, you know, the traffic impact,
just as we're having it today, which is why you left them the same.
I'd love to see -- can I have a copy of the discussion on that?
MR. WEEKS: We'll track down the minutes.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: You'll get another crack at it when it
comes back.
We have three nods now. We'll still get to talk about it again.
And we're going to take a 10-minute break. Okay, we'll be back
here at 3:01.
(Recess.)
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay, we have a quorum now finally.
I was just hoping I could proceed with this. Okay.
MR. WEEKS: Commissioners, continuing with the mixed use
activity center, there's a second item under that subdistrict. This goes
Page 1142
January 31, 2011
from Page 15 over to Page 16. And this is a proposal to identify that we
need to revise the master planned activity center provision for clarity
and possibly substantial changes -- substantive changes, which I could
not identify for you right now. Most particularly it's just some change to
the organization and structure to try to make it more clear.
As I state in the report, this is an example of legislation on the fly,
crafting language standing at the podium many years ago.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: How many years ago?
MR. WEEKS: Prior to this board.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: That's what I wanted to hear. We don't
do stuff like that.
MR. WEEKS: That's it for that particular item.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: You're just saying to revise it or rewrite it
for clarity and possible substantive changes.
MR. WEEKS: Possible substantive changes. I'm not sure
exactly what those would be until we get into the restructuring of the
language.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: So what are you going to do with the
language that goes to Tallahassee?
MR. BOSI: And remember, this is -- we're just saying that we're
going to make a modification to this policy. Actually you'll have the
opportunity to review the language being suggested at the transmittal
and then the adoption.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: All right. Very well.
Anybody have a problem with rewriting some faulty legislation,
getting it straightened out?
COMMISSIONER HILLER: May--
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Go ahead.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: May I ask that we get that
information ahead of the next meeting so we can review it and discuss it
with staff so that we --
Page 1143
January 31, 2011
MR. BOSI: This is the one and only adoption process for the
EAR. After this EAR we transmit it to the Department of Community
Affairs, and then we start working on drafting the specifics, the changes
we said that we're going to make. And so then you'll have an
opportunity to review that language at a transmittal hearing and then
review that language a second time at the adoption hearing.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: So at both of those hearings we can
deny if we don't think it's appropriate.
MR. BOSI: Absolutely, if the board feels that the language being
proposed does not meet the mark of what you were trying to intend at
the change, and then you choose not to adopt it.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: I mean, I haven't read what's being
proposed but, you know, obviously affecting U.S. 41 and Vanderbilt
Beach Road, I'm just kind of wondering what you would be proposing
for that intersection.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: A fly over, right?
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Yeah, I mean, I'm just -- really, you
know, a fully developed corner. I just question why that's on there and
what you intend to do with that.
MR. WEEKS: Commissioner--
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Since it happens to be my district.
MR. WEEKS: Sure.
Potentially that could be one of the changes is eliminating one or
more of these five activity centers that are listed as qualifying for master
plan.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: The confusing part of this is that we're
going to send nothing to them except to say we're going to change it.
And then we're going to have a transmittal hearing where you give us
the details and we'll send that to them too. It's just the process is a little
dumb. Okay? But nevertheless.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Way too much government.
Page 1144
January 31, 2011
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Yes, way too much, way too much.
Okay. Do you want -- do we have three nods to do what David
has suggested?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Yeah.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: As long as we can see it when it
comes back.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: All right.
MR. WEEKS: Absolutely.
Next item, Commissioners, runs from Page 18 to 19. This is the
Rural Fringe Mixed Use District.
The primary issue raised here is that the Rural Fringe Mixed Use
District geography primarily is comprised of properties zoned A rural
agricultural. It's part of the rural area of the county on the Future Land
Use Map. And it was designed to apply to properties that are zoned A
rural agricultural, but in fact there are some properties that have
different zoning. There's some mobile home zoning, VR, village
residential, some commercial zoning, one or more PUD's.
Trying to apply the Rural Fringe Mixed Use District regulation to
non-agricultural zoning districts just doesn't make sense. If you view it
strictly to say these regulations in the Future Land Use Element here do
apply to that zoning, then that's going to be telling the property owner
that though your property is zoned C-2, you can only have one dwelling
unit per five acres. Or if you happen to be sending, one unit per 40
acres. And the development standards in that zoning district, which are
designed for the type of uses or density allowed in that zoning district
simply wouldn't make sense to apply to a low density residential
development or agricultural development.
So the proposal here is identifying an issue that we need to clarify,
that this Rural Fringe Mixed Use District only applies to properties that
are zoned A, or in some other way to account for those properties that
are not zoned agricultural.
Page 1145
January 31, 2011
Other changes include some what I believe are very minor in
nature. The exemption provision, which really is a grandfathering
provision, needs to be tweaked a little bit for clarity. But the non-A
zoning is the main issue that I bring to your attention.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. And that's the extent of the
changes for this particular paragraph, right?
MR. WEEKS: Of what I consider substantive or substantial. If
you want me to put on the record the other --
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Commissioner Hiller?
COMMISSIONER HILLER: When this whole program was
established, you considered certain land sendings, certain I guess
neutral and certain receiving. By doing what you're doing here -- and
I'm assuming that when you started you had a balancing of the number
of units in each of those categories so this program would work, that you
could give up on this side and gain on that side, at the end of the day it
would all be in balance.
Now that you are addressing all these properties that are not zoned
ago as not being part of these sending areas, if you will, if that's what I'm
understanding, how does that affect your initial calculation of: you
know, sending units versus receiving units?
I mean, I think I would like to see a quantification of how many
units there are in this TDR program and what they were allocated to and
what effect this change has on it.
MR. WEEKS: Okay. Commissioner, you're correct that at a
very big picture view there was a balance in crafting the TDR program.
Not in determining how many acres to designate sending or receiving,
but in determining how many TDR credits could be generated from the
receiving lands. Because you do need a certain balance. And it's
about a, if I remember correctly, roughly a two-to-one. You want
roughly twice as many credits to be -- twice as much receiving land as
you would have credits to generate, I believe is the correct way of
Page 1146
January 31, 2011
stating it.
