The URL can be used to link to this page

CCPC Minutes 01/26/2012 EAR1/26/2012 CCPC "Special EAR Amendments" meeting TRANSCRIPT OF THE MEETING OF THE COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION Naples, Florida, January 26, 2012 LET IT BE REMEMBERED, that the Collier County Planning Commission, in and for the County of Collier, having conducted business herein, met on this date at 9:00 a.m., in SPECIAL SESSION in Building "F" of the Government Complex, East Naples, Florida, with the following members present: MAR 2 1 [UIZ BY: ....................... ALSO PRESENT: Fiala I_ _ Hiller Henning - -- Coyle ✓ Coletta CHAIRMAN: Mark P. Strain William H. Vonier Brad Schiffer Paul Midney Melissa Ahern Karen Homiak Diane Ebert Barry Klein Phillip Brougham Corby Schmidt, Principle Planner, Growth Management Division Mike Bosi, Comprehensive Planning Manager Heidi Ashton - Cicko, County Attorney's Office Tom Eastman, School District Representative Vj V Misc. Comes: DoW. �l Z21 tom, Page 1 of 84 CCPC SPECIAL AGENDA COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION WILL MEET AT 9:00 A.M., T'111. .Si AV,, J iR ' � 012 IN THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS MEETING ROOM, ADMINISTRATION BUILDING, COUNTY GOVERNMENT CENTER, THIRD FLOOR, 3299 TAMIAMI TRAIL EAST, NAPLES, FLORIDA: NOTE: INDIVIDUAL SPEAKERS WILL BE LIMITED TO 5 MINUTES ON ANY ITEM. INDIVIDUALS SELECTED TO SPEAK ON BEHALF OF AN ORGANIZATION OR GROUP ARE ENCOURAGED AND MAY BE ALLOTTED 10 MINUTES TO SPEAK ON AN ITEM IF SO RECOGNIZED BY THE CHAIRMAN. PERSONS WISHING TO HAVE WRITTEN OR GRAPHIC MATERIALS INCLUDED IN THE CCPC AGENDA PACKETS MUST SUBMIT SAID MATERIAL A MINIMUM OF 10 DAYS PRIOR TO THE RESPECTIVE PUBLIC HEARING. IN ANY CASE, WRITTEN MATERIALS INTENDED TO BE CONSIDERED BY THE CCPC SHALL BE SUBMITTED TO THE APPROPRIATE COUNTY STAFF A MINIMUM OF SEVEN DAYS PRIOR TO THE PUBLIC HEARING. ALL MATERIAL USED IN PRESENTATIONS BEFORE THE CCPC WILL BECOME A PERMANENT PART OF THE RECORD AND WILL BE AVAILABLE FOR PRESENTATION TO THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS IF APPLICABLE. ANY PERSON WHO DECIDES TO APPEAL A DECISION OF THE CCPC WILL NEED A RECORD OF THE PROCEEDINGS PERTAINING THERETO, AND THEREFORE MAY NEED TO ENSURE THAT A VERBATIM RECORD OF THE PROCEEDINGS IS MADE, WHICH RECORD INCLUDES THE TESTIMONY AND EVIDENCE UPON WHICH THE APPEAL IS TO BE BASED. 1. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE 2. ROLL CALL BY SECRETARY n 3. PLANNING COMMISSION ABSENCES 4. ADVERTISED PUBLIC HEARINGS A. EAR -BASED GROWTH MANAGEMENT PLAN ELEMENT AMENDMENTS TRANSMITTAL, AS FOLLOWS: CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT ELEMENT TRANSPORTATION ELEMENT PUBLIC FACILITIES ELEMENT: SANITARY SEWER SUB - ELEMENT POTABLE WATER SUB- ELEMENT DRAINAGE SUB - ELEMENT SOLID WASTE SUB - ELEMENT NATURAL GROUNDWATER AQUIFER RECHARGE SUB - ELEMENT HOUSING ELEMENT RECREATION & OPEN SPACE ELEMENT CONSERVATION & COASTAL MANAGEMENT ELEMENT INTERGOVERNMENTAL COORDINATION ELEMENT FUTURE LAND USE ELEMENT GOLDEN GATE AREA MASTER PLAN ECONOMIC ELEMENT PUBLIC SCHOOLS FACILITIES ELEMENT ADJOURN 1,21 l2 Special CCPC Agen&K Simk TABLE OF CONTENTS CCPC - Transmittal of 2011 EAR -Based GMP Amendments January 26, 2012 `Special' Agenda 1) TAB: Table of Contents DOCUMENT: Table of Contents 2) TAB: Legal Advertising DOCUMENT: CCPC Legal Advertisement 3) TAB: Staff Report(s) DOCUMENTS:CCPC Transmittal Staff Report; EAC Transmittal Staff Report 4) TAB: Summary of Changes DOCUMENTS: Recommendations per CCPC10 /14/11 Workshop and EAC 12/07/11 Transmittal Hearing 5) TAB: CIE DOCUMENTS: Capital Improvement Element; CIE Assessment and Recommendations 6) TAB: TE DOCUMENTS: Transportation Element; TE Assessment and Recommendations 7) TAB: SS Sub - Element DOCUMENTS: Sanitary Sewer Sub- Element/Public Facilities Element; SS Assessment and Recommendations 8) TAB: PW Sub - Element DOCUMENTS: Potable Water Sub- Element/Public Facilities Element; PW Assessment and Recommendations 9) TAB: Drainage Sub - Element DOCUMENTS: Drainage Sub- Element/Public Facilities Element; Drainage Assessment and Recommendations 10) TAB: SW Sub - Element DOCUMENTS: Solid Waste Sub- Element/Public Facilities Element; SW Assessment and Recommendations 11) TAB: NGWAR Sub - Element DOCUMENTS: Natural Groundwater Aquifer Recharge Sub- Element/Public Facilities Element; NGWAR Assessment and Recommendations 12) TAB: HE DOCUMENTS: Housing Element; HE Assessment and Recommendations 13) TAB: ROSE DOCUMENTS: Recreation & Open Space Element; ROSE Assessment and Recommendations 14) TAB: CCME DOCUMENTS: Conservation & Coastal Management Element; CCME Assessment and Recommendations 15) TAB: ICE DOCUMENTS: Intergovernmental Coordination Element; ICE Assessment and Recommendations 16) TAB: FLUE DOCUMENTS: Future Land Use Element; FLUE Assessment and Recommendations 17) TAB: GGAMP DOCUMENTS: Golden Gate Area Master Plan: GGAMP Assessment and Recommendations 18) TAB: EE DOCUMENTS: Economic Element; EE Assessment and Recommendations 19) TAB: PSFE DOCUMENTS: Public Schools Facilities Element; PSFE Assessment and Recommendations rdla 1/26/2012 CCPC "Special EAR Amendments" meeting CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Good morning, everyone. Welcome to the Thursday, January 26th meeting of the Collier County Planning Commission. This is a special meeting on the EAR amendments. So if you'll all please rise for Pledge of Allegiance. (The Pledge of Allegiance was recited in unison.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Will the secretary please do the roll call. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Mr. Eastman? MR. EASTMAN: Here. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Mr. Von -- COMMISSIONER VONIER: Vonier. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: -- Vonier? COMMISSIONER VONIER: Here. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Sorry. Mr. Schiffer? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I'm here. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Mr. Midney? COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Here. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Ms. Ahern? COMMISSIONER Al ERN: Here. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Mr. Strain? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Here. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Ms. Homiak is here. Ms. Ebert? COMMISSIONER EBERT: Here. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Mr. Klein? COMMISSIONER KLEIN: Here. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: And, Mr. Brougham? COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: Present. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. Planning Commission absences. Our next meeting, it looks like we've got a meeting canceled for February 2nd. We have a tentative meeting on February 16th. I'm not sure -- originally we were told that one -- there wasn't going to be a meeting that day, but I think there's been something scheduled now. So does anybody know if they can't make it on the 16th of February? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. We'll move right into this hearing, but I wanted to kind of explain where we're at for the new members. The EAR process is one that started with this board many months ago. I think we've heard it twice in workshops or preliminaries. So the changes that have come about in the attachments in your booklet are all ones that -- those of us that have been on here for a while have already had the experience some of them. But just to make you -all realize where we're going today, there's a whole series of sections of changes. Within the sections are underlined or bolded comments. That's what we're focusing on. Everything that is existing that is not underlined, that's not the issues that we're here to discuss mostly today. We need to stay with the changes. That will help expedite the process, and -- so if we focus on that, we might get out of here within a day or so. Mike, I'll turn it over to you now. MR. BOSI: Thank you, Chair. Good morning, Planning Commission Members. My name is Mike Bosi, the Comprehensive Planning manager. I have a little six- or sevonaslide presentation just to familiarize yourselves with the EAR, as the chairman has just provided. It's required by Florida Statute that every jurisdiction, every county, every city, municipality, has to review the Growth Management Plbn a seven -year periodic basis. It's required by 163.3191 of the Florida Statutes. And this is -- this EAR process stands as the third review for our Growth Management Plan, which was implemented in 1989. We had a review in -- or an EAR review in 1997, 2004, and again in 2011. What does the EAR do? It's the Evaluation and Appraisal Report of our Growth Management Plan. It Page 2 of 84 1/26/2012 CCPC "Special EAR Amendments" meeting basically evaluates the performance of the elements that are within the Growth Management Plan. For some of the new members, your Growth Management Plan is comprised of individual elements, so your Transportation Element, your Capital Improvement Element, your Public Schools Facility Element, your Coastal -- or Conservation and Coastal Management Element, your Recreation and Open Space Element. All those elements address with the many facets of not only the spacial arrangement of land uses within the county, but how the individual components of -- and subsects of the environment work together and how those relationships should work for the longest terms of -- in terms of sustainability. Within the EAR we try to measure the successes and the shortcomings of our Growth Management Plan, how those individual elements are attaining their goals, or trying to attain those goals, and what benchmarks have been accomplished, and it provides an opportunity for the local plan to respond to changes with -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mike -- Margie, you mind taking your conversation out in the hall? We can't -- Margie? Please, would you mind; we're hearing too much of your conversation up here. Thank you, Mike. MR. BOSI: Oh, no problem. It provides an opportunity for the local Growth Management Plan to respond to changes in federal, state, or regional planning requirements. And as I mentioned, the EAR's a two -part process. We're really at the midpoint of this second phase. It's where the proposed language, which was formerly requested to be incorporated into the GMP, based upon -- based upon those changes that were designated by the adopted EAR -- and what did we get here? How did we get to these specific proposed modifications to the policies and objectives of the Growth Management Plan? I was speaking with the Planning Commission Member Brougham about the process and the length of the process. Where did it start? It started back in 2009 at the Regional Planning Council where we met with the -- with the other counties and municipalities within the Southwest Florida region and talked about the upcoming EAR process. And we established an intergovernmental meeting in September of 2009. In December of 2009, we established a letter of understanding with the Department of Community Affairs, the former state agency that was overseen -- that oversees planning and -- planning regulation within the State of Florida. And from that we started a series of three individual public meetings at geographic areas that were diverse within the county to try to gain input from the citizenry who wanted to come and comment and let us know what we're doing well and what maybe -- areas that we could improve upon. We had three meetings; in January, February, and March of 2010. And like I said, through various geographic areas within the county to give everyone an opportunity to be able to provide their input in what they felt that -- or where they felt the county needs to go within the planning environment. Between April and July, staff went through the -- went through each element, made our own individual assessments, considered the input for the public, and drafted some potential areas for change and also assessments upon the Growth Management Plan, those elements and how they've done in reaching their benchmarks. And we had a workshop with the EAC in August of 2010, a two -day workshop with the Planning Commission on the 25th and 27th of August in 2010, sent a courtesy copy of the EAR to the Department of Community Affairs, received some comment agencies (sic), and then on November 3rd of 2010 we had an EAR adoption hearing with the EAC. And December 7th we had an EAR adoption hearing with the Planning Commission. And then January 31 st, about a year ago, the Board of Commissioners adopted the EAR. And what that EAR said was, we evaluated each element, we've scrutinized the goals, we've scrutinized the objectives, we've scrutinized the policies. Here are the things that we think we need to change to make our -- each individual element, each individual goal or policy, whatever the case, more effective, more relevant to the issues that we face in today's day and age. After -- after we adopted, we sent it to the state. On April 15, 2011, the Collier EAR was accepted by the state. From May to September of this year, or no -- of 2011, sorry, we drafted the proposed language. But before we were going to start the transmittal hearing, which we're at today, we said one last time, we're going to check with the Planning Commission. We're going to come back. We're going to give you the draft languages -- or the language for the objectives and policies that are being proposed to change and see if there's agreement with -- we are doing what the EAR -based report had said, the changes that we have designated, got feedback from the Planning Commission -- COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: I know you're on a roll. Page 3 of 84 1/26/2012 CCPC "Special EAR Amendments" meeting MR. BOSI: No. COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: Just for clarification, January 31, 2011, the BAC (sic) adopts the EAR, and then it was accepted by the state in April, and then in May to September you drafted the language. I didn't quite follow that. I mean, what was accepted if it wasn't the language? MR. BOSI: What was accepted was the objectives and policies that we said we need to make changes for. We -- the accepted report says, these policies in the Transportation Element or these policies -- or these objectives in the Future Land Use Element, these are the areas that we need to make changes. We also give -- we indicate where we're going with the changes, why we're making the change, but that -- those changes, those -- or those designations for changes are what is accepted during the Phase 1 part. The Phase 2 part, which we're in, is where we're actually incorporating those proposed changes into our Growth Management Plan. It's the formal process of accepting those proposed changes into the GMP. COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: So the first part is to make recommendations to changing policy, goals, and objectives. The second part then is to formulate language to specifically implement those policy changes. MR. BOSI: That's spot on, correct. And that's where we're at. We're at that second part where we're starting the process for incorporating those -- that implementation language for changes. COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: Thanks. MR. BOSI: After the workshop we have had our -- we've already conducted our EAR -based amendment transmittal hearing with the EAC, and that was done December 7th of 2011, which brings us up to today, which we are at the transmittal hearing for the Planning Commission for the EAR -based amendments. From this meeting we have end of March scheduled with the Board of County Commissioners. I believe it's 20th or 21 st of March we will be before the Board of County Commissioners for their transmittal hearing for the EAR -based amendments. What we will do -- and just to give the Planning Commission an understanding, the input that you provide us to the specific language that is being proposed today will be modified based upon the Planning Commission's recommendation, and that's what will be presented to the Board of County Commissioners at that March transmittal hearing. And just one more --just to close it out, it was just a little refreshing, and I think we've talked about it a number of times. How does the GMP work? It's comprised of elements, like I said; transportation, Capital Improvement Element, future land use, public utilities, et cetera. Each one of those elements have one or a number of overall goals, what we're trying to achieve within those individual elements, and those goals are supported by objectives, and those objectives are further supported by policies. What you'll see within your book are the objectives and policies that we are suggesting for modification in the actual language for those -- for those changes. From review of the history, the planning -- there's a number of Planning Commissioners who have seen this for a number of times. As Mark had said, the -- the language that is struck through or underlined are the policies and the objectives that we will be dealing with today. If there's not a modification proposed for a policy or objective, they're off -- they're off limits for this process. Of course, we could always hear comments from the Planning Commission that this would be something we should probably look at in a separate GMP cycle, but that would be something for outside of this EAR process. With that overview, I would see if there's any other questions just about the process going forward from the Planning Commission. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: If there's any general questions of anybody, because if there isn't, what I was going to suggest is we take it as we have in the past, a group of pages at a time. If a section is small, we'll take the whole section, but we'll walk through it that way. Mike, does that work for you? MR. BOSI: Absolutely; defer to you, Chair. And one thing I would say, there was a number -- a couple of speakers who have requested to speak on a number of different elements, so I would just request that -- and as the chair always does -- at the conclusion of each element to see if there was public speakers who would like to speak on each individual -- on the individual element discussed. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And for members of the public, I think I see two out there. So if either of the two of you would like to speak on any particular subject, just raise your hand, because we'll fit you in. Margie, you already want to speak? We haven't started anything yet. Page 4 of 84 1/26/2012 CCPC "Special EAR Amendments" meeting MS. STUDENT - STIRLING: I misunderstood. I thought you just said for us to acknowledge if we wanted to speak any time during the proceeding. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah. Oh, I know you do, yeah. So whenever you want to speak, just raise your hand. MS. STUDENT - STIRLING: Okay. Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, thank you. Sony. I know that was not on record, Terri. Okay. And I'm trying to think. There was something else I wanted to say. But I guess, Mike, we'll just start into it and everything will -- oh, you guys have changes. And Corby passed out some changes and maps at our last CCPC meeting. And I know the Conservancy sent us a letter with -- that was three pages. Have you seen that, Mike? MR. BOSI: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. If they're not here, I'll try to keep track of their concerns. I'd like to address everybody's concerns and changes as we move through each element. MR. BOSI: And staff has -- has been made aware of the letter, and we believe that we've addressed, and will address, how those comments are being handled within this EAR report. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. So as we get to each group of pages, just kind of point us out, okay? MR. BOSI: Absolutely. And I will turn it over to Corby, the coordinator for the process. And there is an agenda at the very beginning of your book, I believe, that lists the elements and how we will proceed. With that, Corby? MR. SCHMIDT: Thank you. Quickly, in your booklets the staff report has been made available to you, as well as the summary of changes which has been updated post your workshop and the EAC transmittal hearing and a memo from the planning staff that gives you the more recent changes to the -- or suggested changes to the housing element and to the FLUE. Just to point those out, Mr. Chairman, and we're good to go. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Then let's start with the staff report. It's the third tab into your packet. It's three pages or four pages. Anybody have any questions on the staff report before we get into the meat of the discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. There is a summary of changes that follows the staff report. I didn't know if there's any questions or concerns about the summary. Every issue in there we will be hitting in the individual sections as well. Does anybody have any questions about the summary? That's Pages 1 through 8 of that tab. (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Then the first section in which we actually get into the EAR is the CEI, Capital Improvement Element, and there's quite a few pages on that one. Let's start with the first five pages. Anybody have any questions on the first five pages? Since most of them aren't struck through or underlined, there's not a lot there, but -- (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: On Page 4, Corby, the second underline -- MR. SCHMIDT: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- it says, "The county may, in certain instances when a public facility improvement is of lower order or priority and not needed to achieve or maintain adopted levels of service, consider the option of not constructing such improvement at all." Aren't all of our improvement always considered based on the level of service? MR. BOSI: Mike Bosi. The Capital Improvement Programs for a system expansion is most certainly tied to level of service, and replacement of obsolete facilities is also tied to level of service. So within our Capital Improvement Element, any project that would be put forward is related to the level of service and maintaining or achieving the required level of service. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. And the reason I asked that is because, the way this is written, you couldn't opt out of doing something unless it was tied to a level of service. So as long as everything is tied to a level of service, then anything is -- we have the ability to opt out of any of them then? Page 5 of 84 1/26/2012 CCPC "Special EAR Amendments" meeting MR. BOSI: Correct. MS. ASHTON- CICKO: Mr. Chair? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes, ma'am. MS. ASHTON- CICKO: You may want to get a little bit more information as to the need of putting that sentence in to begin with. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I think it was a result of this board's comment or some other board's comment, from what I read. It may have been ours at the previous meeting. But go ahead; why would you feel the sentence is not needed? MS. ASHTON- CICKO: Well, maybe I'm -- perhaps I'm misunderstanding it, but I'm reading it to say that if it's not needed to maintain an adopted level of service, then we can consider not constructing it at all. And so I think that that decision would always be involved in every fiscal decision, so that's why. I may not understand it correctly. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I think that corresponds to the question and answer that you previously gave. If it's not tied to a level of service, then it wouldn't be scheduled to be done. MR. BOSI: (Nods head.