But that was done at the very big picture scale dealing with tens of
thousands of acres. The changes we're talking about here -- and I
realize I haven't quantified for you how much land we're talking about.
I'm going to guesstimate that at most it will be a section to a section and
a half land, so less than 1,000 acres total that we're dealing with here.
Most of these properties not zoned commercial fall within the
neutral lands designation along U.S. 41 east. That's where there's some
commercial, some VR, some mobile home and one large PUD, Boyne
South, located -- there's probably a few properties on the north side of
41 East that are within the receiving area. But of that ballpark figure of
1,000 acres, I would say 75 percent or more is within the neutral
designation. The impact on the TDR program, negligible.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. What's your preference? Go with
staffs recommendations? Do I see nods?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yes.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yeah.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: One, two, three, four, five. Okay.
MR. WEEKS: Commissioners, only two more items. The coastal
high hazard area boundary, which is -- that item is on Page 19 and runs
over to the top of Page 20. This regards the coastal high hazard area
boundary as it exists on the future land use map. And this really
correlates directly to Policy 12.2.5 in the Conservation and Coastal
Management Element.
And simply what it says here is that if that CCME policy has
changed, if the boundary changes as described in that policy, we will
simply make the necessary correlating change to the Future Land Use
Map.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: David, let me ask you a question about
this. Coastal high hazard area is defined by the state and not the Army
Corps of Engineers.
Page 1147
January 31,2011
MR. WEEKS: Correct.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Do they use any of the LIDAR data to
make adjustments to the coastal high hazard area?
MR. WEEKS: That I don't know, Commissioner.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: You don't need to find out now, but it's an
important issue. Because somebody established a coastal high hazard
area based upon things like flooding. And if the base flood elevations
have been changed, it could be that the coastal high hazard boundaries
could be changed.
So if we could just get an understanding as to whether or not the
Corps recent base flood elevations and zones would have any impact on
the coastal high hazard area limits. Okay?
MR. WEEKS: Yes, sir.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Thank you.
Commissioner Hiller?
COMMISSIONER HILLER: I'm concerned about the comments
on Page 19 at the bottom. The very discussion that we just had about
takings is addressed by the DCA. And they basically are concerned that
whether the reduction in density in the coastal high hazard area could
impair property rights of current residents when redevelopment occurs.
And they want the valuation of that.
And then the county's response is that the county has not required a
density reduction. But that's what we're proposing in our earlier
discussion. I don't mean to jump back. But since this is within the
discussion we're having within the pages that we're talking about, and it
talks about the Bayshore/Gateway Triangle, I just -- that overly allows
for a density increase on eligible properties be reallocation of densities
(sic).
I think this, if my understanding is correct, would be inconsistent
with what we just said -- you know, what some of us just said was okay,
you know, that 16 to four.
Page 1148
January 31,2011
MR. WEEKS: Commissioner, where you're reading there, the
italicized text close to the bottom of Page 19, if you read that
completely, it refers to past reduction in land use density within the
coastal high hazard area as far as impairing property rights when it
comes to redevelopment.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Right. And that's exactly my
concern. Because what we're proposing today in the earlier discussion
was a reduction in density now. Not earlier, but now -- so there's no
difference; I don't care if it was then or now -- from 16 to four, which
will affect redevelopment. Because I asked that question, okay, you've
got someone who has a vested property right to develop "X" units, how
will that affect them. And you said well, they'll be bound by the
existing law. So that is exactly what this is addressing. That 16 to
four goes to the very issue that DCA is bringing up.
And I have a concern, because like for example, in the
Bayshore/Gateway Triangle, I know that they are working on putting
together an assemblage and they're looking for redevelopment. And
you are basically going to be very significantly limiting the
development rights, for example, of the Bayshore Triangle by what was
just proposed.
And, you know, that goes -- I mean, again, I just -- forgive me for
bringing it back up, but since it is within what we're talking about, this is
a problem.
MR. WEEKS: Commissioner, I --
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Especially for the coastal high
hazard areas that we want to see redeveloped, like the
Bayshore/Gateway Triangle.
MR. WEEKS: Commissioner, I focus on the term when
redevelopment occurs. That's referring to development that is already
there, which would be based upon existing zoning. It's not pertaining
to potential zoning. And that's what we've been discussing so far in
Page 1149
January 31,2011
changes to the density rating system or other changes to cap density,
what could someone come in and ask for.
Redevelopment is development that is already there that has been
impacted and now can they redevelop.
And I apologize if I either misstated or wasn't clear going back a
while ago to your question. You gave an example of 12 units per acre.
Ifa property is zoned RMF-12, allows 12 units per acre, and it's in the
coastal high hazard area and our Future Land Use Element would limit
them to four units per acre, if that property development was destroyed,
they would have the right to develop back at 12 units per acre per their
existing zoning. The Future Land Use Element density rating system
changes would not preclude them from developing back at 12 units per
acre.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: But like, for example, take the
Bayshore area. If -- and let's say right now that density is seven. Or
let's just say it's, you know, four. And because of the assemblage that's
being put together, they would want to have higher residential densities.
They would not be able to do that based on the cap that you're imposing.
MR. WEEKS: The Bayshore/Gateway Triangle redevelopment
overlay is a unique circumstance. It is not subject to the density rating
system. It has a provision that allows for density increases to occur
there, but it's through a reallocation. You could think of it almost like a
TDR program. I mean, you're taking from one area and sending to
another.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: And that's exactly where I have a
concern. Because I did read that. And now you've got similarly
situated properties being treated differently.
I mean, the risk the Gateway Triangle has, if it can have a
reallocation of densities, there's no difference with respect to the risk of
any other property in that coastal zone. So I mean, how can
you -- again, you're carving out these exceptions that just don't work
Page 1150
January 31, 2011
when you have to be consistent. Similarly situated properties have to be
treated the same way. And there's no question that whether it's in the
Bayshore Triangle or anywhere else in the coastal high hazard area, I
don't care where the density bonus is coming from, if we're capping it,
it's going to be capped.
And basically what you've done by saying we've got a cap of four
is you're not allowing any density bonuses. We just eliminated the
commercial and we just eliminated the affordable housing. You can't
have any based on that argument.
MR. WEEKS: In the Bayshore overlay it is not part of the density
rating system. And the coastal high hazard area cap is applicable
through rezoning actions, up-zoning actions. That overlay specifically
allows for that reallocation, which means a property could exceed the
four units per acre through the reallocation from the property that is now
the Botanical Garden but formerly was rezoned up-zone residential.
That was done back in around 2001, I believe, and that was with the so
to speak blessing of DCA.
The rationale was we are not promoting additional development
within the coastal high hazard area by approving a density that did not
exist at that time through some density bonus, we're simply taking the
dwelling units that are entitled -- were at that time entitled by existing
zoning and shifting it elsewhere within the coastal high hazard area.
That was the distinction and that was acceptable to the Department of
Community Affairs.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: No, we're shifting it to the
Bayshore area.
MR. WEEKS: Within. It starts within and it stays within the
Bayshore area. The reallocation comes from that former --
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Okay, I understand.
Notwithstanding, by imposing that -- you know, changing that 16 to
four, this will be affected.
Page 1151
January 31, 2011
CHAIRMAN COYLE: County Attorney?
MR. KLATZKOW: I've got to say, I'm sort of lost on this
conversation, to be blunt.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Well, the key issue is that the Bayshore
area, the redevelopment area is not subject to the provisions of the
density bonus regulations. Is that what you said, David?
MR. WEEKS: That is what I said. But I believe the mixed use
activity center is carved out separately. So the mixed use activity center,
despite the fact that it's also within the Bayshore overlay, is still limited
by the mixed use activity center subdistrict.
All the other lands within the Bayshore area are subject to that
reallocation provision that's been in existence since 2001, the ability to
shift density.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay, but let's see if we can lock onto a
specific issue and go through that and analyze how it would affect the
Bayshore area. Let's start with the triangle, Gateway Triangle.
They're going to redevelop that. If they decide to redevelop it, what
governs what they can redevelop it as, and at what density?
MR. WEEKS: It's governed by the Bayshore/Gateway Triangle
Redevelopment Overlay. The density would be -- if I may, the density
would be, number one, based on the existing zoning of the property. If
someone wanted to increase that density beyond what their present
zoning would allow or change it from commercial to allow residential,
they would have two options. One would be to utilize the density
rating system, if they wanted to, or they could use the mixed use project
provision in the Land Development Code. That's what implements that
reallocation of density from the Botanical Garden site. So density
could be increased through one of two ways.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: So if you wanted to build something
there, could you come in and ask for a PUD? And if you did come in and
ask for a PUD, what maximum density provisions would apply?
Page 1152
January 31, 2011
MR. WEEKS: To start with, a given property would be eligible
for a base density of four units per acre, using the density rating system.
And from there it gets fuzzy, because it depends on the specifics of a
given property as to what density bonuses it would qualify for, or high
of a density it could go to.
It could be anywhere between four units per acre and the
maximum of 16.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: And that would not be limited by the
decision that we just made a few moments ago about applying a
four-unit per acre cap on residential developments in an activity center?
MR. WEEKS: Commissioner, the Gateway Triangle is not
within an activity center.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. So it wouldn't apply at all. Our
previous decision would not apply at all to the Gateway Triangle.
MR. WEEKS: Clarification. A portion of it. A small portion of
it.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: This gets more and more complex.
MR. WEEKS: Yes.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Can you imagine somebody who owns
some of that property wanting to develop it having to go through this
process?
MR. WEEKS: I can tell you I have, and it is confusing. It really
takes sitting down, pulling out the regulations side by side, walking
through it slowly. And then when you pull in the Land Development
Code, you scratch your head some more. We eventually get there, but
it's a complex process, complex regulation.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Can you tell us with absolute certainty
that the decision that we just made a little while ago would not adversely
affect the ability of Bayshore/Gateway Triangle or the Bayshore
redevelopment area to redevelop?
MR. WEEKS: I believe I can. Let me just read something here.
Page 1153
January 31, 2011
U sing the reallocation of density provision that is in the Bayshore
overlay, the changes we discussed earlier in this meeting would not
have any effect. It would not limit the density or the commercial
development that could occur.
But if a property chose to rezone, not use the mixed use project
application process to reallocate density but they wanted to use the
density rating system provisions, then yes, they -- properties would be
impacted.
Because almost all of the Bayshore/Gateway Triangle overlay is
located within the coastal high hazard area. And earlier in this meeting
the discussion was to eliminate the conversion of commercial bonus,
and there are some properties that would qualify for that under today's
regulations.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Are you aware of what the CRA thinks
they can do? Are you aware of what they believe their rights are with
respect to density?
MR. WEEKS: In general I am. I know they have a pending
rezoning right now for a PUD to allow cultural development. I've
reviewed that. I'm very familiar with that.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: What can you recommend to us that
would make this simpler and easier to understand by the Bayshore
CRA?
MR. WEEKS: I would have to keep it generic and say
that -- identify as an issue clarity of applying the Bayshore/Gateway
Triangle overlay as compared to the density rating system application.
That is, look at the overlay, look at other applicable provisions, staff, see
if you can make this more clear. Come back at the amendment stage
and provide greater clarity. I'd have to keep it that general.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Would that be okay with the Board, to
have him come back with some clear specific statement as to how this
would be applied to the Bayshore CRA, or for that matter for the
Page 1154
January 31, 2011
Immokalee CRA?
MR. WEEKS: None of to day's discussions would affect the
Immokalee Master Plan.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Good. That makes Commissioner
Coletta feel a lot better.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: We wouldn't be paving limerock
roads.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: No, we're not paving limerock roads.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I've got to get it in some way.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Let me have --
COMMISSIONER FIALA: One question?
Pursuing what you just said, Arboretum had been at one point in
time approved, right, and it was a mixed use development.
MR. WEEKS: Yes.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I don't know if they'll ever move that
land or anything will ever go on that land, but I was wondering, does
that approval then remain with this stuff or do they have to go back to
the drawing board for a rezone or anything?
MR. WEEKS: Commissioner, my recollection is that there's a
specific provision in the Land Development Code that they went
through, the mixed use project, the MUP approval process, and they did
utilize some of that density reallocation.
And I believe the LDC provision does have an expiration
provision. If you don't use it within a certain time period, you lose it.
If it expires, they would have to start all over again.
I'm not sure of the status of it, as far as whether it's still a valid
development order or not. Because I know there was some broad
statutory provision a few years ago that gave an extension to
development orders. I can't remember if that was due to economic
conditions or some other reason. But it broadly gave some additional
time period for development orders.
Page 1155
January 31, 2011
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Commissioner Hiller?
COMMISSIONER HILLER: I just want to clarify my
understanding and have clarification for the record.
Any overlays in the coastal high hazard area will not be affected by
the limitation that was imposed earlier of changing the residential
densities from 16 to four and the elimination of the commercial
conversion and the affordable housing conversion? So if we have an
existing overlay, whatever governs that overlay, whatever density
bonuses you could get under that overlay, that's what applies, not the
more general provision that was just agreed to earlier on?
MR. WEEKS: Commissioner, I think the only overlay that we'd
be dealing with here is the Bayshore/Gateway overlay.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Isn't the Vanderbilt Beach overlay
in the coastal high hazard zone also?
MR. WEEKS: That's a zoning overlay, it's not a --
COMMISSIONER HILLER: It's not the same type of overlay?
MR. WEEKS: No.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: What's the difference between the
two overlays?
MR. WEEKS: The future land use overlay applies to allowable
densities and intensities' allowable land uses.
In the case of the Vanderbilt zoning overlay, the zoning is already
in place. And my recollection of that one is that it applies to different
types of development standards. A plain Held of view, like wedding
cake development versus a straight tower building, setbacks, heights,
those types of things, not densities.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: So are you saying the general
provision with respect to densities would apply to the Vanderbilt Beach
overlay then?
MR. WEEKS: To the extent that a property within the Vanderbilt
overlay might come in for a rezoning, yes. I think without exception
Page 1156
January 31, 2011
that property is zoned out primarily as R T and a little bit of commercial,
small amount of residential single-family.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: What's the maximum density in the
Vanderbilt overlay on the residential side?
MR. WEEKS: Because of its location and the traffic congestion
area, whether we change the coastal high hazard area or not, three units
per acre.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: That's the existing?
MR. WEEKS: Yes.
It's eligible for a base of four minus one. For being within the
traffic congestion area, it takes them down to three. To get higher than
that, if a property qualified for the residential infill, that doesn't apply.
It's in the coastal high ha -- I think three would be the limit for a new
zoning change. But again, most of those properties already have a
zoning that allows a higher density than that. Which means they can
develop or redevelop under their existing zoning.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: And they couldn't under that 16
provision go higher? I mean, in other words, if they were at 12, given
that you say that that Vanderbilt Beach overlay is capped at three, as it
exists there were properties that were grandfathered in. But at this
point in time, even with that 16 being as it is before we made that
change, that would not have applied to them?
You're saying that that Vanderbilt overlay has an existing cap of
three, that the 16 for residential never existed because of the overlay?
And the only reason I'm asking is because the densities there I
think are a lot higher than that.
MR. WEEKS: Oh, definitely, definitely. Because the existing
zoning is primarily R T and maybe some RMF -16, which both allow 16
residential units per acre.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: But the overlay limited it to three.
MR. WEEKS: I don't believe the zoning overlay limited it to
Page 1157
January 31, 2011
three, Commissioner.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: What limited it to three?
MR. WEEKS: The future land use element designation and
application of the density rating system is what would limit it to three
units per acre.
And again, that is applicable during a rezoning action. If the
property is already zoned something else and it allows a higher density
or allows commercial uses, whereas the future land use element doesn't,
they are still allowed to develop per that existing zoning.
Policy 5.9, I think, and maybe 5.1 both provide for those
nonconforming properties, those that are not zoned consistent with their
future land use designation, to be able to develop and redevelop per their
existing zoning.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: So again, the 16 never would have
applied for Vanderbilt.
MR. WEEKS: If I understand the question -- the Future Land Use
Element never -- did not provide since 1989 for 16 units per acre. It
was all -- their density that they're allowed to develop under is based on
the fact that they already had the zoning in place when this plan was
adopted.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: I'm just trying to figure out where
the -- I'm just trying to reconcile because we're coming up with all these
like exceptions. I'm trying to figure out where the 16 applies and, you
know, what effect of taking away that 16 is doing to what properties in
the coastal high hazard.
I mean, I see, you know, how you've carved out an exception for
the Gateway Triangle and I've seen how you're carving out an exception
for Vanderbilt. So what area are we talking about?
MR. WEEKS: There's no future land use element provision that
carves out an exception for the Vanderbilt area. Does not exist in the
Future Land Use Element.
Page 1158
January 31, 2011
That same ability for properties in the Vanderbilt area that might
be zoned RMF -16 to develop at 16 units per acre would be applicable
for a property three miles inland from there if it were zoned RMF 16.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: My concern is that, I mean, if we're
all having trouble understanding it and we're, you know, more or less
educated by experience with respect to these discussions, I mean, I just
see such opportunity for major confusion and debate and, you know,
possible litigation. I mean, I think it really would be worthwhile to
have some sort of a writing on this that clarifies it as it applies to that
whole area, including all overlays in that area.
MR. WEEKS: Commissioner, I can only go back to what Mike
had said earlier, it's just the nature of this process, good or bad, that at
this stage the EAR identifies the issues and then we get to the resolution
of those issues during the amendment stage.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: I understand.
MR. WEEKS: But you certainly do get the language. And you
and the public will have the chance to review that, vet it and if it's not
acceptable, reject it.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. So as we've said before, you can
pull together some language that will specifically deal with these
situations so it becomes clear how our earlier decision will or will not
affect certain overlay areas. And we will see that at a later date. And
if we don't see it and we don't like it, we can always reverse our earlier
decision; is that correct?
MR. WEEKS: Almost. I'm not going to commit that I'll do it.
Because, Commissioner, as complicated as this, I'll just say I'll do my
best to try to make it more clear. It is complex. You're struggling with
it, staff struggles with it. And as I mentioned earlier, when we have
people come in to speak with us, it takes a while to wrap our head
around this, because we do have exceptions. Here's what the rules are,
oh, except under this circumstance. And then you go to the Land
Page 1159
January 31, 2011
Development Code which might have a little different twist on it still.
It's a lot to digest. But we'll do our best.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Can we agree as a board that we will ask
David to come back with an explanation of how our earlier decision
would be applied to this one, would be applied to any overlays that are
relevant, and then we'll get a chance to revisit both issues? Okay, is
that all right?
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Yes.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: We'll do that through the EAR
process.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay, we got three --
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: -- nods?
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Uh-huh.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Looks like we have four nods.
MR. WEEKS: Okay. You're referring to when we come back at
the stage of the actual amendments.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Yeah, yeah.
And I hope you're finished. You have taken up a lot of our time
today, you know that?
MR. WEEKS: I have only one final issue, Commissioners.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Before he gets into that issue,
I've got a scheduling conflict that I need to be in Bonita Springs for.
And that's a concern. And I don't know if the other commissioners
have this, but this is starting to creep up, and I'm not trying to blame
anybody. But there's scheduling conflicts showing up on my calendar
all the time. And these meetings are important that all the
commissioners are here.
So I don't know what the issue is. I don't care did it gets fixed, but
it has to get fixed so that we are all here. I had a deposition this
morning that was a county deposition, it's been on my calendar for
Page 1160
January 31, 2011
months, okay.
The second thing I want to get to is something I brought up, which
is in the conservation coastal element, and that is the preserves. And
it's -- I don't see the particular language in here, but it is a problem.
And the problem is it calls for 20 percent preserves within industrial
properties. And I can tell you how it is applied. Say you have a
one-acre site in either industrial parks, Airport or Pine Ridge. You
have a narrow strip of a preserve next to an abutting and adjacent to on
all sides a preserve.
And I just don't see what the purpose is. Because these native
vegetation preserves are supposed to be there for listed species. I don't
know what.panther would want to go in a five-foot wide preserve in the
industrial area in a junkyard, okay? Well, no, I'm sorry, in a storage
area for vehicles not in use, also known as a junkyard. It just doesn't
make sense to do that.
And what we're doing is encouraging -- well, I mean, first of all,
the practicality of some listed species using that just doesn't work. And
I would hope that we can give direction for our staff to take a look at that
and propose changes for our next Growth Management Plan. Because
this is the time to visit those issues.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Makes sense.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Can we do that, David? Mr.
Bosi, I should say, because you're the man.
MR. BOSI: Yes, sir. I mean, it's within the CCME that a
preserve requirement for any given piece of property -- and Mr.
Lenberger may be able to expand upon it a little bit more, but we could,
based upon the direction, look at those policies. And what I hear is the
proposal, we should provide some suggestions to eliminate preserve
requirements in industrial properties below a certain acreage size? COMMISSIONER HENNING: Yes. Yes.
Page 1161
January 31,2011
And I don't know if there's any data out there on how much a
panther or redheaded cockaded woodpecker needs or any of those listed
species, but that should be the threshold that we use for requirement for
. . .
preserves, In my opInIon.
MR. LENBERGER: For the record, Steven Lenberger, Growth
Management Division, Planning and Regulation.
A couple things. The preserve areas are established not just for
listed pieces; also for other things: Wetland issues, vegetation types.
And the preservation requirement was based on when it is identified as a
native vegetation preservation requirement.
The only exemptions you have are for single-family and also
agricultural, with a caveat of not being able to rezone a property once it's
developed or zoned for development for 25 years.
In response to concerns about stakeholders, in the past we've had a
number of amendments to the Conservation and Coastal Management
Element last time. And we went through a series of LDC amendments,
as you know.
The answer that staff had was to have an off-site preserve criteria.
We don't have a specific exception, but we can look into that for some of
the industrial -- we made it easy for them to have their preserve shifted
off-site -- whether that be monetary payment to Conservation Collier or
donation of lands. But we could easily look into an exemption for the
industrial parcels, which are very small in the urban area. Is that what
you were asking?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Yes. And I'm -- the piece that
I'm thinking about is not a wetlands, which you can mitigate for
anyways. But I'm talking about if a pinewood -- a flatwood pine that
clearly has no issues with storage. And it was -- when was it 2003,
2002, addressing the Governor's concerns about native vegetation
retention for, that was the whole issue, listed species. Am I correct in
my statement?
Page 1162
January 31,2011
MR. LENBERGER: I'm not familiar with what direction he
gave. But our preservation requirement is for vegetation and retention,
not just wetlands, like mitigation.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: That's what the landscaping
buffer is for, which is required on all sides on an industrial zone. And it
has to be native.
I just -- sorry, I just -- unless you can argue that it's there for
another purpose besides, you know, feel goods, I don't see why you
would need anything like that in a junkyard.
MR. LENBERGER: We can take a look at that and create an
exemption for urban industrial parcels.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Commissioner Hiller?
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Just before we conclude this, I just
want to reconfirm that Policy 6.3 will eliminate requirement D as an
option, as we discussed earlier.
MR. WEEKS: Sorry, Commissioners, I was talking to--
COMMISSIONER HILLER: That's okay.
MR. LENBERGER: I didn't hear the question. I'm sorry.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: I was talking to David. Yeah.
I just want to confirm that Policy 6.3 will eliminate D on Page 8.
And that, you know, basically the FLUE will be reviewed in light of our
discussion about affordable housing to not force the requirement if the
inventory exists and the demand doesn't.
MR. WEEKS: Certainly. We'll check that to make sure that any
other affected areas by the direction here.
I would suggest, Commissioners, that rather than deleting that
paragraph D on Page 8 regarding 25 percent of the units, that we just
clarify that it would not apply within the coastal high hazard area.
Because the --
COMMISSIONER HILLER: But these are in the TCMA's.
MR. WEEKS: Right. And the vast majority of the TCMA's are
Page 1163
January 31, 2011
outside of the coastal high hazard area.
But I understand. I think your point, and I think it's a good one, if
part ofa TCMA is within the coastal high hazard area, this
requirement -- or this provision should not apply.
(At which time, Commissioner Henning exited the boardroom.)
COMMISSIONER HILLER: And if, you know, the inventory
exists that this provision should not apply, I mean, we don't want to
continue glutting the market with housing at this price, making it
impossible for existing housing at this price to sell because the supply
exceeds the demand.
MR. WEEKS: Oh. So you're not focused on the CHHA.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: No, I think we should do it, you
know, not in the CHHA and not in other areas where there is existing
supply. I think you should just eliminate it.
MR. WEEKS: Okay.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: It makes it much easier. Because
like I said, we've already analyzed and determined that the inventory is
.
exceSSIve.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Commissioner Fiala?
MR. WEEKS: Seem to be a consensus, Mr. Chairman?
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Yeah, I think we've got a consensus. All
right?
And Commissioner Fiala, your light is on.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes, I just liked what Commissioner
Henning brought up before. And I thought sometimes we need to have
common sense prevail, especially as we put together these preserves and
so forth. Especially a preserve next to a preserve doesn't really make
common sense either.
So I'm glad that he brought that subject up and let common sense
prevail. That's redundant, sorry.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay, thank you.
Page 1164
January 31, 2011
And David, did you finish with the last item you were talking
about?
MR. WEEKS: I almost did. It's on Page 20. Carries over to 21.
It's perhaps more in the vein of informational, but I did want to put it on
the record, Commissioners.
A few -- about two or three years ago -- this pertains to the
planning horizon, how we have a Future Land Use Map that has a
1 O-year time period. We have the RLSA overlay that refers to the year
2025, we have transportation maps out to a different time period.
About two or three years ago during a cycle of Growth
Management Plan amendments we proposed to change a date pertaining
to some transportation maps. DCA found those changes not in
compliance because we have these different planning horizons. And
they said you need to get all of these planning horizons together. They
need to be a single date.
And so we have in -- you have in fact adopted an amendment last
year that added a policy to the Future Land Use Element 4.11 that
requires us during the EAR process to align these dates.
This item here simply recognizes that that is an issue.
I just want to put it on the record because though it seems rather
simplistic, okay, change the dates, make them all the same, there is an
impact. If we don't have existing studies or data and analysis of some
sort to justify a common time line, we will need to get those studies or
conduct those studies or gather that data and analysis.
The water and wastewater master plan updates, what time period
do they have. What time period do the long-range transportation maps
have. The RLSA has a fixed time period of2025. Ifwe choose a time
period other than 2025, we're going to need to do something with that
RLSA overlay other than just changing the date. We will need to
provide some additional data and analysis.
So I just wanted to draw to the board's attention that though it's
Page 1165
January 31, 2011
rather simplistic in identifying the issue and the fix, we are going to
have to generate some work.
I cannot tell you whether or not this is something that staff
in-house can do or not. This goes back to the question of what's the
cost. But I can tell you this is something that the state is telling us we
must do.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. I guess we ought to tell you to do
. . h?
It, ng t.
MR. WEEKS: Yes.
And that's all I have, Commissioners, thank you.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay.
MR. BOSI: We're almost done. There's only four more
elements. Probably the most substantial will be the discussion on the
Golden Gate Area Master Plan. Even though with the decision -- Mike
Bosi of the Comprehensive Planning -- with the decision on the 25th to
delay the initiation of that public planning process.
And a number of the areas -- as you'll go through, and a good
example is if you look at the Page 1 of the summary page of the
assessment of Golden Gate Area Master Plan, Policy 1.15, Policy 1.16,
you'll see defer consideration of suggestions/revisions. You'll see that
utilized a lot, defer the consideration of these policies until we have that
public planning process.
Well, we're not going to send this book to the Department of
Community Affairs saying we're going to make these changes but we're
going to wait for the -- we're going to wait until the initiation of the
Golden Gate Area Master Plan to solicit the input.
We don't want to modify anyone of these amendments, anyone of
these policies, anyone of these objectives towards where we need to
solicit the input from the general public. We want the public planning
process to allow for that to happen.
So what I had provided to each one of the commissioners at the
Page 1166
January 31, 2011
dais today was basically I pulled back. We pulled back any of the
objections, any of the analysis to the objective or to a policy that had to
do with anything of any substance. We're delaying telling the DCA
that we're going to make modifications to that. That could be as part of
the Golden Gate Area Master Plan restudy.
What -- the only issues, the only suggestions of changes that we
will do to the Golden Gate Area Master Plan will be strictly clerical or
reformatting. So when they come back to you, Commissioner Coletta,
in particular Commissioner Henning, you'll see that there's (sic) only
suggestions that are being changed that are procedural in nature, nothing
that would be required with the public planning process.
So what's contained in your books will not be what we're going to
send to the Department of Community Affairs. That was provided as
what I revised to -- were only going to be the ones that are going to be
reformatted in nature.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Go ahead.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yes, just for clarification. The
Golden Gate Master Plan, even though we haven't brought it back for a
total review, has been amended numerous times over the past 10 years.
What you're saying though is that those amendments and
everything else that we've made to it piecemeal, stay as is.
MR. BOSI: Absolutely.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Okay. And so -- and then we're
going to approach this at another time.
MR. BOSI: We had culled out a number of areas where we were
going to say we're going to make changes. What we're doing is we're
just delaying those changes to a later date.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: We're talking about the master
plan itself. But it doesn't in any way limit the public's ability to be able
to bring back issues that are important to them that may require a
change.
Page 1167
January 31, 2011
MR. BOSI: By no means.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Okay, thank you.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: We don't have to do anything with this.
MR. BOSI: No, you just have to -- and it's basically the direction
is there will be no substantive changes proposed in this EAR process to
the Golden Gate Area Master Plan, based upon the direction that we've
spoken about.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Let's go to the next item.
MR. BOSI: With that, the next item is the Immokalee Area
Master Plan. Ms. Carolina Valera is the coordinator for this section.
MS. VALERA: Thank you, Mike.
Now, the difference with the Golden Gate Area Master Plan, we
are changing every single goal, objective and policy of that element.
As you know, we started the amendment process last year. We
went through the different boards, and you sent it to the Department of
Community Affairs.
We have received their comments. We have made changes to the
plan based on those comments. We have already gone in front of the
Environmental Advisory Council. They have recommended adoption
of the plan, and we are going to the Planning Commission on the 17th of
February. And after that we'll come back to you for your final
adoption.
There are a couple of comments there, but we are incorporating
those into the revisions of the Immokalee Area Master Plan. If you
have any questions --
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Is there any reason why we should be
suggesting changes that the stakeholders have already made?
MS. VALERA: No. I will say no, only because we are taking
care of, as part of the changes that we're doing with the plan. And they
will come back to you. As I said, you know, we're -- if you were to make
any suggestions here, I guess we will not be able to do it as part of the
Page 1168
January 31,2011
Immokalee Area Master Plan that we're doing right now. We'll have to
wait until we do amendments to the EAR. And so I think it's more
efficient if we do it through the Immokalee Area Master Plan adoption
hearings.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. So you have no conflicts, no
problems, no inconsistencies that we need to deal with --
MS. VALERA: Not right now.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: -- on this one.
Okay. All right, let's go to the next item.
MR. BOSI: The second to last element is the economic element.
There was no divergence between the recommendation from the -- well,
the staff and the CCPC.
The original assessment was made in collaboration with myself as
well as the Economic Development Council. We kind of took those
suggested revisions before the Planning Commission, had some
modifications. Nothing of substantive change other than just revisions
to specific policies and how they're articulated within that economic
element.
But no new major policy, no new or (sic) objectives or goals that
are being suggested, just modifications to the areas as being suggested
to improve the efficiencies within that individual economic element.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Any questions?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Let's go to the next item.
MR. BOSI: And the last one is the -- or the newest of our
elements, the public schools facility element. There's only three
changes being proposed, and they are basically in reflection to actions
that we were supposed to take and that we have taken.
And the third is just another continuation. It's a creation of a
citizen advisory group, which was part of that public school facility
element, but one of the steps that we had to take after that adoption.
Page 1169
January 31, 2011
And we have to modify the policies to show that we have indeed
attained what was being suggested within the public schools facility
elements.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. That's fine.
Now what are you going to do to us now?
MR. BOSI: This is the best part where I get to do two -- the last is
the recommendation from the board. I'm asking the board to make a
recommendation to adopt the EAR as modified during the hearing
today.
And the assurance that I provide to the board is within the
resolution. As you can see on the second paragraph, and it's very hard
to read, but let me -- it says: Collier County has not prepared and will
not submit the EAR-based amendments at the time of adoption and
transmittal of the EAR to the DCA.
So that gives you the assurance. These are only -- this EAR
adoption book is only areas where we're saying we intend to make the
changes. The specifics, the specificity where the conversations will get
much more elaborate, much more detailed, much more time-consuming
will be at a later time, not today.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: You just read something that is
contradictory to what I see on the screen here. It says Collier County
has prepared the EAR. You just read something that said we have not
prepared it and we're not forwarding it to DCA.
MR. BOSI: No, we haven't prepared the EAR-based
amendments. This is the EAR. The EAR document is, like I said, as I
described, the changes we intend to make.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: So you're looking for a motion to
approve the EAR and the modifications which have been discussed on
the record today. And then you want a separate motion to approve this
resolution?
MR. BOSI: No, just a motion to approve the EAR as presented
Page 1170
January 31, 2011
and as modified today.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Commissioner Coletta?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yes. How many votes do you
need to approve?
MR. BOSI: Three. Three out of the five.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay, motion to approve.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Second.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Second by Commissioner Fiala.
MS. ASHTON-CICKO: The resolution that he put up there is not
the one that I approved. The one that I approved is slightly different.
I'm trying to put it on the visualizer.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay, I'm --
COMMISSIONER FIALA: How is it different; can you tell us?
MS. ASHTON-CICKO: It's just a little bit more concise.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay, I like concise.
MS. ASHTON-CICKO: Substantively pretty similar, but it's --
MR. BOSI: The visualizer is not working. There's technical
problems.
MS. ASHTON-CICKO: I can give -- I'll just show you up there.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. You got copies for everybody, or
just one copy?
MS. ASHTON-CICKO: No. I thought he was going to bring the
one I initialed.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay.
MS. ASHTON-CICKO: Do you have the other one, Jeff, that I
gave you?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Read it out loud.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: You want me to read it to you, or would
you rather read it yourselves?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: You read it.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: All right. This is a resolution No. 2011
Page 1171
January 31, 2011
dash something, a resolution of the Board of County Commissioners of
Collier County, Florida, relating to the 2011 Evaluation and Appraisal
Report on the Collier County Growth Management Plan adopting the
EAR and approving the transmittal to the Department of Community
Affairs for sufficiency review in accordance with Section 163.3191 of
Florida Statutes.
Whereas, Chapter 163.3191, paragraph I, Florida Statutes, 2010
requires each local government as part of the continuous and ongoing
comprehensive planning process to prepare every seven years an
Evaluation and Appraisal Report.
And whereas, the Board of County Commissioners has designated
the Collier County Planning Commission as the local planning agency,
pursuant to Chapter 163.3174, Florida Statutes, to conduct the
evaluation and appraisal process of the Growth Management Plan and
to prepare recommendations regarding the adoption of an EAR prior to
the submittal to the DCA.
And whereas, the Collier County Environmental Advisory Council
held an EAR workshop on August 11 th, 2010.
And whereas, the Collier County Planning Commission held EAR
workshops on August the 25th, 2010 and August 27th, 2010.
And whereas, the EAC held a public hearing on November the 3rd,
2010 and made its recommendation of approval of the EAR to the BCC.
And whereas, the Collier County Planning Commission held a
public hearing on December the 7th, 2010 and made its
recommendation of approval of the EAR to the BCC, Board of County
Commissioners.
Now, therefore, be it resolved by the Board of County
Commissioners of Collier County, Florida, that one: The Board of
County Commissioners hereby adopts the EAR and approves the
transmittal of the adopted EAR of the Collier County Growth
Management Plan for sufficiency review to the DCA.
Page 1172
January 31, 2011
And two: The Board of County Commissioners requests that
DCA review the Collier County EAR and issue a finding of sufficiency.
And three: County staff is directed to prepare the EAR-based
amendments and submit them for review by the Collier County
Planning Commission and appropriate advisory bodies to enable
transmittal of the EAR-based amendments within 18 months after the
EAR is determined to be sufficient by DCA.
This resolution adopted this -- the dates are left blank, is that okay?
You will fill those in later?
MS. ASHTON-CICKO: Yes, I will fill them in.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay, this resolution adopted this blank
day of blank, 2011, after motion, seconded and majority vote, Board of
County Commissioners, Collier County, Florida.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I was trying to get Mike to leave the
other one up so we could compare the two, but --
CHAIRMAN COYLE: It's too late. I'm not reading this again.
MR. BOSI: I can't switch here. It's on the back end.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. But that is the official one.
You've certified that that is official.
MS. ASHTON-CICKO: Yes.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Is that an agreeable thing would
with?
MR. BOSI: There's no substantive changes, so yes.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. We have a motion to approve
this particular --
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Can I ask --
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Sure.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: I just want to clarify, with respect
to what was just read, you're going to send up the EAR as it exists, and
the amendments that we discussed here today are only going to be
Page 1173
January 31, 2011
addressed subsequently within the next 18 months?
MR. BOSI: No, the EAR that's going to be transmitted to the
Department of Community Affairs is as will be modified as was
discussed today. The EAR amendments or the actual amendments,
those will be the language that will --
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Mike, get on the mic. a little bit better
there.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Because number one, which is
adopting the EAR, suggests nothing about what we discussed today and
the modifications that we recommended.
MR. BOSI: That's what we send to the Department of
Community Affairs as our offering as the EAR, is the bulk as modified
by today's hearing.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Okay. But it just doesn't say -- I
understand that, but we don't say that.
MR. BOSI: I think there's an assumption that what we send to the
Department of Community Affairs is the version that's been adopted by
the Board of County Commissioners.
MR. KLATZKOW: Every resolution we do amend, there are
changes made on the floor to whatever it might be. And it's whatever the
board direction is, that's what gets sent up.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Well, let's make that clear then.
Let's -- why don't we have the motion be -- well, it was, as a matter of
fact. We did make a motion that approve the EAR with the
modifications that were made on the record today.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Right.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: And so that was in fact the motion. And
that we send the resolution and the EAR to DCA, right?
MR. BOSI: Yes.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Do you need anything else on the record?
MR. BOSI: No, sir.
Page 1174
January 31, 2011
CHAIRMAN COYLE: We're straight on that?
MR. BOSI: Yes, sir.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay, very well.
Commissioner Coletta, do you have anything to add? Your light is
on.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: It is. And I forgot to turn it off
the last time. But since I had this opportunity--
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Well, let me just turn it off and then we
can finish this thing.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: That's okay, I'll keep talking
anyway.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay, go ahead.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I am going to vote against it
because I really do have strong reservations about the high hazard area
and affordable housing.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. All right.
Commissioner Hiller, do you have anything else, or was that on
before?
COMMISSIONER HILLER: I just want to explain, in response
to Commissioner Coletta, it's because we have a lot of affordable
housing in the high hazard area that we're eliminating the provision.
Because there is no need. So that's the reason. It's not in opposition to
affordable housing in the high hazard area, it's that there is so much of it
that adding more would be detrimental to the market and to the
saleability of those existing homes.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: And I'm sorry, I have to
respond.
That would be true if you said the whole county, because there's
affordable housing throughout the whole county which is in excess.
The problem is, by coming up with the high hazard area and
identify it as the coastal region, you're in effect red lining affordable
Page 1175
January 31, 2011
housing new. Yes, you are. You're simply redlining everything to the
west of that line, it won't take place from now on. And because of the
fact you can't have the density, it won't happen.
What we've effectively done is said the other side of the line is
where you can go. And that's my reservation with it. It has been
before and it will remain so now.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: All right. All in favor, please signify by
saYIng aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Any opposed by like sign.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay, it passes 3-1, with Commissioner
Coletta dissenting.
Is there any more business we need to take care of today, Mike?
MR. BOSI: No, sir.
Item #3
ADJOURN
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Is there a motion to adjourn?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Motion to adjourn.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Second.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Very well. Thank you very much. We
are done.
****************
There being no further business for the good of the County,
the meeting was adjourned by order of the Chair at 4:11 p.m.
Board of County Commissioners
Page 1176
January 31, 2011
~~ ~t Icll
as corrected
~w.~
FREI1COYLE~,GH;NRMAN
ATT~ST:,"" ;' "1) ,
D qaT'"E. B
or
Transcript prepared on behalf of Gregory Court
Reporting, Incoroporated by Cherie' R. Nottingham,
CSR.
Page 1177