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I think maybe what was intended is that if it's -- if we're doing it early and we can delay it because of a -- not a critical level -of- service concern, that I would think be the option. Some roads, for example, can -- are operating at D. Instead of improving them to a C, they could drop to an E, and that would be the result that we'd see as a result of that sentence. Is that -- MR. BOSI: Correct. And it was the expression, I believe, for that additional flexibility. And to Heidi's point, I think it's inherent within the process that this -- that we have that flexibility. It was just the request to express it within the specific verbiage to provide that flexibility. But as Heidi points out, it is inherent within the capital improvement programming, that type of flexibility. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, if it's already there; I mean, I'm not sure that was as clear to us because the language wasn't in front of us last time. It was just a suggestion. I don't know why we need to clutter it up. If it's already -- if you can do this without this being said, then I would have to agree with Heidi, just take it back out again. Does anybody else have any problem with that? I think the less language we can have in our code the better. So why clutter it if it's already a given? And I think that now that it's written and it's discussed, it's understood better as to why that isn't needed. And on Page 5, we -- on various municipalities we're stating their levels of service. And, for example, the City of Naples at 185 and Everglades City at 185, and then you've got your private utilities. How can we state their level of service in our GMP? Do we have control over them to make sure that they abide by that? And then how do we know that they've actually done that for the period of time that this covers? MR. BOSI: They have to file annual reports with Jamie French over at Growth Management as the utilities coordinator administrator. We have -- we really -- our enforcement mechanisms over those individual districts is limited, but we do recognize what -- their level of services expressed within their charter and maintain it within our Growth Management Plan. But the implementation of enforcement is not directly from the county, but it's through the utilities regulatory commission. So if they would -- in their annual reporting, if they would be negligent of the level of service they're expressing within their charter, there's a process for -- to start that enforcement. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So would they be, then, considered, if they were neglect, let's say, in violation of the GMP because of the stated number that's in this element? MR. BOSI: On the surface they would be a violation of the GMP, but there's not a regulatory penalty for that. The regulatory penalty comes from the utility authority commission from the state. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, my concern is if we have something in the document and the document's locked in and solid and it's violated, how do we -- what does that mean whereas if it wasn't a -- if it wasn't as clearly stated -- I mean, instead of saying the "City of Naples equals 185 gallons per capita," could we say the "City of Naples equals up to 185 gallons" or some kind of variable so that we don't put anybody in conflict or inconsistencies with the GMP? Is that a better way to approach it, or is this -- MR. BOSI: I guess we can use "equal to" or "greater than," or, I mean, a different metric, even though their charter is expressed at the level of service that's prescribed within the GMP. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But their charter's given to them at the time they begin their existence, right? Page 6 of 84 1/26/2012 CCPC "Special EAR Amendments" meeting MR. BOSL• (Nods head.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And the GMP levels for these changes as we've seen in the AUIR almost every year, especially from our county, it goes up and down. So if these are changing, how does their charter keep up with them? MR. BOSI: Through whatever the mechanism for amendment process that the utility commission has prescribed for the individual utilities. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. So they would have to amend their charter to correct a change in the level of service as stated in this GMP -- or assuming the GMP matches their charter currently. MR. BOSL• I think the GMP would have to follow their actions. If they would change the levels of service, they would -- they would be recognized through Growth Management through coordination with Mr. French, and then we would have to start the process. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Melissa? COMMISSIONER AHERN: Wouldn't it -- if they applied to amend their charter, Jamie would get copied on all of that information to be able to reflect the changes here, correct? MR. BOSL• Yes, yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But I don't know if we could make the changes. Well, the CIE, that's one element that can be changed a little differently than the rest. MR. BOSI: You can modify the CIE and levels of service on an annual basis. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. The next group of pages is 5 through 10, which will take you to the end of the section provided. Does anybody have any questions on the last five pages? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Then to finish off the CIE we have a series of discussions from previous meetings and how we got to where this element is in front of us today. Does anybody have any questions on the remainder of the CIE? Go ahead, Corby. MR. SCHMIDT: Mr. Chairman, going back to Page 8, to the CIE element itself, Policy 4. 1, both A and B, there's some parenthetical phraseology regarding being affected by House Bill 7207. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. MR. SCHMIDT: Just a note that that language will be removed when we know what that effect is, and it's not to remain as a parenthetical entry. MS. ASHTON- CICKO: So in the transmittal version this language will be proposed. I mean, this language will be deleted. It will -- the text will not be changed as it's depicted here, is what I think he's saying. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: What you're going to do is drop the parenthetical. MR. SCHMIDT: Yeah. And if there are actually House -Bill -7207 effective changes, we'll make that change to whatever statute reference that is. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Gotcha. MR. SCHMIDT: To this point we haven't found them. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Which brings up another question. With all the changes in Tallahassee to DCA, when you made your presentation, you said the former agency. They got whittled down from hundreds to a dozen or whatever number's left. They still exist in regards to reviewing the EAR? MR. BOSI: Yes, they do. They -- and the process for amending the GMP has been abbreviated for most Growth Management Plan amendment processes. But for the EAR process, it's still the traditional review, and they will review it as in the past. The level of scrutiny, I believe, may be different than what it was in the past. And not maybe, will be, because the new regulations state that state agencies will only review plans in relationship to their areas of concentration, but in tenns of affecting only critical statewide resources and systems. So that is their purview, in teens of any critical comments would only be related to how an individual element or policy or objective would have an effect upon an individual state system. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That would eliminate a lot of review. MR. BOSI: Yes. So what that means is, really, the elevation of scrutiny has gone from maybe 500 feet to 50,000 feet. They've really -- they've really pulled back in terms of the scrutiny and the level of scrutiny to more of a macro -- of a macro prospective, and I believe it provides the local governments more flexibility but more Page 7 of 84 1/26/2012 CCPC "Special EAR Amendments" meeting responsibility to make sure that the changes that they are implementing have been considered at not only that macro level but at the specific lower level as well. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. MR. SCHMIDT: One more change, Mr. Chairman. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Sure, go right ahead. MR. SCHMIDT: On the following Page 9. Policy 4.7, the final entry which was suggested by this group, I believe, at a previous meeting, stating "all governing construction codes" as an addition to that listing. The suggestion here from the County Attorney's Office is to remove that as somewhat, perhaps, unnecessary. Perhaps Heidi can explain. MS. ASHTON- CICKO: Well, they're already required and governed by the construction code, so that would be part of the practice. And we're talking about best - management practices here. That should be, I think, in addition to what we would normally be reviewing. So I think you don't need that. I think it's duplicative. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So again, it's redundant. MS. ASHTON- CICKO: In my opinion, yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Anybody have any -- Brad? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I mean, aren't most of those redundant? I mean, you can't build it below the floodplain. If you want to take that approach, take it throughout the whole thing. MS. ASHTON- CICKO: Well, the reason why I was suggesting taking G out is because that's a proposed addition. The other ones are already in place, and I'm not sure if they form the basis for some of the other codes that we have, ordinances. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: It's not hurting anything, I don't think. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I mean, if it -- county attorney's suggesting it's redundant. If it's not hurting anything either way, then if it is redundant, should it be removed? Anybody have any objection to see it removed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Well, I think that, Mike, then the direction is to just drop it. Okay. We finished the CIE unless anyone else has any corrections, changes, or comments. The next item is the transportation element, and I see Reed Jarvi's back there, and since he just started here recently, we need to find a lot of questions for him. Okay. The first five pages of the transportation element. Does anybody have any questions on the first five pages? Page 3, Mike or Corby, Policy 4.6, "The county shall work to reduce vehicle miles traveled and greenhouse gas emission by providing for safe movement of non - motorized vehicles through implementation of its LDC and highway design standards ordinances and shall incorporate bike lanes." Would it be more appropriate to say "by incorporating bike lanes "? I mean, it's just grammatical. I'm just not MR. SCHMIDT: Yeah, it is, and we'll look at that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The word "shall," every time I see it in these, I try to avoid it, but -- on Page 4, you have a paragraph that was added, and it was confusing, and the second sentence, I guess, is what was more problematic. First of all, read the first sentence, then go to the second. "Mitigating stipulations shall be based upon a mitigation plan prepared by the applicant and" then "submitted as part of the traffic impact statement that address the project's significant impact on all deficient roadways. The plan shall include an absorption schedule consistent with the traffic impact statement that identifies those measures that serve to either restrain the timing of development of the project in light of the deficient conditions and/or provide incentives that expedite the improvements needed to return the roadway to an accepted (sic) level of service." The absorption schedule doesn't necessarily address the traffic impact statement, at least the ones we've seen. They're basically on what they feel they can do marketing -wise, and they're not updated or corrected. Is that an effective way, then, to try to reach whatever you're trying -- whatever goal you're trying to reach with 5.1? And also you capitalized "mitigation plan." Is that a defined term somewhere? MR. SCHMIDT: I'm going to have to look -- to read for that. MR. BOSI: I'm not sure if "mitigation plan" is a defined term. I will have to maybe defer to the transportation staff. But what -- I think what they're trying to do in terms of the relationship between the reference to Page 8 of 84 1/26/2012 CCPC "Special EAR Amendments" meeting traffic impact statement in correspondence to their absorption schedule is that they are in line, that the -- their phasing or their absorption schedule will be consistent with their TIS, in the TIS as to when individual loads and the volumes are going to be reaching our roadway to make sure that there's a consistency between when individual deficiencies may be reached and when those -- timing for those deficiencies need to be addressed. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Have you seen any TISs come through that have coordinated with the project's marketing absorption schedule? Reed, since you're -- probably this is one of your first days, so -- MR. JARVL• Reed Jarvi, transportation planning manager. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Congratulations, by the way, on joining the county. MR. JARVI: To answer your question directly, no, I have not seen any. Have I been involved with some? Possibly. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Because that's -- I'm reading it trying to figure out how we're expected to coordinate it, because we see these -- we've had plenty of absorption schedules, and they've been topics of discussion, but I've not seen them tied the way this paragraph's trying to tie them. MR. JARVL• I think they've been tied in more than the TISs, into developer's contribution agreement type idea where they've had phases that you can do X amount of units prior to, you know, 2013, as an example, and to get to Phase 2, the improvement needs to be done or under construction or something to that effect. What comes to mind specifically that I was involved with is the 951 /U.S. 41 intersection improvements. They have two or three phases of development, and certain things need to be done before they can move in. So I think there's a mitigation plan as such, which is the -- from the development -order standpoint, would be the DCA, but I don't typically see these in a TIS that I can remember. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well -- and that's kind of -- if it's in here and if it's in our GMP and it has to be then articulated as an implementation somehow in the LDC, what relevance does that have -- or how can we tie that into the zoning process so that if we do produce absorption schedules tied to TISs, then they can be part of the review process for zoning. Is that -- I mean -- and especially if it's used for DCA, which we don't -- we don't get DCAs unless they happen to come along after they've already been approved. MR. JARVI: Yeah. I mean, there have been, in the past, discussions on mitigation plans. It is part of the TIS guidelines of mitigation plan if you have that situation. I can't, frankly, say that they're used often if maybe even ever. I don't know. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. I'm a bit concerned about how this is to be fleshed out as we go into the zoning process for which -- I guess, basically the GMP's master document for everything that's done zoning -wise in Collier County. So I understand what it is now that you're trying to do. I just don't know how we're tying it then to the process. And that's the only suggestion I would have. And then I also think you -- unless you're going to provide a definition for a mitigation plan, by capitalizing it, and it kind of insinuates there's a definition there. And if there isn't, it's kind of concerning, too. MR. JARVI: I don't, frankly, know, but I think it's a generic mitigation plan, is the way I would read it, that it should be -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Then it would be small M, small P, okay. MR. JARVI: -- small case, I would think. COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: Mark, just to be picky, drop the Don the end of scheduled in that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I'm not picky, so I guess you should be. COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: In the fourth line there. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. So you guys will take a look at maybe clarifying this a little bit and tying it in? Okay. Policy 5.3 you deleted. And this may have been asked in the previous workshops; I'm not sure. I can't remember all that. Why is it we're deleting that again? I know Reed's kind of free because he doesn't have -- MR. JARVI: It was before my time. I have a guess, but I don't know. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: It's the previous guy's fault, right? You need to get his name and make sure. MR. JARVI: It was the previous gap guy's fault. Page 9 of 84 1/26/2012 CCPC "Special EAR Amendments" meeting CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, wait a minute. Blame it on Nick. Nick's not here. That's -- MR. JARVL• Works for me. COMMISSIONER AHERN: Reed, do you know how we're handling the vesting now? MR. JARVI: Yeah. I think -- I think -- yeah. I mean, I'm guessing here that the vesting, from my involvement on the other side, has been done, so there really isn't a vesting, you know. COMMISSIONER AHERN: Review. MR. JARVI: That's already been done, so it probably -- this is talking about determining a vesting, the way I reed it. And if it's already been completed, then we don't need it. I mean, these are old -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I mean, you're making the assumption then that all projects started previously have been completed, so they would -- not -- there's no vesting issue for them. But what if there's some that haven't been? MR. JARVI: I believe -- and I can't tell you for exact, but I think the vesting was done years okay for projects that were already in place; Lely, Fiddler's Creek, you know, the big projects. And now we would go through -- and the vesting is not that process. You do it through the concurrency system or DCA system. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah. So we can confirm that all the -- everything that needs to be vested has been vested. MR. SCHMIDT: That appears to be the explanation on Page 6 of your assessment, which follows the summary, which follows the element. In more different words, that is what it says. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Oh, on Page 5, Policy 5.5 -- we're still on the first five pages so that's why I'm continuing, guys -- you changed the word "from" to the word "to." That's kind of a complete 180- degree reversal as to what this previously said, and it seems like a small one -word change, but the certification now, instead of coming from your department saying that they met the requirements to obtain the exceptions for the TCEAs are now going to be coining to your department from the applicant? MR. BOSI: Yes. The applicant has to certify to the transportation department that they have, indeed, implemented these and -- for those individual strategies, whichever ones were chosen. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, actually it says -- they can't say they've implemented them because this is proactive. It says, "will be utilized." So they wouldn't know that they're implemented at the time they certify to you, because they're only certifying to you that they will do these things. Are they the --I mean, it just seems to be putting the cart before the horse. I'm not sure that applicants ought to be certifying their own conditions to you guys. I'd rather see you -all checking it to make sure their assumptions are correct. How is it that you would handle it, then, if they're certifying, instead of from you, saying that, okay, you've met the requirements of the TCA, just like all the reviews in Collier County are from staff. Staff says, yep, we agree with you. You've done what you're supposed to do. You can go forward. Now they're going to say, here, we've done what we're supposed to do. Let us go forward. So wouldn't it be -- wouldn't we want to see something coming from your department? MR. BOSI: From my understanding of what this discussion -- what this discussion was during the EAR -based amendments was that they certify that these strategies will be utilized. We'll eventually go out and field check to make sure that they are implemented within the design. But the whole discussion was -- was reversed. At the time back when we were reviewing this we said, how can the county certify that an applicant's doing something? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well -- but I think -- and I think we -- I don't think the part of "from" and "to" is the change that may be needed. I think where the strategy is involved, you -all should be certifying or acknowledging that the applicant has met the criteria to obtain the exceptions to the CEA that are allowed. That's what I think the intent of that paragraph is, not a certification that they said they're going to do it. I mean, anybody can stand up and say, "I'm going to do it." That's a certification. I think the -- I think the intention is correct, but you got to it in the wrong way. COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: Mark, if you read Page 7 under that Policy 5.5 in the summary, you know, it's saying essentially what you're saying, we'll provide certification from the transportation planning department that at least four transportation- demand - management strategies will be utilized. So one or the other has to apply but not both. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, the one that they're saying should now go forward is the one that I'm reading Page 10 of 84 1/26/2012 CCPC "Special EAR Amendments" meeting from on Page 5. That's where my concern is. COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: Correct. That says two. But in reading -- in the summary -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That isn't a summary. Those are -- is that a summary, guys? COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: Or explanation, whatever the term is. MR. BOSI: Yeah, it's a summary explanation for why -- remember, what's following the proposed objective and amendments is what was adopted in the EAR, and those are why we are making the changes. They're supposed to give us a road map. COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: But this says that the applicant, in effect, will provide certification from transportation planning. It's not saying we'll provide certification or will "certify to" the transportation planning. It's saying it will provide certification from transportation planning that at least four of these -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well -- and that's what I think the intention is. COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: Yeah, I -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's what I believe -- and I think they're changing just the word "from" to "to" completely reverses the intension. COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: The two things are in conflict, the way I read it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. Does anybody understand what we're trying -- what I'm -- at least what I or may -- I think now Mr. Brougham is also getting at? MR. SCHMIDT: Certainly. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. MR. SCHMIDT: We'll look at it further and work with the other -- additional transportation planners to see where we're intending to go with that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: And wherever you intend to go, make -- direct it to writing -- MR. BOSI: Well, you remember when we had this conversation back at EAR, the first phase, we said, how can the county's transportation department certify that an individual development is going to utilize these individual strategies? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's not the objective, though. MR. BOSI: Well, that's what the -- that is what the policy read. The policy read that they were going to obtain certification from our transportation department. We at the time of the discussion said, that doesn't make sense that -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. MR. BOSL• -- we should get certification from them that they're going to do this. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I think you're going to get the certification simply by them signing an application that says they're going to do it. I think what we're looking for in 5.5 is your department's acknowledgment that their -- that their suggestions to meet the exceptions to the CEA -- TCEA are consistent with this plan, and that's what I think the rewrite of that paragraph needs. I think it's off in the wrong direction. That's the only -- that's what I think we're looking for. MR. BOSI: That the strategies utilized meet the criteria, is what you're looking for. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. That's what I think is more valuable. To have an applicant come up here and certify and say, yeah, I think they meet it, every applicant in the room's going to do that, and anybody on their team is going to do that. So it's kind of a waste. But I'd rather see you guys telling us that what they're proposing is going to work consistent with the TCEA exceptions, so -- COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: I would agree with that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Pages 5 -- 5 through 11 -- or 6 through 11. Anybody have questions on those. Brad? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I mean, do we want to fix that before we leave it? Because it would be simple, just that they provide certification and you provide verification. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah. He said they're going to amend it. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah. They're going to change the language to reflect more of the direction. I think they're in agreement that the intent of our discussion is right. Page 11 of 84 1/26/2012 CCPC "Special EAR Amendments" meeting MR. BOSI: That the applicant meeting the criteria that -- of whatever the four strategies -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And you guys acknowledge that. MR. BOSI: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: We don't need their certification. We need your acknowledgment. MR. BOSI: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's what staffs for. So now on Page 6 through the end of this is 11 before we get into the supplement. Anybody have any questions? Mike? MR. BOSI: I will say on -- and this -- I will take the responsibility. 6.5, for some reason we went back to the original specificity of including 1- 75/Everglades interchange. You had proposed -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I have it circled. MR. BOSI: You had proposed that in the -- one includes potential -- include the word "potential" before the phrase, "a number of potential critical -need intersections." That will be added back. And it's within the vicinity of Everglades Boulevard and I -75, and that modification will be changed -- will be made. Heidi had pointed that out to me that we had forgotten to -- or we had inadvertently reverted back to older language, and I appreciate her pointing that out. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you, Heidi, because that's one of them I was going to go to, so I'll just -- anybody else through Page 11? Mike, on Page 6, the monitoring paragraph that you added towards the bottom, the last sentence, "Modifications to the applied TDM strategies may be made within the first three years of development if they are deemed ineffective." Okay. So they come in with the development, it doesn't work, the TDMs don't work, they've found that they're ineffective, so now they have to correct them, and that all happens within the first three years and it goes away. I would suggest we add to that sentence, and then it should be monitored for another period or -- whatever time is reasonable to make sure that the changes are effective; otherwise, you could have another ineffective outcome and nothing could happen because there's no more monitoring. MR. BOSI: Would you suggest another three -year period for that evaluation -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, that's what I had in my notes. MR. BOSI: -- of the modifications to the strategy? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And that should be continuous until they could have an effective strategy. MR. BOSI: Until it -- okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: On Page 7, first sentence, "In order to be exempt from link - specific concurrency, developments within the TCMA must provide certification to the transportation planning department that at least two TDM strategies as provided for in the LDC will be utilized." Again, it comes back to the applicant providing the infonnation. I just want to make sure that somehow your department has to confirm that they're accurate in what they're providing. Everybody can provide it, but if there's no responsibility from your side to have to acknowledge it and accept it, then they basically have done -- met the goal and they've provided it and walk away. Is there any concern there from your part? MR. JARVI: Reed Jarvi again. It would seem to me that, just like the previous conversation, really, we — the applicant would provide what they want to do, and we would provide an approval. I don't know if a -- you know, "certify" is the right word. It's really that the department approves what their proposal is, and that would be part of zoning, if it's zoning, or part of the SDP or plats and plans, if it's at that point in time. In fact, really, it's an SDP plats- and -plans issue, because that's when you actually do the concurrency, but -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, my concern here is the same as before. If it's just written that they're to provide it but you don't have to really -- you have -- that's all they have to do, they could just provide it and walk away. I'd rather see the onus of the -- not necessarily certification, but the effectiveness or the correctness of what they're providing fall on your backs to acknowledge it in the same policy. MR. BOSI: The respon -- and I think what I hear is the responsibility that should be expressed within this language should be -- should be upon the county's transportation department to verify that the strategies meet the criteria established. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I think you want that authority, and that authority then allows the implementation Page 12 of 84 1/26/2012 CCPC "Special EAR Amendments" meeting language to strengthen your review process, which is, I think, where you want to go. MR. JARVL• Yep. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And the same at the end of this where the strategies are reviewed and effective. You need the same similar language that we discussed in the previous one, that the modification would then be reevaluated after three years until such time that they're effective. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Mark, a question. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Go ahead. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And, Mike, since you don't really want to get into -- you know, the "verification" might not be the best word. You might want to just use a word like "acceptance." In other words, they're going to certify to you something, and it has to be accepted by your department. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Acceptable. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: "Verification" gives you much higher level of responsibility in that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: They'll certify something acceptable to your department, or something of that nature. Is that where you're going, Brad? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Yes, that's it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: On Page 8 -- oh, you've already got that correction. Thanks. Page 9? COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: Fix the typo at the end of the first line on Page 9, please. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Where's that? COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: Add an "R" to the end of the sentence. Right now it's fee -fi -fo. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's government speak. COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: I understand. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Go ahead. Karen? COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: On Page 8 there's no indication that in the analysis, in the summary on -- it's also on Page 8. It says there's a new policy, 5.9, but it isn't reflected on the draft. It should be -- the old one should be deleted and the new one put in. Just as a -- anything -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You guys in agreement that you need to -- counter agreement? MR. BOSI: I'm somewhat confused about this. That policy says it's new and it -- it says, Local governments shall adopt by December 1, 2009 (sic), a methodology for assessing proportionate fair -share mitigation options. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's done. MR. BOSL• That's done. We have done that. And I think the new is -- it was an incorrect assessment. I don't believe that was a new policy. I believe that -- that was something that's been done. I'm not sure why this has shown up in terms of that summary page, other than it's no longer relevant. Actually, we have to modify our existing proportionate -share mitigation language to now become in line with the new state statutes and regulations regarding how we calculate and how we administrate our proportionate -share mitigation, and that's going to be requiring a modification to our local ordinance that deals with proportionate share. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: So that should just be deleted? MR. BOSI: Yes. MR. EASTMAN: Where is that? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Where is -- MS. ASHTON- CICKO: The deletion. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: On Page 8 of the supplement to the transportation, it referred to a new Policy 5.9 that wasn't in the new language that we got today. And so Karen was questioning -- MS. ASHTON-CICKO: You're talking about the summary in transportation? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes. MR. SCHMIDT: Yes. MS. ASHTON- CICKO: Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Back to Page 9 of the Transportation Element. Policy 7.3, and then -- "The county shall implement, through its zoning ordinance, Right -Of -Way Permitting Inspection Handbook and Land Development Code." Now, I know what our zoning ordinance is, which I think is the Land Development Code, and I'm kind of -- my first question is, what's the difference between the two? In the past, we did have -- I think the LDC Page 13 of 84 1/26/2012 CCPC "Special EAR Amendments" meeting was called a zoning code and somehow I think they're now the same. Is that -- am I right or wrong in that assumption? MR. BOSI: You're correct. And I believe we -- this is another one where you had pointed out that the term "zoning ordinance" really didn't have an applicability to be utilized in a capital -letter form. Meaning "zoning ordinance" isn't a specific document. We have -- in LDC we have a series of PUDs which are owned individual zoning ordinances themselves, but -- and I think this is a -- where a hole -- we had fallen through the hole in the crack. I believe that you wanted that zoning ordinance removed from individual policy because it really didn't apply to a specific document. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well -- and that's kind of like why I'm bringing it up again. If it is there, then it -- the way it's written it would signify it's a separate document. But if it isn't a separate document -- MR. BOSI: It's not. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- then we don't have it. Well, then let's just take it out. MR. BOSI: And that's -- I should have taken it out. That's my fault. MS. ASHTON- CICKO: Well, you might want to consider putting it in the Code of Laws and Ordinances instead. At the last meeting I did tell you that I would look up the Right -Of -Way Permitting and -- Right -Of -Way Penmitting and Inspection Handbook and give you the correct name for that. It is in the Code of Laws. But you could just put Code of Laws and Ordinances and Land Development Code, or if you want to be more specific, you could say Code of Laws and Ordinances including the -- it's called the Construction Standards Handbook for Work Within Right -Of -Way Collier County, Florida. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No, no. Let's back up. We're trying to reduce the garbage that's in our documents. And so why don't we just say, "through its Code of Laws and Ordinances and the Land Development Code," and that incorporates everything that you're concerned about. MR. BOSI: Understood. MS. ASHTON- CICKO: Yep. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Thank you, Heidi. Just out of curiosity, since we -- if we refer to the Code of Laws and Ordinances in the GMP -- that's bringing in a whole slough of sub - documents -- does that have any bearing on how often those other documents can be amended thus amending the intention of this policy by the inclusion of those sub - documents? MS. ASHTON- CICKO: Well, I think that whether it's written in there or not written in there, we do have a lot of sections in our Code of Laws and Ordinances that deal with roads -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That deal with zoning, too, for that matter. MS. ASHTON- CICKO: -- a little piecemeal, and zoning. So I don't think it's going to increase the number of times that it's going to come before you; however, I can tell you that Mr. Klatzkow has made it a County Attorney's Office assignment to review the Code of Laws and Ordinances and make a determination of whether certain sections should be amended, and then that will be taken to the board for consideration once we -- we have eight attorneys working on different sections, and that will occur probably before next October, and much of that you will see as well as we go forward with our recommendations. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. I just want to make sure that if we have processes in place to get things done, that they're followed. And if we don't even know that the sub - documents are part of a document that's here and those documents are changed, then that, in effect, could change the process. We don't even know it. I mean, basically this Right -Of -Way Permitting and Inspection Handbook, I've never read it, and I'm sure it would be very interesting to read. COMMISSIONER VONIER: Late at night. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But if we're supposed to be reviewing consistent with that -- because if it's referencing a policy in the GMP, that's a little concerning. It brings a whole myriad of issues that we have not considered on this board. MS. ASHTON- CICKO: Correct. And I do think that you -all are very careful to try to make sure the terminology that's being used is something that people can find and locate and understand what it is. So I think we're moving in that direction, and -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, when you get time, if -- do you have a link online where this Right -Of -Way Permitting and Inspection Handbook can be found? Page 14 of 84 1/26/2012 CCPC "Special EAR Amendments" meeting MR. JARVI: I think there's one on the transportation planning. I'll check for sure. But I'll tell you, that is actually construction -level details, and -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. MR. JARVI: -- I can't say for sure, but I doubt they have any real impact to zoning. It's like, you know, what the plantings that are in the right -of -way, what the curb radii are for a driveway, the throat distance, which, you know, in zoning it's a blob, so it -- you know, you don't have a throat distance yet. So those are really construction -level details. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I'll just go online and look at it. MS. ASHTON- CICKO: It is -- Mr. Chair, it is online under the Growth Management Division; I just don't recall which particular section. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I'll find it in --just kind of run through it before we have our adoptions. MS. ASHTON- CICKO: And it is referenced -- if you want the detail section, 110 -26 of the Code of Laws references it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. The paragraph below that, Policy 7.4 -- and this is old language, but I'm -- the reason it -- I read the next sub - element, and it brought me back to this one for particular reasons. The second line it refers to, in quotations, "smart growth." Why is that in quotations? And what is smart growth? Now, it's one of those catchall questions that -- and the reason it becomes important is because new language added to the -- what is it -- sewer -- or Wastewater Treatment Sub - Element, one of them uses the word "Florida Friendly Landscaping," but then it goes on and defines, basically, what it means by Florida Friendly Landscaping so you know what they're talking about. When you say "smart growth," I mean, any developer coming in that's showing a profit in his project is going to say it's smart growth. And I'm just wondering what we're getting at or what we're trying to say with a catchall phrase like that. It comes up a lot in discussion. MR. BOSI: Well, I mean, this particular catchall phrase of smart growth is tied to the very last sentence and related to -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I know. MR. BOSI: -- related to the smart- growth strategies that are going to be promoted and identified in the Master Mobility Plan. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Whoa. So all the smart growth we've been talking about prior to the conception of the Master Mobility Plan doesn't mean anything? That -- and it was all building up to this Master Mobility Plan that's now come along years after this acronym started or this -- these two words started? MR. BOSI: No, not at all. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. MR. BOSI: I would think all those concepts would have been built upon and have been -- are being just formally recognized and further clarified within the Master Mobility Plan. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Why don't we just take out the words "smart growth "? I mean, it makes better sense without it, in both instances, "will promote positive development." In the bottom it says, "shall submit strategy." Instead of those smart growth, just say, submit -- will submit strategies that it determines to be appropriate. Because if you're going to be introducing the MMP and we're going to be incorporating policies and objectives from that and then implementation in the LDC, it's already going to be in our code, supposedly, that we've already defined and met what smart growth is by what you just said smart growth is going to be. So why don't we keep that kind of ambiguous tenn out of there, if we could. Does that work? Anybody care? Brad? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I mean, it's an odd sentence anyway. What is "positive "? I mean, you say "positive development." I mean, that's less vague -- more vague. MR. BOSI: Positive is probably a subjective term. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well -- and I think that goes with -- I would strike "positive smart growth" out of the first -- the second line, and then I would say in the bottom, completion -- "upon its completion and shall submit strategies" take out the words "those smart growth" in the second -to -last line, and then you've got a basic language that's not ambiguous, because no one knows what smart growth is. MR. SCHMIDT: I think that will work here, Mr. Chairman, with striking the specific term. Although you'll Page 15 of 84 1/26/2012 CCPC "Special EAR Amendments" meeting -- as you said, over a number of years, the term "smart growth" has evolved from new urbanism, has been used differently, now sustainable development. It's an evolving term. The use of it here, specifically to those parts of the mobility plan, I agree, it may not be necessary to pick those out because the mobility plan will do that itself. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. Okay. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: But what is that -- you going to take it out in both places or what? MR. BOSI: Yes. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. But what is the intent of 7.4 then? Because we're talking about the entrances to the urban area. And major arterial entrances to the urban area shall have what? Positive development? MR. BOSI: Well, I mean, it's already mentioned in the plans that we're trying to promote. We'll utilize, and we've strucken through "smart growth." So what it is is the identification of some of the concepts that are contained in the Community Character Plan, some of the smart- growth initiatives. The strategies that aren't just strict definition of the traditional separation of land uses, that we realize that at some point in time that the -- a closer relationship to our individual land uses at appropriate locations will be promoted. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: But the objective's about safe circulation between projects, right? I mean -- MR. JARVI: That would be one of them. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Well, that is the objective of -- you know, the policy is what we're talking about. So -- anyway. It's kind of an odd setup anyway. But, I think, let's go back to what it was before. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. On Page 10, I guess -- I had a question up above, but I think it's been answered. So Policy 9.3 -- oh, we're back into the interconnection. You -- this has always been a touchy one. The sentence that was added says, "An interconnected local collector street network enhances mobility, reduces vehicle miles of travel, and greenhouse gas emissions, and reduces the travel demand impacts on the arterial/collector network roadway," but, it's nice that you just decided to mention the positive, but why don't we mention all aspects, like it also reduces the security and safety for the people inside those interconnections and adds traffic to their communities they didn't count on? So I'm not sure that you would want to just have to limit yourself to adding what you believe is the things that embellish the reason for interconnections without also stating the negative so someone who's reading this could come in with a proposal that actually addresses both, positive and negative, if that's a necessity; a re- evaluation can address both. We've had a lot of argument, not this board, but applicants coming forward with interconnection demands. And from what I can tell, the public's concerns have been is that it hurts their security, especially in closed communities, and it adds traffic to their community they didn't count on when they planned or moved in, necessarily. So I'm not sure we want to state -- and I understand your need to request it to happen. But to limit the request to saying only the positive things about it, I think, is -- shortens -- I think it shortens -- it doesn't provide everything as encompassing as it should. It does affect security and it does affect traffic to the communities. There is equal concern as the positives are that you stated here. I don't know -- I don't know how to express that in the policy, Mike, but I'm dismayed that we can only express what we feel are the things we want to as -- from a positive viewpoint to see that it happens. But if we don't want it to happen, we don't mention the negatives that could be along with it. I think it has a two -sided coin. Diane? COMMISSIONER EBERT: Well, that is the new thing -- the Master Mobility Plan is the one pushing this. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I mean, that -- I'm not -- I mean, that doesn't -- I think the Master Mobility Plan is pushing a lot of things, good things. I mean, we're opening up roadways, we're putting in bridges, we're putting in connections. But this specifically is one of the things that we need to have a little more latitude on -- on a case -by -case basis. Not just to do it because of the positive things that are here, but also to consider the negative things that could also affect a community. MR. BOSI: Well, in a -- the LDC in 4.02 deals with the conditions that an applicant can identify to not provide the interconnection and -- but it doesn't get into safety reasons. It gets in more with the actual physical layout of the land as to why it's not possible, the layout of the land uses and surrounding land uses and adjoining parcels. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And it's good language, by the way. I like the language you have in the -- it helps a lot. Page 16 of 84 1/26/2012 CCPC "Special EAR Amendments" meeting MR. BOSI: And you're right, it does, because you can't force interconnection; interconnection's not appropriate for every individual project based upon surrounding land uses, and it does provide that flexibility. I think, Mark, what you're -- what you're really looking for is not only expressing, you know, an interconnected local street enhances mobility, reduces vehicle miles and greenhouse -- and travel demand impacts on our networks, but you want an additional kind of statement that says, you know, but does not compromise the -- or something that has to -- that it says there has to be attention to the potential negative consequences that interconnection could have. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But, you know, you could probably avoid it all. Just drop the new sentence. MS. ASHTON- CICKO: Yeah. If you want, you can just move it into the summary portion. Just define, you know, why you're making the change but keep the part that begins with "The LDC shall identify the circumstances and -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. Just drop the new sentence and leave the other strikethrough and underlines, and that takes care of it, because then you're not -- then you're not showing differential treatment to one or the other. You're neither positive or negative. Paul? COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: I mean, by having the phrase in there "to facilitate convenient movement." There you're emphasizing the positive, too. So do you want to remove that, too? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No. I think that's a value -- that's handled in the LDC adequately. And the LDC, under the policies that Mike -- it's pretty flexible how you determine what some of those are. But when we add a stronger sentence that actually highlights positives, individual positives, without putting in the negatives, I think it puts the onus -- makes it much harder to say no because the positives are there and the negatives aren't, so -- COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: To me the new sentence just, sort of, explains what that phrase means, "facilitate convenient movement." It just seems explanatory rather than adding new -- a new idea. MR. JARVL• Mr. Chairman? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah. MR. JARVI: As Phase 3 of the Master Mobility Plan will -- is the kickoff, maybe demurral, and out of that plan there are going to be -- both growth- management -plan amendments and LDC amendments will come out of that, more than likely, and we might want to just defer that type of language, which is the underlying sentence, to a time when we have a little more definitive direction from the Master Mobility Plan. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I don't have a problem with that. I mean, anybody else? Did anybody else -- Phil? COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: No, just --no, I don't have a problem with what you said, but just a comment. I'm a little apprehensive of the word "require" the interconnection, even identifying the circumstances and conditions that would require. I mean, that's a very definite -- if you meet certain conditions by the letter, then it's going to require the interconnections. I would be more comfortable with language somehow that would talk to analysis, evaluation, recommendations rather than a very definitive requirement. Because, I mean, as everybody knows, there's all kinds of existing and future developments that may or may not interconnect today in the county, and to require -- you know, could run against all the sentiments of one development or another. I don't know quite how to rephrase that, but -- MR. SCHMIDT: Well, those sentiments were expressed at previous meetings, and the languages and changes in the second portion of Policy 9.3 were written to address those concerns. With the use of the teen "wherever feasible," I think that caused some consternation earlier, so the language introduced by the transportation planners to allow that to be specified in the LDC to decide and help the decision to be made as to when those things would be feasible, where two neighbors already have it previously planned. Interconnections are already partially developed and so forth. There's some hard criteria in the LDC that would be indicated not furthermore here in the GMP, and I think that was part of the problem earlier. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Phil, what happened is the -- this has been an issue. We talk about it every time it comes up, and many applicants come up with it, too. The LDC has gotten very good in providing flexibility as to when this will be required. And it was able to do that because of the words "wherever feasible." The feasibility then becomes a condition of the requirement, of the "shall" requirement, and that's how we've been looking at it, and that's allowed the flexibility so far where we've not had too many problems. Page 17 of 84 1/26/2012 CCPC "Special EAR Amendments" meeting I mean, it certainly comes up, but I think we've been able to avoid a crisis by the way the LDC's been written. So that's why the last sentence was strengthened to refer to the LDC. Your concern was where it all started. I mean, you have the same concern we've expressed on this board over the years. COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: Right. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But I just -- my whole point of 9.3 is that second sentence and emphasizing only the positive and not showing the potential negatives. COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: No. I certainly agree with your point there. MR. SCHMIDT: And, Mr. Chairman, an alternative to removal of that sentence, staff will look at taking that general explanation and moving it up into the objective, and then some of those non - positive phrases as well -- work with transportation planners on that before we come back to you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And I think just being fair is the way to go. If you're going to show positives, then make sure that the negatives you heard from the public are included so that both sides have the opportunity to voice that as a concern during the process. Go ahead. MS. ASHTON- CICKO: I mean, I think you hit on the concern about "shall require where feasible." I don't know how effective that language is. If you want to put something in that would potentially work is you've got to make it incentivized. So you could put something like "The county shall incentivize the interconnection," blah - blah -blah, and then the new last sentence would say, "The LDC shall identify the circumstances and conditions that would facilitate the interconnection." I think if you have something like that, it would make it potentially more effective. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: As long as you write the incentives right, which -- MS. ASHTON- CICKO: Yeah. I mean -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Here's the incentive. When you submit something, we're not going to pass it until you do an interconnection. MS. ASHTON- CICKO: Well -- MR. BOSI: And the only thing I would say upon this in this discussion is, with the elimination of the sentence, as Mark had said, is basically we're leaving the policy as it has been. And the policy's been working. MS. ASHTON- CICKO: Yeah. MR. BOSI: The policy has been working, and we haven't forced interconnection when it's not feasible, but we have been able to attain the interconnection that helped provide the benefit to our transportation systems. And with the suggestion of just eliminating that sentence that we had added, bringing it back to its original condition, I think the policy is effective in terms of trying to achieve the goal that is expressed. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Mark? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Brad? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Yeah. I kind of agree with Corby, though, that you should move it up to the objective. It doesn't belong where it is anyway, and it doesn't match the objective exactly. I do think, though, the last sentence in Policy 9.3, which -- developed standards essentially for safe interconnection. Mark, I think some of the negatives should be part of that conversation on the word "safe," so -- I don't think just noting the positives is going to hurt it, but I do think it should -- if it's going to be something, it should be part of the objective, not part of this policy. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, the only problem is if you put it as part of the objective, then you're going to have to -- that's going to highlight it as a stronger element of the overall objective than just part of one of the policies to the objective. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Correct, but I think that's good. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, it's good if you don't consider the negatives. It's good if you only consider the positive. That's been my point all along. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Well, I mean, it is a -- I mean, but -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: See, I don't think it's a positive. I think the interconnections are negatives, because I think if people want to travel through established neighborhoods or even ones that haven't been built yet, you just -- you don't move into a neighborhood figuring on cross - through traffic of any quantity, but some of these Page 18 of 84 1/26/2012 CCPC "Special EAR Amendments" meeting interconnections could create an entirely different atmosphere for your neighborhood. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: But the interconnection could be from a residential neighborhood to a commercial development, which is the positive side. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: So in other words, I think when they're discussing safe interconnection, I think the concept of just linking two -- or linking a private development to the public street system isn't really what they're talking about. I mean, it may be two private residential developments have a back way to get together, and that may be done through a secure system. MR. BOSI: There's a myriad of individual combinations for where this "interconnections" can apply. As I said, we have the language where we say "where it's feasible" we're going to require it, and we have areas that we've already identified that provide the outs, the logical outs as to why they can't be, whether it be existing neighborhood, no opportunity, wetland considerations, other restrictions upon adjacent land uses. We will -- from the direction, I think what we're starting to hear from the Planning Commission is to remove that second sentence, move it up to the objective, try to bring a more balanced approach towards how we're describing it both from a positive and a negative standpoint, and then basically for 9.3, really, the only modification would be striking through "The Collier County transportation division shall develop guidelines," and we'll start with "The LDC shall identify," and that sentence as it currently reads. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well -- and I think, though, that Heidi's suggestion is worthwhile to certainly consider in your re- evaluation of the objective and the policy, because if instead of requiring, it can be incentivize, that might be another way to look at it that we can implement in the LDC. So I think that was a good one to suggest, take -- at least see how that could be woven into the policy if it turns out it's beneficial. Is that a -- everybody comfortable at this point? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Yeah. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: But I think, just make sure we focus. The objective is to provide safe, pleasant neighborhoods, and then all these other goodies on top of that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. That takes us to the end of the 1 I pages, and we have our summary and recommendation pages that were part of it. Anybody got any questions or concerns on -- let's see. We've got 11 -- let's take the first five pages again. Anything on the first five pages of the objective -- summary and objectives section? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mike, on Page 3 of that section, up on top, Policy 3.3, then we had comments from the CCPC on it. I don't see 3.3 on Page 2 of the new language that we've gotten. I can't tell if the policy achievement analysis is the answer you're telling us today why 3.3 is not any longer in the front section. And I -- MR. BOSI: And that may be one that we have missed. It's where you had -- the Planning Commission had recommended that we add that phrase to 3.3. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Actually, we said subtract the phrase -- replace -- yeah, with another phrase, right. Because if you don't need six lanes, why build them? MR. BOSI: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So -- but I don't see where 3.3 is any more -- anywhere in consideration for changes, so I don't know what happened. David's walking up. Oh. MR. BOSI: Not related. That may be one where we have -- we dropped the ball on it where it was directed from -- it was one of the -- one of the policies where that slight modification was being recommended and we haven't implemented the language. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. So you're going to move it back over to catch it? MR. BOSI: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. On Page 4. MS. ASHTON- CICKO: Excuse me, Mr. Chair. Let me make sure I understood your direction. You want to put that language in the policy -- Page 19 of 84 1/26/2012 CCPC "Special EAR Amendments" meeting CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No. MS. ASHTON- CICKO: You want to add for the consent hearing, if there's going to be one, that for transmittal or no? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, let me -- on Page 3 of the summary, Policy 3.3 was previously presented for discussion and changes from -- and I can't -- this isn't from memory. It's from what's -- reading. Looks like we recommended a change to a portion of it, suggesting that instead of making it -- that no less than six traffics lanes to provide the flexibility to whatever meets the needs of the LRTP. That would then -- was supposed to carry over into the new language presented to us today. On Page 2 it was where it would have shown up as Policy 3.3 with a strikethrough and an underline and new language. It didn't show up that way. So my suggestion is that we show it up as it probably should have been, and Mike says it probably should have been. MS. ASHTON- CICKO: Okay. So it's going to be moved as -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. MS. ASHTON- CICKO: The one that you passed today will be included. I just -- thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: On Page 4 of the summary, on the last line it says -- and it's Policy 4.1 -- the Planning Commission suggested language as -- to replace the word "shall" with "should be consistent with Policy 4.3." And the language that got changed and presented to us today on Page 3 under Policy 4.1 struck the word "shall" and just replaced it with the word "should," which means you decided not to use the rest of that language. Is there a reason why you did that? By the way, the only one of these policies I went back and forth like this on was the one that I knew Reed would be here for, so -- MR. BOSL• I can't tell you what -- and, unfortunately, Jeff Perry was the primary author of these modifications, and there was -- there may have been that specific reason why we dropped to be consistent with Policy 4.3. With that being said, I also don't -- I wouldn't think that adding that additional language to it as you had suggested, as the body had suggested back in 2010 would provide us with inconsistency. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Would you just check it? MR. BOSI: Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That way we -- and the next section would be Pages 6 through the -- let's just take it 6 through the end, 6 through Page 13. Does anybody have any questions on those pages? On Page 6 -- and it goes back to the question I had on Policy 5.3. On Page 6 of the summary under your policy achievement analysis there's a discussion that the last line says, "Consider allowing the county the ability to provide vesting determinations on projects that are under review that are beyond the buildout date stated in their TIS." I guess that goes back to my question, then, is why did we strike through in the new language on Page 4 all of Policy 5.3 if the intent was what I just read in the Policy Achievement Analysis? Because you're recommending revisions, you told us previously, and that you wanted to consider -- let the -- consider allowing the county the ability to approve vesting determinations, but yet you struck the policy in which you would be able to do that, I think. Reed's pointing at you, so -- MR. JARVI: I mean, I think we've got to look back at it, because I don't know what Section 10.02.07.B.6 actually says, and it may refer to just general things or it may refer to, you know -- COMMISSIONER EBERT: Specific -- MR. JARVI: -- old projects. I don't know the answer, but I think we could look at it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Because I think back when we previously discussed it, we probably didn't have that -- understand more of that section -- I don't have it with me today -- and that's what we based the review of our -- the review of the paragraph here, Policy Achievement Analysis, on. So if it was vital or -- not vital. If it was necessary based on that Policy Achievement Analysis or requested, it would seem to me you want to make sure we're not dropping it when you need it. Policy 9 -- or Page 9, 6.6 is new, and it's kind of similar to the question Karen had. On 6.6 you've established a new policy that emergency egress should be permitted at all temporary access facilities, but 6.6 was struck out in the new language. Page 20 of 84 1/26/2012 CCPC "Special EAR Amendments" meeting So you proposed it in the earlier versions to us, but you struck it in this one. The same thing that was -- is there a reason for that? MR. BOSI: In the staff note underneath 6.6 -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Show me that. MR. BOSI: On Page 8. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Page 8? MR. BOSI: Yes. You have Policy 6.5, and then you have Policy 6.6 strucken through. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Oh, okay. Oh, yeah. And I wrote the word's "okay" on the next page; that's why I didn't see it. Okay. I answered my own questions; I didn't even know I did. Page 13, the very top item, Planning Commission comment, "CCPC would like staff to check on the status of the transfer, and the results will dictate how the policy is modified." Where we -- where did we stand with that? That's the airpark in Everglades City. MR. BOSI: The last that I was aware, that the -- that transfer has not taken place, and there was -- I believe related to the requirements of management -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. So the -- so it's still our airport? MR. BOSI: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. That's what I was trying to get to. MR. BOSI: I believe there was maybe more responsibilities and obligations than could be maybe handled at the time, and I believe those discussions are still ongoing. But it is still -- it has not happened to date. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Well, I was just making sure if we left it in it's accurate, so -- okay. That gets us to the end of the Transportation Element. Are there any other questions in the TE at this point? Let's give -- COMMISSIONER EBERT: A perfect time for a break. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- Terri a break. We'll come back at 10:40 and resume. (A brief recess was had.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Back to the beginning. We'll move forward with the Wastewater Treatment Sub - element. So let's just move into that. I'm not sure who was going to -- if anybody's going to respond to questions. I'm not sure we're going to have any, but let's start with the first five pages of that element. Does anybody have any questions? MR. SCHMIDT: Mr. Chairman? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes. MR. SCHMIDT: Just one editorial note on Page 5, top of the page, Policy 4.6. Although we've completely replaced Policy 4.6 with new language, the old language doesn't appear as being stricken through. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So the two lines on the top of the page right after 4.6 should be struck; is that correct? MR. SCHMIDT: Correct, yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Pages 1 through 5, anybody else have any corrections? I do. In Policy 3.2, "Private utilities regulated by the county shall maintain sludge de- watering and stabilization facilities sufficient to treat sludge and septage due to a degree equivalent to that employed at the county facilities prior to disposal." Can you explain what it is they would have to do to meet that requirement; what is a treatment for sludge? What happens? How do you treat it? And the "degree equivalent to be that employed by the county," what does that mean? MR. BEALS: For the record, Nathan Beals, Collier County Public Utilities. I'm not sure; that would be something with Jamie French and the water and wastewater authority in charge of the private utilities in the unincorporated Collier County. I believe that policy's been added only because of the language change of the objective. It's restating what the objective says because they changed the language to make it more, quote, unquote, objective style. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. But the intent of the objective didn't change? They just crossed out -- they just rephrased it grammatically from what I can tell. So why would we need a new policy then? And my concern is I don't understand what the policy's saying in regards to intensity of size, needs, use. And when it says, "degree equivalent to that employed at the county," so does that mean every private utility, which would Page 21 of 84 1/26/2012 CCPC "Special EAR Amendments" meeting be the series -- Immokalee and the rest of them -- understand this could be imposed upon them? And if it does and we don't have control over them, as was testified earlier when we talked about their GMP levels of service and the CIE, what good is this policy if we can't enforce it? Corby? MR. SCHMIDT: Mr. Chairman, certainly. Besides the reformatting to add the Policy 3.2 as an under - objective to Objective 3 -- and much of that language just simply reappears in the policy -- those specifics are meant to simply indicate that, although all along those county standards are being met, monitored, and reviewed by those -- Mr. French and his team, but not stated clearly enough before and thought being part of this policy might put that out there as information. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, my concern is -- Corby, is that you've got at least four, I believe, private utilities doing this kind of treatment in the county. Do we know if they can meet this policy? Are they currently meeting this policy? And the reason I question it is because the part, at least where it says "to a degree equivalent to that employed by Collier County facilities," I don't -- I'm just curious what we're imposing on people that they may not be able to meet and having a policy that we can't even enforce, because I thought previously, based on the fact we can't enforce the level of service, we can only -- they have to -- it's enforced through their charter and through their PSC application. Wouldn't this be done the same way? MR. SCHMIDT: Well, that's my understanding is that as part of the charter those are the standards they're being required to meet. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Then why do we have it in here? I mean, if they've got a charter that's regulated by the PSC -- it's not regulated by our -- it's not regulated by our GMP -- what good is a policy in our GMP imposing it on them if they're already imposed upon by the PSC through their charter? MR. SCHMIDT: My understanding from the request to include some of that specificity is that being informational for whatever services may be yet to be developed, and they would then know what those requirements will be. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: When -- I'm sure Jamie -- is Jamie working today? I mean, I don't know if he's got a day off or he's out for -- MR. BOSI: No, he's -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: He's working, okay. At some point could you email him, and before the day's over, we could get an answer to that? He doesn't have to come in. I'd just like to hear what his answer is, and maybe it will help me understanding it. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Mark? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Go ahead, Brad. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And I think the -- maybe the important thing is the last words, which says "prior to its disposal." There may be a problem with at what level of treatment the sludge is being disposed, so -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: What they're saying is, you have to treat it to a standard, and then you can dispose it is the point of this thing. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Ray? MR. SMITH: For the record, Ray Smith, director of pollution control. I can only talk to the issue of treatment and disposal of the sludge. And I don't have the item in front of me, so I haven't had time to review it. But regarding the disposal and treatment of sludge under Florida Administrative 62 -640, there's specific criteria that the wastewater treatment plants need to abide by. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, that even emphasizes the fact, then, why do we have this policy. MR. SMITH: I'm just providing information. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. And I appreciate it. Thank you. I think we can get there without more language that's basically redundant of already existing rules and regulations, so -- MR. BOSI: I agree. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Just ask Jamie if he feels that based on that it's necessary. If it isn't, then why have it? On Page 5, under Policy 4.7, this "dual water systems within community development districts" and "other special districts and planned unit developments," could we suggest in the first sentence, "The county shall seek," and it says, "to expand the availability of irrigation water" -- I would suggest that if you've got a community or Page 22 of 84 1/26/2012 CCPC "Special EAR Amendments" meeting development that's putting in dual water systems, that we ought to be prioritizing to those communities that already have those dual water systems versus ones that do not. And the reason that becomes important is we've got a laundry list of -- a waiting list for effluent, but when it becomes available to send out, if they can't accept it, they bump someone off that waiting list, I'd just as soon we start directing our waters where -- based on priorities of who's invested in infrastructure to be able to use them first and foremost. And the only thing I'm suggesting, it says, "The county shall seek to expand," and I would add the words "and prioritize availability of irrigation water," if that seems appropriate, if I've not misconstrued the intent of this policy. Anybody have any -- MR. BEALS: I don't see it as an issue to add that "and prioritize." We do prioritize. We have a waiting list of people that -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. MR. BEALS: -- as they've requested. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And your waiting list, though, is if someone wants the water but they haven't got the systems to accept it but you're -- you start building in that direction, you've just got to wait for them to get the system in order to -- dual system to be put in so they can accept the wastewater. They can't run potable lines. MR. BEALS: I'm actually not sure of the intricacies of how we connect new systems. I know that we're -- we have a waiting list and that we're providing everything we have out to everyone. And I'm sure that there is some mechanism where, if we come up and say, hey, we've got available water and they can't take it, we'll go to the next line because it's available. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. But in the meantime, your main lines distribute the water from the county plants are going in the direction determined to be based on people who can accept the majority of the water. And I know there's sections of Collier County where your main lines don't exist but people are waiting for the water, and if you build a line to get there and they don't have the ability to use it, you've just wasted a bunch of money. So I don't see how it hurts to say "and prioritize" based on how they can use the water. MR. BEALS: I agree. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Anybody have any questions? Well, that was a short one. The rest of the last couple pages or the supplemental that's been provided? Supplemental is nine pages. Anybody have any questions on those nine pages? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Top of Page 3, and it concerns Policy 1.3. We were introduced to Policy 1.3 at a previous meeting, and then we had a recommendation "suggested that meeting these requirements should come at no cost to the county. The CCPC also suggested considering a combination of 1 -year reporting and 5 -year reviewing requirements." How did you respond to that? Because 1.3 doesn't exist in the language that we are now presented with. It goes to 1.2 and then jumps to 1.5. Well, I know you ignored it, but can you tell us why? MR. SCHMIDT: I believe -- some of the notes in these elements remain not as indicators of change but simply that it was commented on but wasn't reaffirmed in your subsequent hearings or by the county board. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Oh, because -- so if we didn't bring it up the second time, it was assumed it wasn't needed. MR. SCHMIDT: Yeah. It was just a matter of the considerations and so forth. Not all of the commentary in the summary led to change. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Because I -- yeah, well, I didn't know that was the way you were looking at it, because I read that -- I didn't read this in that manner, so -- okay. Well, there's nothing I can do about it today. By adoption I'll be able to. Okay. Anybody else have anything on the wastewater treatment? If not, we'll move on to Public Facilities Element/Potable -Water Sub - element, and that element is seven pages and then, I think, nine pages of backup. Let's take the first seven pages on the Potable Water Sub - element. Does anybody have any questions on Pages 1 through 7? MR. SCHMIDT: Mr. Chairman? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes. Page 23 of 84 1/26/2012 CCPC "Special EAR Amendments" meeting MR. SCHMIDT: Just one editorial change, bottom of Page 5. This is one of those entries regarding landscaping -- movement away from xeriscaping to Florida Friendly Landscaping techniques, and that phrase is repeated more than once in the sub - elements. In the last line, "Protect the environment and are adaptable to local conditions and drought." One too many "ands" in that phrase. The first one comes out before "are adaptable." COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: I have a question. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Go ahead, Paul. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: What's the difference between xeriscape and Florida Friendly Landscaping? MR. SCHMIDT: Give it a shot? MR. BEALS: You want to take it? MR. SCHMIDT: Sure. Florida Friendly Landscaping has been adopted as a more local or statewide method of landscape practices that includes some original elements with xeriscaping but certainly not all, and some of the more common practices that are traditional here and conventional are part of that Florida Friendly -- it's actually an adopted and a trademark term in the state. So it's very specific at a statewide level now. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: You couldn't give any examples? MR. SCHMIDT: Not specific. It's -- a number of websites deal with it, the state department and so forth, but it does have to do with, you know, removal of exotics, using native plants and so forth, not necessarily xeriscaping that is -- as some of the explanation explains to us that has its originations in the Southwest and not necessarily fully adaptable to the Southeast. That type of thing. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Oh, okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Then anybody have any questions on the supporting 10 pages of documentation that was supplied to us? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Any other changes from staff? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No? Okay. Let's move on to the Drainage Sub - element. That is a short one. It's six pages. Does anybody have any questions on any of the six pages in the Drainage Sub - element? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Then we have, I think, nine pages of supporting documentation. Is there any questions on the nine pages of supporting documentation? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: On Page 5 of the supporting documentation, Policy 3.4, last time we talked about it the Planning Commission suggested "that the language in this policy is ambiguous and needs revision to provide clarity and avoid an interpretation that the improvement and maintenance of existing facilities countywide are a priority over new projects in the Estates, as this is not the case. Southern Golden Gate Estates is no longer open to development, so no facilities have priority there." Okay. So the way the policy reads now is, countywide, "improvements to, and maintenance of, existing drainage facilities shall be priority over" any "new construction projects in the urban and estates - designated areas." I think that's the language that we talked about before. So what that would mean is if there was a new construction project needed for the Estates to avoid additional flooding or whatever problems there were but yet there was maintenance needed for existing facilities in other parts of the county, the maintenance projects would be funded first and the new project would be deferred; is that correct? MR. SCHMIDT: No. That's part of the interpretation problems that led from the language in this policy. It is countywide where new projects have priority over maintenance projects, and in no way should there be an interpretation where some projects inside the Estates lack priority over other projects outside the Estates because of it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Then why would we -- why wouldn't we add -- let's see, county improve -- the policy read, Policy 3.4 on Page 4, county improvements to, and maintenance of, existing drainage facilities shall be priority over construction projects. Is that a true statement? Is that where the county staff intends to go? MR. SCHMIDT: (Nods head.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Then why did we add the words "in the urban and estates - designated areas "? It seems like you're singling out new projects only in the urban and estates - designated areas you can't have new Page 24 of 84 1/26/2012 CCPC "Special EAR Amendments" meeting construction projects, but yet if you had a new construction project, say, in Willoughby Acres, they -- that could take priority over county improvements and maintenance of existing drainage facilities. It's only in the urban and estates - designated areas that it doesn't. I'm just wondering, why do we need the -- why do we need to defer to the urban and Estates areas? Why don't we just cross that out? MR. BOSI: Mark, I would see no reason why -- that we would have those two particular geographic designations indicated and not have it just applied countywide. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. And if the intent is countywide, then after the word "projects" we ought to, on Page 4 of the original -- of the new documentation we ought to strike out the words "in the urban and estates - designated areas." That doesn't give anybody priority over any -- priority or less of a standing compared to anybody else. Are there any other questions with the Drainage Sub - element? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Let's move on to the Solid Waste Sub - element. By the way, that new recycling center you guys have works really well. That -- the people there really know how to do it, and it's a nice system. I was up there the other day with a whole pile of stuff, and they were very cooperative, so -- Okay. Let's take the first five pages. Actually, it's short. Let's take only five pages. Does anybody have any questions on the only five pages? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Page 2, Objective 1, it talks about the facilities, and the second line down, "Present facilities meeting the current level facility including two franchise collection areas and five recycling centers, as follows:" and then you list them all. If we wanted to create an additional center of one of these kinds, could that be done, since it's not on this list, because you refer to this list as present facilities? Is that covered adequately? I don't want to tie our hands in having more facilities, especially in areas like hnmokalee, for example, where they could use a -- maybe they could use more distant -- or even Ave Maria or distant areas, distant rural areas. MR. BEALS: For the record, Nathan Beals, public utilities. The North Collier Recycling Center in Immokalee, recycling centers have been added since -- I mean, they're added to the list. They're already active, as you know, the North Collier. So we've -- as we need them, we build them, and then we update this as we go forward. This is not tying our hands to whether or not we can expand when we need to. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Just wanted to make sure. On Page 3, Policy 2.8, first sentence, the last word "facility," I think should -- maybe you want it "facilities." hi "maintain hazardous waste collection facilities," drop the word "A." Is that right? MR. SCHMIDT: Right. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Corby's nodding his head, so I know he got it. MR. SCHMIDT: I follow. Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. How about the supporting documentation; there's seven pages. Anybody have any questions from those seven pages? Okay. It's kind of nice, the third time we've seen this, so it helps getting through it. So -- let's move on to the Natural Groundwater Aquifer Recharge Sub - element. That, again, is a very short element. It's only four pages. So anybody have any questions on the four pages of the element language presenting to us today? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And there's seven pages of backup material, or actually nine pages of backup material. Does anybody have any questions on the nine pages of backup material as well? So, actually, the entirety of that groundwater element. MR. SCHMIDT: Mr. Chairman? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes, sir. MR. SCHMIDT: Just a commentary on Page 3 of the element itself. I believe it's Policy 3.5. A general rule of grammar. Here in the Policy 3.5 it reads in the acronym for South Florida Water Management. It's actually its first -- it's appearing as its first use under that object, so there we may spell it out. Page 25 of 84 1/26/2012 CCPC "Special EAR Amendments" meeting CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So you -- each objective it should be spelled out? Because you -- obviously, you have it spelled out in Policy 2.2. MR. SCHMIDT: That's correct. If it's spelled out, as a rule of thumb, in the objective above, I'm able to use the acronym below. If not in the objective above, I would spell it out in the individual policy. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Mark, I have a question. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Go ahead, Brad. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: From my notes at the last meeting, this happens in Policy 1.2 and 3.3, we were going to cross out the new words, but you've crossed out the existing words also. MR. SCHMIDT: There were a couple of policies like this where the removal of new words reverted back to the original language entirely, and so there's no changes proposed. So it's just simply being removed from this list essentially. That's just the way the edits worked out. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Oh, okay. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: So the cross - through doesn't mean what it normally means? MR. SCHMIDT: That doesn't mean we're removing Policy 3.3, correct. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay, got it. Thanks. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Or Policy 1.2, I think, was -- so what you're doing, you're just removing it from an EAR because you're not including the changes that were there previously. MR. SCHMIDT: Yeah. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Gotcha. Good. Go ahead, Heidi. MS. ASHTON-CICKO: Is that the case, then, through all of the documents that we've just gone through? Because I thought some we were actually deleting from the text. MR. SCHMIDT: There are a number of edits throughout these worksheets where, yes, we're deleting policies and replacing. MR. BOSI: If there's a policy with -- MS. ASHTON- CICKO: Okay. So this one is not being -- not proposed for deletion. MR. BOSI: If there was a policy and it's fully struck, stricken through, it would say policy -- underneath it, "policy for deletion." And this one isn't deleting the policy. It's just we're eliminating any proposed modifications. MS. ASHTON-CICKO: Okay. Well— CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. MS. ASHTON-CICKO: Okay. So let me just clarify. So if we actually are deleting it's going to say in paren afterwards "proposed for deletion "? MR. SCHMIDT: Or in the bracket above where the policy is listed, yes. MS. ASHTON- CICKO: Okay, thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Anybody else? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. The next item up is the Housing Element, and it's seven pages. So let's take all seven pages at once. And I think before we actually get into the -- oh, hi. MS. MOSCA: Hello. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: How are you? MS. MOSCA: Good morning. For the record, Michele Mosca, comprehensive planning staff. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And you're probably going to tell us about the missing blanks here, because the Affordable Housing Advisory Committee had to, you know, kind of join in on some of the comments, so -- MS. MOSCA: That's correct. I just want to provide the board with a reminder of what occurred at the October workshop. We actually only have three objectives that are outstanding, and I understand that you want to go page by page through the element, and then there's one policy that's outstanding. Two of the objectives deal specifically with the construction of affordable housing on an annual basis. And Frank Ramsey from the housing department has been working closely with the Affordable Housing Advisory Committee to develop an indexing methodology. And Frank is going to go ahead and present that information that we have to date. Page 26 of 84 1/26/2012 CCPC "Special EAR Amendments" meeting CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Thank you. MR. RAMSEY: Good morning. For the record, Frank Ramsey, operations analyst. I'll find it real quick for you. In your packet you should have received the document now available on your visualizer. And I'd like to begin real quickly with a brief PowerPoint presentation, very brief, that was used at the Affordable Housing Advisory Committee to introduce the concept they had worked on. We started with the review of the current objective of Goal 1, Objective 1, which has been what we've discussed at my past attendance at the meeting of the 15 percent, 1,000 units as the measure for new units constructed per year. And the Affordable Housing Advisory Committee found that this measure was static, it was not market driven, and it was not flexible. And so in working through coming up with a new measure, the Affordable Housing Advisory Committee wanted to use objective third -party data. And in the model that we used for discussion, we identified three data sets, and that would be the median sales price, the median income, and the Housing Opportunity Index, which I'll discuss in a moment. We wanted to assess the need on a quarterly basis so that we could be aware of any changing -- significant changes in the market, and also look at identifying tipping points in which actions should be taken or recommendations should be presented to increase the production of affordable housing. And then also we discussed how this is an early process and it does need future improvements. So what is the Housing Opportunity Index? For those who may not be aware, the Housing Opportunity Index is developed by the National Association of Homebuilders and Wells Fargo. It's published and released quarterly, and the data is reported and available down to the metropolitan statistical area level. For us that would be Naples /Marco Island MSA. And for those interested, that is their website. This is the definition of the Housing Opportunity Index. It is the share of homes sold that would have been affordable to a family earning the local area median income based on standard mortgage underwriting criteria. So, therefore, there's really two major components to the index. It's the income and the housing costs of the community. This is a reference point for 2011. Our median income was $71,800. What was nice about this dataset, it's 20 years old, so we have back to 1991 of this data to compare. And when you put it into a visual model, it helps to look and see, what does the data look like, what trends do you see, and are there any relationships in the data? And that's where we came up with what you saw in your read - ahead, which is right here. And to the far left you have 1991. To your far right on the horizontal axis you have 2011. Your vertical axis is your measure. The blue line is the median sales price in thousands, the red line is the Housing Opportunity Index, which is a percentage, and the green line for reference is the median income. So as you can see from this visual, the data is relatively in the delta between the affordability and the median sales price; runs in a relatively even and logical progression up until approximately 2001 when we start to see the two separate. Interestingly -- and I apologize. I brought the wrong version -- 2001, I believe, was -- I had an indicator as when the board adopted the Impact Fee Deferral Program. So there seemed to be a recognition that the market was changing and that an incentive was needed. Then, beginning in approximately 2003, we really got to see the data -- the delta between the two really, really increase pretty dramatically. So we go from, in late 1999, approximately 72 percent of the homes sold were affordable, and as -- shortly thereafter, in 2005, less than 17 percent of homes sold were affordable. What's interesting of note is that right around that peak in the median price is when that thousand units per year or 15 percent was adopted. So it was adopted at a time when the need was the greatest. Following, the data will show that the market peaked in the fourth quarter of 2005. And as you can see, the market has continued to adjust downward and affordability has improved so that in the third quarter of 2011, the most recent data available, 68 percent of the homes sold were affordable to a family earning the median income. Now, this is not without fault. I was not aware, and I am now aware, that the state statute requires that we consider the need by income level. Very low, low, and moderate. This is to strictly median income. So we will look to improve this by -- unfortunately, I'll have to create the fonnulas for that. This, they gave it to me which made it easy. But we will look at this and say, well, what would this picture have looked like had, instead of the red line Page 27 of 84 1/26/2012 CCPC "Special EAR Amendments" meeting being median income, it was 80 percent of median income. Or if it was 50 percent of median income, what would that have looked like? And that's in the process of being built right now. Also what's noted in this, while it may be somewhat captured in the data, it's not -- this is largely a homeownership measure and does not speak directly to the rental need of the community. So we are assessing that it -- when I say "we," I should say the Affordable Housing Advisory Committee are assessing is there an index or a way that we can measure the rental need separate from the homeownership need. With all this in mind, the Affordable Housing Advisory Committee recommended that if there's a decline in the Housing Opportunity Index for three consecutive quarters, that then additional indicators or research is conducted on the market to assess whether this is a random event or if this is, perhaps, an indicator of a sustained decline in affordability. If -- the second recommendation from the Affordable Housing Advisory Committee was that if the Housing Opportunity Index were to fall below 50 percent, that that would trigger action or a report. The concept behind this was that there would be a tool kit, for lack of better words, of incentives that would then be presented to the board or to the CCPC and say it's now time to start incentivizing the production or provision of affordable housing. One of the concepts discussed was that the -- to measure the amount, should the percentage drop below 50, would be the delta between what the actual figure is and the 50. So, for example, if the data showed that 30 percent of the homes sold were affordable, that we would seek to incentivize so that 20 percent of those built were affordable, therefore, getting us back to that 50 percent. And, finally, as I mentioned, we would -- the AHAC is recommending that an investigation be conducted into any possible measures that could target the rental need of the community. We understand there's still work to be done, but I was asked today to come forth and present to you what progress had been made on this topic. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Thank you, Buddy. But, Michele, that didn't answer our questions. So the directive or the request was to consider, instead of an Objective 1 and constantly having a fixed number for an increase in affordable housing, the discussion at the time was to consider revising the objective so that it requires a maintenance or a balance continually that we can retain so that we know we have a certain amount of affordable housing there at all times. And when we start dipping below that, then bring it back up. I thought that was the discussion we had at the last meeting. And I don't know -- I still don't have -- so it doesn't look like we have an answer to that. MS. MOSCA: We don't as of yet. As Frank mentioned, there's still work to be done. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But this is transmittal. MS. MOSCA: It is transmittal. And what we thought we would do is allow the Affordable Housing Committee, along with the housing department, to work towards a date in the future maybe before the board adoption that we would meet at a regular CCPC meeting date and try to finalize this before it goes to the board. There just wasn't sufficient time between December and this meeting to get that work accomplished. I did look at other jurisdictions. And it was interesting to me, as I went through their policies, those jurisdictions only provided general language that stated the county or municipality would ensure that affordable housing needs for 50, 80, and 120 percent were met. And the state didn't seem to have an issue with that. That's probably not the way to go. I know in the past we were kind of forced into that number, and that's why we started looking at another methodology so that we're not tied into that number, but we can, perhaps, come up with some language with that indexing. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, see, what happens is when we're forced into a number and we keep pushing that number and we establish that number, whether we need it or not, based on the market and economy as we have today, those units still have to be set -- they sit there and they have to be maintained, whether it's by a private organization doing the affordable work or by the county. And I hate to see us develop things to sit empty until the market catches up to it when we shouldn't have been forced to develop it in the first place. It's a waste of taxpayers' money. MS. MOSCA: Right. And that was based on the statutory requirement that we use the Shimberg Center's information. And as we know, it's 2000 data, census data, so it is, in fact, outdated, and that's what we used going Page 28 of 84 1/26/2012 CCPC "Special EAR Amendments" meeting forward with the EAR -based amendments this time around, and we came up with a figure, I think, approximately 850 units in order to meet the needs of future residents. Now, this is an alternative methodology that we're hoping to put forward to the state that they would be in agreement that, based on this indexing the market, we can address the future needs of the residents. We don't want to be forced into that number. I heard that from this board as well as the Board of County Commissioners. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. But since this is transmittal, how are we going to get there? We can't just say we approve something that isn't filled in. It's blank. MS. MOSCA: Right. What I would like to do, if possible, is at least give the Affordable Housing Advisory Committee as well as housing staff at least another month to work through this. We'll develop some language together, and then at a CCPC regular meeting date we can present this information to you, and that would occur prior to the board transmittal adoption of this element, if that's acceptable to this board. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Does that work for Mike? You're head of that department. Is that a process that works for your department? MR. BOSL• Yes, it will. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Well, then I don't have a problem, then, waiting on Objective 1. 1 think the better information we can get the better it is for all of us. I strongly hope that the housing committee considers an alternative way to look at this as a -- like a maintenance and balance consideration rather than a demand. I think it's more effective. But we'll have to wait and see what they do. So that means Objective 1 on Page 1 really doesn't have a resolution today. MS. MOSCA: And that would also apply to Objective 2 and Objective 8, which has to do with a specific number for rehabilitation, as well as construction of affordable workforce housing. So these are the objectives we've been working closely with the housing staff on, and we hope, again, to have that information within a month or less -- hopefully at least within a month's time -- and bring that back to you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Does anybody have any questions of Michele? As we go through this, we may have more. But on that specific issue? That's good. And thanks for the progress so far, Michele, on that. Anyway, we're taking all seven pages of this commitment, but that actually removes several of -- three of my questions for sure. MS. MOSCA: Mr. Chairman? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes. MS. MOSCA: I'd like to also address, it is actually, new Policy 1.5. It was previously 1.4. The direction from this board at the October 2011 workshop was to include the statutory language. Staff has met with Heidi as well as Habitat staff as directed previously, and we're comfortable as a staff with the statutory text, but we're also comfortable with the existing text. We just wanted to make that clear and put that on the record. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: What did the Board of County Commissioners have to say about it? MS. MOSCA: Let me see if I have those notes, specifically. While I look for them, I believe actually -- and I'll look for the -- I believe they were in agreement with the CCPC. But we were also directed to work with the Habitat staff, so it's kind of the same as what the CCPC recommended. I'll see if I -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. SPEAKER: -- I can find the exact language. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. You took the question -- you took the language out of the statute; you put it where it belongs. I don't -- I mean, this was our recommendation now, and it also was mirrored by the BCC. So I don't have a -- I see no reason to -- I have no negative comment or positive comment on it at this point. Just leave it as it is. On Page 3, on Policy 2. 10, it talks about the human -- "Housing and Human Services Department will continue to administer affordable workforce housing programs," and then the last bullet was added, "Acquisition and rehabilitation program." But based on some recent actions by the board, hasn't that program now been turned over to the private sector? I don't watch the board meetings, but that's what I had heard. MS. MOSCA: And my understanding is that will continue, the acquisition, but Frank can address that. MR. RAMSEY: Yes, sir. The -- we discussed that, and it was left because the program has been turned over through partnerships with Habitat and nonprofit organizations to complete that activity, but the county cannot escape the compliance requirements. And so, again, we thought that was consistent with the "administer" versus "operate" Page 29 of 84 1/26/2012 CCPC "Special EAR Amendments" meeting component. If the language as written is not acceptable, then perhaps -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: What -- well, Buddy, what was the outcome of the board's decision when they -- now you said they turn these over to Habitat, right? MR. RAMSEY: For the vast majority, yes, sir. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Did they also say not to acquire more, or was there direction to keep acquiring them and then we'll just turn them over to Habitat? I mean, what -- MS. MOSCA: The county will not be acquiring any further properties. The funding that remains will be provided to Habitat for Humanity through a developer agreement, and they will -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I think if that's the board's decision, maybe that last bullet ought to be more reflective of their decision, because the way it looks now, as though nothing's changed, it's basically acquisition, which would infer to me you'd go out and buy more, and then if the board says, gee, I wish we weren't in that program, you'd turn them back over to Habitat again. But you really -- are you going to be doing that bullet? Is that based on board direction? MR. RAMSEY: The county will not be acquiring any property. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Maybe that's the clarification needed for that bullet, to whatever the board's decision was in that regard, I would suggest we -- that get done. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: I agree, because reading it, it's not clear. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. And that, I think, was a little undefined looking at it. MR. RAMSEY: So if I understand correctly, something either -- either notate that fact directly or support non -- support third -party organizations in the acquisition rehab. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I think if you were to send this to the board and it reads like it does right now, if they've already, you know, had an opinion on it or expressed their decision on it, I think they would take exception to the way it's written. So I would suggest that -- and, again, I didn't hear their direction, but I would suggest that it sounds like they don't want to be in that part of the program anymore. I understand you're concerned about the county being in the loop, because we have to be. I just figure you need to define what the county's loop is a little better for this than using the word "acquisition." Acquisition seems like it's going to go out and it's going to be all -out purchasing. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Acquire, yeah. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And I don't think that's the intent, based on what you've said. MR. RAMSEY: Yes, sir. We will work on improving that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. And I can't give you the word right now, because you guys heard it more, and I'd rather see you come back with something. MR. RAMSEY: Certainly. We will work together on either completely changing the bullet point or at least annotating that bullet point to be clear about what the intent is. COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: Mark, on that last sentence under 2. 10, should you substitute the word "administered" for "operated "? MS. MOSCA: It should be; yes, thank you. We just noted that. Thank you. COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: Just to be consistent. MS. MOSCA: And, Mr. Chairman, just to go back to confirm on 1.4, it was the board's direction to work with Habitat as well as look at the statutory language. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: You have a speaker. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah. Margie, is it specific to the ones we've already talked about and not -- because we haven't got to the rest of them yet. MS. STUDENT - STIRLING: Okay. Should I just wait till the end? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No. If you've got specifics, come on up while I'm on them. MS. STUDENT - STIRLING: It's specific to 1.5. And I just put -- want to put on the record that we feel that language is rather vague in the statute, and we are going to be pursuing a declaratory statement petition with the Department of Economic Opportunity, formerly known as the Department of Community Affairs, and that should be a win -win for both the county and Habitat, because then we will understand what the meaning of the statute is and Page 30 of 84 1/26/2012 CCPC "Special EAR Amendments" meeting how it should be implemented. Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you, Margie. Page 4, Policy 3.7, we added the word "shall." How can we enforce the word "shall" in that regard? MS. MOSCA: This is a policy that the --we have joint policies with the City of Naples, and they were in agreement with this. They do, in fact, have those neighborhood- action plans. We don't enforce their policies. These policies are applicable to the City of Naples. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. I guess the policy I had, 3.5, the word "shall" circled as well. So in these cases, when we say that "the City of Naples shall" but they already have, why don't we just say, "The City of Naples has addressed the conservation of housing stock," and that way we're not put in a spot seems like we're an enforcement agency over the City of Naples. MS. MOSCA: And, again, it's a combined element, and the city uses these policies to work with their development community. I don't see it as an enforcement issue. I believe that the state somewhat requires us to put "shall" in there rather than a "may" or "has" or -- similar to our policies. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But you -- but if they've already got the policies that are not -- it's not -- they're not -- where they're not going to -- "shall" means they will produce the policies. You're saying they've already got the policies. MS. MOSCA: And some are continue -- they will continue to provide incentives or continue to work on whatever it is, so some are ongoing. MS. ASHTON- CICKO: You could suggest an alternative would be "The City of Naples continues to address the conservation." It's more of a commentary. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's a much better word than "shall." It takes away a lot of, what I would think, potential regulatory concern. MS. MOSCA: That's on 3.7 everywhere -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: 3.5 and 3.7, wherever it -- MS. MOSCA: Wherever the city -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Wherever the city -- and there's 4.3; there's quite a few different spots. But in each case they're already doing it, so why not just acknowledge they're continuing to do it. That gives it just the effectiveness and takes the word "shall" out. MS. MOSCA: And if the County Attorney's Office is okay with that, we'll go ahead and do that for each -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. MS. ASHTON- CICKO: Well, I mean it's -- MS. MOSCA: -- reference. MS. ASHTON- CICKO: They're going to have to be changed appropriately. So, like, for example, 4.3 would have to say "The county shall work with the City of Naples to create a single unifonn relocation policy." I mean, so -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No, I understand. I just want to -- MS. ASHTON- CICKO: It's going to be modified in that way. MS. MOSCA: Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. A long time ago a former county attorney instructed us very strongly on the words "shall" and "may," and I remember her sitting there and saying how to use it. So I've been very cognizant of those words since. So, thank you, Margie. Stuck with me. MS. MOSCA: And I'll make sure -- Mr. Chairman, I'll make sure to go through all of those that contain the City of Naples, those policies or objectives, and reword them accordingly. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. In Objective 4 it was changed a bit, and it says -- and the outcome is, "conduct housing surveys every three years or sooner for the purpose of identifying substandard dwelling units." I'm just curious, where do we get the understanding of what is a substandard dwelling unit? MS. MOSCA: I believe the building code offers some information as well as, I believe, the health department. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. MS. MOSCA: I don't know all of the requirements, though. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. But there is some standards that we have to inspect by that tells us -- Page 31 of 84 1/26/2012 CCPC "Special EAR Amendments" meeting MS. MOSCA: I believe so. And we handle it through both code enforcement, and we've also conducted and completed the Immokalee study. And I know there's some state requirements, but I can't address them specifically. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I mean, there is minimum housing standards. MS. MOSCA: That's what it is, minimum housing standards. Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, then -- well, I'm glad that came up, then. Then instead of saying, "The purpose of identifying dwelling units that fall below the minimum housing standards," wouldn't that be better? COMMISSIONER EBERT: Which one are you looking at, Mark? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Objective 4. If that's actually what we're doing, then we're not really looking for substandard dwelling units, but we're really saying, "Purpose of identifying dwelling units that fall below the minimum housing standards." COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: That would be substandard. It's kind of like we threw away the building codes because that goes without saying. I think the minimum housing standards must be the standard that they're sub to. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Is that -- well -- MS. MOSCA: I'm okay with that language. I'm just not sure if something else applies here. I would have to look at it further. But assuming that it is, we can replace "substandard dwellings" and put "that fall below the minimum housing standard." CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah, but I'll defer to Brad. MS. MOSCA: Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I mean, that's fine. Leave it like it is. If it doesn't need to be changed, if it feels it's covering the issue -- substandard to me means that someone had to evaluate it in order it to be (sic) substandard. Substandard determined by a referenced to a minimum housing standard, to me, is more; you can grab onto it. You can go to a housing standard and determine how they determined it was substandard. I mean, substandard isn't defined, and if someone decides -- that lives in a nice gated community with a $3 million house that a person in the City of Golden Gate's in a $170,000 house, that's substandard, I mean, that's extreme, but it's more ambiguous with the word "substandard." And it always refer to -- I always prefer to refer to something that we know exists. We know there's, from what Brad just said, minimum housing standards. So those work. But I don't have a problem leaving it. I'm just --that was my concern. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And if you read further, it's kind of pointing to the -- you know, the lack of plumbing, et cetera, et cetera. And that's what substandard is. I mean, I would -- you know, one of the things a minimum standard would have is screens on a window, so, you know, you may -- in other words, if this is -- this "substandard units" is pointing out the area's lack of plumbing and/or kitchen facilities -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah. But, see, Brad, what you just said, I would read that as saying, okay, substandard is only those with a lack of plumbing and/or kitchen facilities. Everything else isn't. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Right. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So if that becomes the definition for substandard, it actually strengthens my argument as to why it shouldn't be used in front of the word "dwelling units," because it's almost defined by that paragraph by the way the parenthetical comes into play. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Well, we do have housing codes, which would be HUD's minimum standard probably. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, if we're going to implement the language in the LDC and we were to change it to read "Identify dwelling units below the minimum housing standards" and then in the LDC list the standards by which we determine the minimum standards, whether they be building codes, housing codes, life- safety codes, whatever there is, that may be another way to cover it. Heidi? MS. ASHTON- CICKO: I mean, I think there is a clear ambiguity, which I recommend that we fix, if you can find out why the language went in the way it went in or whether you think it needs to be more comprehensive. But it is -- it is ambiguous and difficult to enforce. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's -- referring to something as a known standard, meaning the minimum Page 32 of 84 1/26/2012 CCPC "Special EAR Amendments" meeting housing standards, and then defining those in the implementation language of the Land Development Code would tighten it up. And if that's the objective, to try to avoid an ambiguity of the word "substandard," I think maybe we ought to do that. But I'll leave that up to staff to come back and take a look at it and make an argument next time we meet on it. Brad? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I mean, since this is old code, not even EAR -based stuff, should we just put it aside for another cycle? MR. BOSI: Traditionally, if we weren't modifying Objective 4, if we hadn't proposed modifications to it, then that would probably be appropriate, but because we are changing it, there was motivation and there was designation that it was going to be changed, I think we do have an opportunity to be able to provide the clarification that the board's seeking. COMMISSIONER EBERT: So you're going to redo 4? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes. Looks like 4 will be reworded, so -- okay. Because of the lack of information currently from the housing committee, and we're going to get more, I'll -- that's the end of my questions on the first part or anybody else's, I guess. So do we have any questions on the supporting documentation that was provided? And it's a -- 13 pages? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Hearing none, Michele, thank you. MS. MOSCA: Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: As usual, appreciate it. Are you going to stick around for the school one, too? MS. MOSCA: And the CCME, yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Oh, you got them both, okay. Okay. Next item up is our Recreation and Open Space Element. MS. ASHTON- CICKO: You know, I do just have to make a quick comment, because you're going to be looking at the coastal high hazard area later on -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes. MS. ASHTON-CICKO: --and just draw your attention that there is a policy change through this objective that it will restrict mobile homes to areas outside of the coastal high hazard area. That's in your objection -- Objective 7. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Of the -- MS. ASHTON- CICKO: Of this. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- Housing Element. MS. ASHTON-CICKO: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah, then that's -- MS. ASHTON- CICKO: No more mobile homes in there. Okay. COMMISSIONER EBERT: In where? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Coastal high hazard area. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: We've been kind of -- that's how we've been looking at them for quite a long time, though. MS. ASHTON-CICKO: I know, but later on I think we'll be looking at the impacts of establishing that boundary, so I just wanted to draw that to your attention. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well -- and I will have questions about that because the boundary that's being established is different than the boundary we currently have and -- MS. ASHTON- CICKO: Correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- if that's the case, how are we notifying people so that we avoid Bert Harris claims? And at the same time we're reducing the density in the coastal hazard area from four to three, instead of a Traffic Congestion Area four to three. So that, again, changes people's abilities, say. And is there a potential for Bert Harris claims and stuff -- and notifications? So we're going to have that lengthy discussion. MS. ASHTON- CICKO: That will be a discussion later on, but just -- I wanted to make sure that you -all Page 33 of 84 1/26/2012 CCPC "Special EAR Amendments" meeting understood the impacts. As we go through it, I'll try to draw your attention. And then when we get to the item, we can look at all the impacts. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Well, let's try to get through the Recreation and Open Space Element. There are not many pages; five pages to be exact. Does anybody have any questions -- most all of it's deletion or relocation. Anybody have any questions on the five pages of that new language that's been provided to us? Mike, on Page 5, Policy 2.1.8, now this is probably a redundant discussion. I don't remember the discussion previously verbatim, so I'll start over again. It says, "The county shall amend the Land Development Code to require the developer of a residential PUD, or a PUD having a residential component, to provide its residents and guests with a suitable neighborhood park, as determined on a case -by -case basis, which is, as required by Policy 5.4 in the Future Land Use Element, to be compatible with the surrounding development." I got a lot wrong with that whole thing -- not to say wrong; questions. First of all, why did you italicize "suitable neighborhood park "? MR. BOSI: I believe it was emphasis just to stress that individual neighborhood parks have varying construction designs, and it's based upon the composition of the project in the community, whether it's going to be age restrictive, whether it's -- whether the range of housing is different that would promote maybe a preponderance of school -age children, those types of differences, just to highlight that there will be individual circumstances that dictate the design and construction of each one on a case -by -case basis. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Do you know how -- who interprets or defines the word "suitable "? I mean, you have communities with a preponderance of kids, you have over -55 communities, will they still require -- how do you determine what's suitable and what -- who makes that determination and how is it made? MR. BOSI: The parks staff, I believe, based upon the type of demographics expected within a community, would have suggestions as to -- but the typical amenities, that would be sought by that type of demographic and the age range. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So you're going to leave the word "suitable" up to the determination of the park staff? MR. BOSI: I think it -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I mean, because I'm not -- their determination of what goes in our parks right now isn't necessarily what's needed by our community. And then I'm concerned that -- what they -- how they would perceive what goes in neighborhoods. And then it says, "on a case -by -case basis." Who determines what's done for each individual case? I mean, could people and developers be treated differently? I'm -- MR. BOSI: I think -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: It's a pretty ambiguous policy, Mike, in a lot of ways. MR. BOSI: It is an ambiguous policy, and it's -- the one question or the one area I think that we would have our most concern about is we're not -- we have no levels of service associated with neighborhood parks. We're not -- we don't require the county to provide neighborhood parks. The word "shall," I believe, in this -- in this proposed policy maybe is too strong based upon that -- a lack of a requirement with -- for levels of service for neighborhood parks. I think what the parks department would like to do is to encourage each individual new development that comes forward to provide the recreational amenities to the type of demographics that they expect to attract. To mandate that they have to provide, I believe, may be overstepping the boundaries. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: They get impact fees right now for parks. We have levels of service for community parks, and -- MR. BOSL• Regional. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- regional parks. They're not proposing -- first of all, as you said -- and I made a note -- there is no level of services. We have no AUIR standards for this, but yet the AUIR constantly says we need more and more and more parks and all this other stuff because of statistics that don't take into consideration the neighborhood parks that are within the existing developments. They don't take into consideration a lot of that. I mean, people living in a gated community with a club aren't necessarily going to leave that gated community and go out to some public neighborhood -- and let -- a community park. It isn't going to happen. So this whole policy is unneeded, is ambiguous, and it puts a burden on the development community that's Page 34 of 84 1/26/2012 CCPC "Special EAR Amendments" meeting unwarranted and unestablished by any of our level -of- service standards or anything. So I, personally, am suggesting, on behalf of myself, that this be struck, the entire policy. But I don't know how the rest of the board feels. MS. ASHTON- CICKO: Mr. Chair -- COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: To me it's unenforceable. MS. ASHTON- CICKO: -- could I give you some alternative language that might be acceptable? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I'm not going to --I'm not really going to change my position, Heidi. This is just another exaction that's being tried to made -- make it look like it's going to be legalized, and I think it's wrong. If you want these things, you incentivize it and pay for it, but you -- no need to do that -- MS. ASHTON- CICKO: Well, that's why -- you haven't heard my language yet. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. MS. ASHTON- CICKO: I'd like to make a proposal that might be -- might assist staff and be a better result. If you provided, "The county shall amend the Land Development Code to," and you could choose for either "encourage" or "provide incentives for a developer of a residential PUD or a PUD having a residential component to provide its residents and guests with a private recreational amenity or amenities to reduce the impacts on the county park system." CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So -- every developer that has any sense is going to create recreational facilities in his development. I don't think of one that we've seen not come forward that hasn't done that in some manner or fonn. MS. ASHTON- CICKO: Correct. They're already doing it, but it will -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: They're already doing it -- MS. ASHTON- CICKO: -- incentivize it or encourage. Apparently, staff thinks there's some need, that it's not being done in some. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But now we're saying, for what you're already doing, we're going to give you an incentive to do it anyway, and that incentive's going to then take away from something else that we would normally have not let them take away from, like impact fees. I don't see the need for it. It's market driven. It's up to the market to carry it. Let the market handle it. We made huge mistakes by interfering with the market, and I don't see why we need to in this case. The market's working fine. MR. BOSI: And I agree with the planning commission. This was left over. If you look through it -- and we said most of this was -- a lot of the changes are a deletion. We deleted an entire objective related to the neighborhood parks because we realized that we were into an area that we don't mandate, we don't require, and we were overstepping our boundaries. This was a leftover to encourage that type of participation that you've already identified. There's hardly a project that comes before you that doesn't provide these amenities within it. Based upon those discussions, we will strike this individual policy from both editions. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Brad? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And I support striking it, too, because on a small -scale PUD, this could become pretty cumbersome. On a large scale it would be there already. COMMISSIONER EBERT: So you are going to strike all of -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: 2.1.8. MR. BOSI: 2.1.8 will not be proposed for -- will not be brought forward to the BCC as a proposed addition. It just -- it won't be proposed. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I have one more thing on this. New Goal 2, I have in my notes last time that you were going to remove the word "promote" and put the word "provide." Is that something -- MR. BOSI: That's -- if that was direction, it was an oversight by myself. If the Planning Commission would like to see that modification, we can make that change. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Tell us where we are. MR. BOSI: We're on Page 4 of the draft where -- it's the old Goal 3 now renumbered because we eliminated the previous Goal 2. It's the new Goal 2. And instead of "the county shall promote," Mr. Schiffer is -- has suggested that we -- that the Planning Commission had recommended that we say that "the county shall provide." MS. ASHTON- CICKO: My only comment with that is if you're going to put that, you might want to consider dropping "and neighborhood parks," because as far as I know, we don't have any neighborhood parks in our Page 35 of 84 1/26/2012 CCPC "Special EAR Amendments" meeting park system. MR. BOSI: As we just discussed, we do not provide neighborhood parks, so that would require a modification. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. All right. Got it. MR. BOSI: That's why I think "promote" would still be retained. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So we would say -- so, Brad, are you still suggesting the change, then? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: No, no. If it would cause that kind of result, no. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. And I think the word "promote" in there is appropriate for the neighborhood park reference, because that allows us, then, when a developer comes forward, to ask to see how they've addressed any amenities in their facility for recreation. And if you get a thousand -unit project and it has no recreational amenities, well, it doesn't meet Goal 2. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I mean, what my notes had is use the word "provide" and strike out "neighborhood parks." But I think we're probably better in this condition. MR. BOSI: And I think Mark's point is that if they had that thousand -unit and they weren't providing a neighborhood park, we couldn't require them, but we could point them to this goal and say that we are promoting and we think that it would be advantageous to your project if you considered the design of your project based upon the light -- of this desire to promote these type of neighborhoods. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ironically, I don't think we've ever seen a project come through of any magnitude that hasn't addressed this. Even the smaller ones do. David? You look serious today, David. MR. WEEKS: No comment. For the record, David Weeks in the comprehensive planning section. Commissioners, just a couple points of information. One is that proposed new Policy 2.1.8 that you were just discussing a few moments ago is a verbatim replacement of existing Policy 2.1.2. And as Mike has already mentioned, that Goal 2 and all of -- the one objective in policies beneath that are all proposed for deletion. And I guess that one policy, however, was going to be retained and renumbered. Point being, again, it's not something new. It's something that's already in the element right now. That doesn't change your discussion here today and, I don't think, your conclusion. Secondly, just for point of history, because this is an existing policy which goes back to the last EAR -based amendments in 2007 -- yeah, 2007 -- we did propose -- staff did propose a Land Development Code amendment to implement this policy, and we heard a lot of the same comments that we're hearing from you today. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's where -- right, that's where it came up before. MR. WEEKS: Yeah. And then, ultimately, that amendment went nowhere fast. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. MR. WEEKS: But staff did -- there was discussion about the different types of developments, as you've discussed here today. What about the adults -only community? And the staff perspective on that was that that would be part of the consideration of what is suitable for the proposed development. You wouldn't be -- wouldn't necessarily be requiring -- COMMISSIONER EBERT: Swings. MR. WEEKS: -- swings, a slide, things that young children would use for an adults -only park -- excuse me -- adults -only development. But on the flip side, don't grandparents, persons in the senior housing might they have their grandkids over, and wouldn't you want to have? So we had discussion about the different types of neighborhoods, the different types of park facilities, but, again, it ultimately was withdrawn, the amendment. That's all; just some history and to comment this policy is already there. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. Brad? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I mean, do we want to leave it in and just remove "require the developer" and just say "promote a developer "? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But, Brad, it doesn't take the ambiguity away. If it was a policy that was there before, it's still one that should be cleaned up. It's a mess. I mean, if -- I just don't know how you leave those very ambiguous statements up to a myriad of people to determine on a case -by -case basis. I think it could ultimately be Page 36 of 84 1/26/2012 CCPC "Special EAR Amendments" meeting unfair, and that's what I think is wrong with it. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: In the goal itself, I mean, that's what we're saying, so -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: -- I guess it's covered there. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. And the last part of this is the supplemental support documentation, Pages I through 9. Does anybody have any questions on that? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And it's about time to go to lunch, but I see Jamie's here, and I know he'll want to get done with us to go to lunch. So, Jamie, can you come on up and address that -- COMMISSIONER EBERT: Jamie wants to go to lunch? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Sure he does. MR. FRENCH: Good morning -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Good morning. MR. FRENCH: -- Commissioners. I heard my ears ringing. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah. And, Mike, could you steer us to the policy -- COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Sludge. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah, it's the sludge issue on solid waste, I believe, wasn't it? MR. EASTMAN: Solid waste, Page 4. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you, Tom. It's not that one. MR. FRENCH: You're looking at Page 4, Policy 2 under wastewater. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Wastewater. Okay. There it is. It's on Page 4 of the SS sub - element, Policy 3.2. MR. FRENCH: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I'll read it so that everybody listening can know what we're talking about. "Private utilities regulated by the county shall maintain sludge de- watering and stabilization facilities sufficient to treat sludge and septage to a degree equivalent to that employed at the county facilities prior to its disposable." Staff had commented that they already have to do certain things to meet requirements of -- whether it's DEP or health or whatever else. So I guess the first thing is, this seems to be a redundant policy. Why don't we just leave it like -- they have to do it anyway, so why would we want to re- emphasize it in here? What's the point of this policy? MR. FRENCH: Commissioners, as the -- and I wear many hats. And this isn't to give the board a lesson on the Collier County Water and Wastewater Authority, but I do serve as the executive director of the Waste and Wastewater Authority, and I would tell you that you are exactly right. The county serves in the position of the Florida Public Service Commission, so we regulate building perplexities, rate cases, level of service that's provided, but not to that engineering degree to say, what's your ERC per day. We use that ERC and we use how they maintain their utility and how they operate when we factor in their cost of operating when we're going through rate methodologies; however, that is solely regulated by the DEP. And in the event that the State of Florida were to contact us and say, gee, Jamie, we have a problem with a franchised utility in Collier County, and they're failing to meet the state statute or the state requirement, what would happen is that at that point they put their franchise at risk. And under the powers of -- 96 -6, as amended, that's where we would work with them. And this is primarily done through the court system, and it goes into a taking, so to speak -- or not a taking, but it takes it into receivership, is the ultimate punishment in the event that a utility does default and choose not to follow the state rules. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Then we don't need Policy 3.2. MR. FRENCH: Sir, I'm unfamiliar with all the language in that policy, but based off of just my reading it right now, I would agree with you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Would you leave it with staff that if you guys look at it a little bit further, if there's something that Jamie sees later on that changes his mind, we'll have to reconsider it, but right now it's in a policy that's not needed? MR. BOSI: Sure. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Sorry to drag you over here, Jamie. You could have emailed us. We'd have been fine with that. MR. FRENCH: My pleasure. I don't get to see you folks that often anymore, so -- Page 37 of 84 1/26/2012 CCPC "Special EAR Amendments" meeting CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, you should be like -- you know, I know you're -- Nick's -- you and Nick work pretty close together. He tries to avoid us. It's nice to see you're trying to join us. MR. FRENCH: I'm always here for you, sir. Thank you. Have a wonderful week. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Appreciate it, Jamie. MR. SCHMIDT: All right. Mr. Chairman? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes, sir. MR. SCHMIDT: I have a request, because of some of the staffers being made available this morning, that we do enter -- or get into the CCME before lunch, particularly, if not only, Goals 9 and 12 in order to accommodate some other times. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Corby, the CCME is practically the longest policy in this whole thing. We have speakers lined up for it and everything else. MS. MOSCA: Mr. Chainnan, if I just may add, the only reason we have the request is just, again, for Goals 9 and 12, which deal specifically with Dan Summers' area of expertise. And during that October workshop there was very little comment. There wasn't any public comment. So I thought, perhaps, we could get through those couple items only. COMMISSIONER EBERT: So he could leave. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Well, now that you're more focused on -- MS. MOSCA: It would just be those two goals and related policies. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Well, there's no hurricanes, so why would Dan want to leave us today? I mean, it's different if it was a tropical storm. Okay. So Objectives 9 and 12 is the only ones of concern at this point, right? MS. MOSCA: Related to Dan's area, correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: We can go through those pages. It starts on Page 43. MS. MOSCA: Actually, Goal 9 begins on Page 24, Mr. Chairman. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Oh, I'm on the wrong -- I'm on the backup stuff, sorry. Well, I'm still not in the right -- you're in the CCME; is that correct? MS. MOSCA: That's correct. And, again, Page 24. COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: Goal 9. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I'm trying to get there. There we go. Okay. Goal 9 on Page 24, and Goal 9 is only on Page 24 and 25. Does anybody have any questions on Goal 9? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Does anybody in the audience have any questions on Goal 9? I don't think it was one that was with the Conservancy's letter, so -- okay. And then let's move to -- MS. MOSCA: Goal 12 is located on Page 28 of that same document. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And it goes to Page 31. Does anybody have any questions from Page 28 to 31? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, let's start with Policy 12.1.3. It says, "The county shall continue to identify and maintain shelter space for 32,000 persons," and it did say by 2006, now it says by 2012, "and 45,000," and it used to say 2010, it now says 2015. "Shelter space capacity shall be determined at the rate of 20 square feet per person." What is our current status, then, in the requirement to meet the 32,000, since it has to be completed this year? MS. MOSCA: Mr. Summers will answer that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But -- and the only reason I'm trying to find out is if it's a goal we can meet, fine. If it isn't, then let's make the year correct. MR. SUMMERS: Commissioners, good morning. Dan Summers, director of Bureau of Emergency Services and Emergency Management. Remember, there are some -- and I don't have the state legislative language here in front of you, but remember we're kind of working off of 1998 to 2000 type policy lofty goals for shelter space, okay. I have to approach this as goals. Also in --you have to remember that we were working with Collier District Schools '09, '10, let's go back, 2008/10 in making sure that future school construction accommodated some of our shelter needs and desires. Well, now, today, we're obviously not building new school buildings in tenns of that identification of shelter Page 38 of 84 1/26/2012 CCPC "Special EAR Amendments" meeting space. So I think it -- I think the terminology is okay as to continue to identify and maintain where possible. And, also, in 2013 the state will go back and be doing a new inventory of shelter space. So I have to tell you that we continue to do the best we can to identify, but in terms of any guarantee that we're going to hit those benchmarks in today's environment, that's pretty tough. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. But, Dan, you just struck on a couple things that brought up the question. You read this when you -- in your reading of it you said the county shall maintain -- shall continue to identify and maintain, where possible, shelter space. It doesn't say that in this. MR. SUMMERS: Well, I understand. And we can make -- and the part of that issue is -- let me make sure that there's clarity. At 20 square feet per person as a shelter number, I can do that. I can make that happen in teens of shelter space. What is not rated in there and which we can't rate is, if we're looking just at hurricane, remember, I have to shelter and use some methodology on each storm as to which shelter I use. So with the square footage I have, storm category notwithstanding, I can meet that at 20 square feet. But understand that I may utilize a smaller footprint farther inland if I have a greater category of storm. So this is acceptable. I'm very comfortable with this. But understand that each hurricane has different sets of vulnerabilities and characteristics. So I have a gross capacity of this but, storm dependent, that number is likely to be lower. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Can you provide us with a list of the facilities that total the 32,000? MR. SUMMERS: I can do that, and that's readily published in our "All Hazard Guides." CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. MR. SUMMERS: And, again, state is using 20 square feet as a planning threshold. In reality, in a shelter environment, for extended stay, you know, we really box 40 square feet per person, an eight by five. So this is okay. This is a planning component for us. This is a lofty goal for us. But as each storm has different characteristics, we have different behavior related to those evacuations. We adjust accordingly. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. When could you send us that list? MR. SUMMERS: I think I can certainly -- if it's not already posted, that shelter link is on our Internet site. I'll certainly develop an email, route it to staff, and copy that for you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Will that list show by square -- unit space by square footage? MR. SUMMERS: No, sir, it won't. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, then, I won't need the list. MR. SUMMERS: Well, no. I mean, it is not broken down in that environment. And, honestly, that is -- we look at that as a gross number. So you're basically looking at the gross square footage off all of our shelters to meet that number. In practicality, we use a little bit less -- we use less numbers in terms of the census and we use a larger square footage just to try to make folks a little more comfortable. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Can you send me a list -- MR. SUMMERS: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- of all the gross square footages of all the shelt -- of all the places you consider shelters in Collier County? MR. SUMMERS: I can do that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. That's what I'm getting at. And I would -- presumably, then, the way this is written, either right now or by the end of this year, it's going to show 32,000 square feet? MR. SUMMERS: Yes, sir. I think we're there. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Where, with the lack of school construction, are you expecting to find that additional 13,000 square feet in the next three years? MR. SUMMERS: Well, a couple of things that we're doing. We look at any window of opportunity whether it -- couple of avenues that we look at. Now, obviously, this has had impact since we've got new storm -surge maps, new floodplain issues, et cetera. So that -- I have a moving target there in terms of shelter availability, existing construction, new opportunities for shelter retrofit, but I also have changes in floodplain and storm surge that we're -- you know, as I told you last time, we're still kind of going through that, and that's kind of a bitter pill, and even that methodology has changed. So any opportunity -- I'm copied on all DRIB and PUDs and those type of things, so I, all the time, look for that opportunity to expand shelter square footage. Page 39 of 84 1/26/2012 CCPC "Special EAR Amendments" meeting One, we're still going to go back and revisit with Ave Maria and see if we can't have some additional options out there that we just don't presently have as another possibility. So we're working at it, and I feel like, based on our storm history and our behavior of what -- FEMA does these behavior analysis and models -- in terms of what I might expect for shelter population. It's tight, but I can do it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. The 32,000 existing square footage, when we get that list, the definition of shelter space, based on that list, will be met for every one of the square footages shown on the list? MR. SUMMERS: Yes, sir. And if it's not, I'll certainly clarify that for you. But I'm confident we're there. Thirty-two thousand square feet and the number of buildings that we have square footage that we have is certainly doable. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Has anybody in the county or staff verified that the buildings that you've allocated as shelter space can withstand the level of hurricane or wind loads they're supposed to? Because the last time I looked, which was five or six years ago, some of the school construction was built on wind codes that were vastly outdated compared to today's codes. MR. SUMMERS: Sir, that's a good point. And let me tell you that we've kind of approached that differently. The answer is the school district has been -- and all new construction has been right on target working with us in that hurricane - protection area. In those areas where it's not available, we have used FEMA -- or applied and in some cases received competitive FEMA mitigation grants for storm hardening. One of those activities going on right now is Immokalee High School, as we speak. Now, hmmokalee High School, that's going to, again, add some additional square footage to me because of some new retrofits and also some generator capability. So to answer your question, do we do formal engineering assessments on those buildings? We do not. We're not resourced for that. We don't have the tools for that, but we do have state inspectors and Red Cross inspectors that do evaluate those buildings. But when I mention the science has changed a little bit, there's two components that we typically -- if we're looking at a Category 3 storm or above, okay, there's no worry this far inland with the facilities that we have that I'm worried about anything under a Cat 3. If I go to a Cat 3 or above, even within that sheltering I have two options for safety. Number 1 is our -- or our first methodology is that, well, you put them in the gymnasium just to set up the dormitory, but at the arrival of peak winds, I'll move those folks out of the gym and let them take a tornadic posture in interior hallways and classrooms, and that is how I provide that additional space. So just by common sense, I'm moving those people out of the gym into a tornadic posture for a certain period of time while the storm passes, and I've substantially reduced risk by moving those people out of large -span areas. But I will use the large span up until a point that it's safe, tornadic posture into the interior of the building, the storm passes, go back into the dormitory of the gym, and we go about restoration and recovery. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So if you have a facility in which the gym is part of the storm refuge -- or storm- shelter space and the category of the storm gets a 3 or above, the same space you use to count the 32,000 for general space doesn't count anymore because it can't be used for above 3? MR. SUMMERS: No, sir. The reason that works is because I don't put that kind of capacity in each building. In other words, I reduce my in -bound census to that building to more like a factor of gross space of a -- and this is a guess -- but well -- maybe close to 60 square feet per person. So I keep my census down in each one of those buildings, use the dormitory concept first in the large -span areas, if it's significant, move them to a tornadic posture, interior hallways and classrooms, very well protected, storm passes, come back to the dorm area. But I am not putting that capacity of people in there, so that gives me the extra square footage. This, sir, truly is a planning threshold and not really an operational threshold. And it's a good one for me to use. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And I want to make sure that it doesn't become a required threshold by the word "shall" and the locked -in date. So I'm suggesting that as you produce the information that we just asked for, the square footage, if you see any reason why the 2012 ought to be 2013, it would be better to do that now than not do it is what I'm saying. MR. SUMMERS: And again, I think that's a very valid concern just because, again -- you know, maybe two Page 40 of 84 1/26/2012 CCPC "Special EAR Amendments" meeting years ago we were hoping as a methodology that we had some new schools being constructed, et cetera. We also expect, though -- you know, we also -- and so many human factors and variables here. Will we have folks -- will we have that large a census the next hurricane? Because folks, hopefully, are better educated and more aware of the hurricane threat and can make other plans, family and friends, hotels, well inland, et cetera. So a lot of variables here. And if -- we'll go back and review this. And if I feel like the 2015 puts us in a bad environment, I'll communicate that to you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. And, Dan, I had one other question. It's on Page 29. We struck out Policy 12.1.14, and it said, prior to the adoption of 2007 annual update AUIR, "Collier County shall evaluate whether to include hurricane shelters in the five -year schedule of capital improvements." So I assume we struck that because the evaluation was completed? MR. SUMMERS: Well, the evaluation, and just no resource availability on the horizon. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So we didn't do the evaluation? MR. SUMMERS: The -- let me go back and let me make sure I'm understanding your question correctly. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Page 29, Policy 12.1.14, it basically struck it saying -- and there was supposed to have been a -- evaluate whether or not we should include hurricane shelters on the capital improvement schedule, and it was just struck. I'm just wondering, why was it struck? MR. SUMMERS: Well -- and, again, I think -- Michele can coach me here on this just a little bit. But as I recall, there was just no capital -- there was just no capital improvement dollars or resources of which to put that in there to make action, and I'll have -- Michele can help me with that, you know, to remember our discussion. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. MS. MOSCA: If I just may provide a little input. My understanding is that this was proposed to the Board of County Commissioners, and the Board of County Commissioners did not want to include this within their annual update, and maybe Michael knows a little bit more about that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But it's a struck policy now. So -- I mean, the way I'm reading this, this used to be a policy --used to have a deadline of 2007, and here we are in 2012 and it's being struck. Why are you -- so we just ignored it all these years until now, we're striking it? MS. MOSCA: It's not a requirement. It's a policy decision by the board. And the board made the -- again, this is my understanding. The board made a policy decision that they would not be including that within their five -year capital improvements schedule. So it was a decision previously made by the board. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. But it reads, the -- "Collier County shall evaluate whether to include." What evaluation was done to determine to the board whether that should be included or not? Or did they just wake up one day and say, oh, we don't want to spend money on this? That's not an evaluation. What kind of evaluation was done? MS. MOSCA: I -- actually, I don't know what kind of evaluation was done. I know -- I spoke with Jim -- I can never pronounce his name -- MR. SUMMERS: Von Rinteln. MS. MOSCA: -- Von Rinteln previously, and it was, in fact, presented to the board. I don't know what evaluation was provided to the board for the board to make that determination. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Well, could you find out and provide us with that evaluation? I mean, I'm just -- MS. MOSCA: If one exists, certainly. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. But then if one doesn't exist, somebody was, all these years, in violation of Policy 12.14 (sic). Go ahead, Mike. MR. BOSI: I could only guess that -- not involved prior to the AUIR at that period of time. But I could only guess that the -- one of the main motivations for not including hurricane shelter within our Capital Improvement Element, our Capital hnprovement Element are projects that the county funds. We don't own the hurricane shelters. We have agreements with a number of different providers for those shelters, and including those facilities that we do not own within our Capital hnprovement Element would be inconsistent. Now, there could have been further discussion, well, maybe we want to keep a running inventory of those hurricane shelters within our AUIR just as an informational purpose, but you would never want to include hurricane Page 41 of 84 1/26/2012 CCPC "Special EAR Amendments" meeting shelters included within your Capital Improvement Element. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. It doesn't say we have to own them. It just -- so the evaluation -- see, what I saw that policy referring to was that we're trying to evaluate whether or not we have enough hurricane shelters and maintain them on a regular basis to make sure they're there. And someone decided it wasn't necessary. I'm just wondering why it was decided it wasn't necessary. Where's the evaluation that said it wasn't necessary? That's what I'm trying to understand. MR. BOSI: Well, as the policy reads, it says, "evaluate whether to include hurricane shelters" in our CIE, our capital improvements. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. MR. BOSL• That would be inconsistent with how -- what we deal with with CIEs. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So you're saying everything in the CIE is owned property? MR. BOSI: Is owned property, the projects that are funded by Collier County. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. But we're leasing buildings that half the staff of this county's in different places, so we can't own all the property, because we lease a lot of it. MR. BOSI: They're not included within our Capital Improvement Element. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: They are in back of the governmental part of it where they -- MR. BOSL• Governmental facilities are Category B facilities. They're not included in Capital Improvement Element. They're a part of the AUIR. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. They're part of the AUIR, but they're not in -- oh, they're not in the CIE. Oh, okay. MR. BOSI: CIE's separate. CIE is level of services. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Is only A. MR. BOSI: Level of service A. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yep. MR. BOSL• And that's the distinction. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Good point. MR. BOSI: Now, that's why I say it may be relevant to keep -- to add a list of our available hurricane shelters as you've requested as back parts of the AUIR so the CCPC and the board can always know where we're at within those regards, but it would not be something that we would want to formalize within our Capital Improvement Element. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, we haven't got a level of service established for it, so I understand now. Okay. That fixes it. MR. SUMMERS: Mr. Chairman, and for the board, just to give you a little bit of comfort here, I have a full -time person that does nothing but work on shelter management, shelter operations, building that capability, evaluating. We have agreements with -- obviously, a three -party agreement -- Red Cross, Collier District Schools. You've seen our disaster - response trailers. They go out every season and provide the inventory, supplies and equipment for these shelters. So this is in our DNA every day in terms of trying to build capability and making sure that there's 24 -by -7, 365 readiness for shelter operations. So, you know, I'm very comfortable with what we have. I'll give you a better, a more accurate answer on the square - footage calculations. But we -- you know, this is a mainstay of our FEMA contracts for service, our state emergency- management legislation, and guidance. So we're defmitely eyes on this target full time. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, Dan. Thank you very much. Appreciate it. MR. SUMMERS: Thank you all for the accommodation this morning. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody else have questions? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: What we'll do is we'll break for lunch for one hour and three minutes; come back at 1: 15, and we'll resume, finish up with CCME at that time. Thank you. (A luncheon recess was had.) MR. BOSI: Mr. Chair, you have a hot mike. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. Thank you, Mike, for the hot mike. Appreciate that. And Terri's here, Page 42 of 84 1/26/2012 CCPC "Special EAR Amendments" meeting so we are allowed to start. Good to see you're on time, Terri. COMMISSIONER EBERT: No attorney, though. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah, I know. I think I've lost the brownies from now on. And we left off before lunch with doing a couple pieces to the CCME, and now we shall move into finishing that piece of our document. Michele, I don't know if you wanted to make any introductory. If we just walk through by the pages, I think, it will be fine, unless you've got something you want to say. MS. MOSCA: Mr. Chairman, thank you. For the record, again, Michele Mosca with the comprehensive planning staff. There's several staff members that are here that are going to be addressing some of the policies and objectives, so I'll call them up as needed. Just wanted to mention that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Are they going to address them if we ask questions, or just out of the blue? MS. MOSCA: If you have questions. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. MS. MOSCA: You're welcome. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That will shorten the day. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Excuse me, Mark. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes, ma'am. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Do we need the attorney here? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's okay. She'll get here. That's okay. We're covered. I mean, we haven't got any legal questions right off the bat, so thank you. Okay. Let's start with the first five pages of the CCME. Pages 1 through 5, does anybody have any questions about Page 1 -- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I do, Mark. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Go ahead, sir. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: The -- and this is based on the other question. 2.1.6 disappears in this final draft. That's because at the last meeting we decided to keep it? MS. MOSCA: That's correct. It was retained, so it wouldn't -- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Versus the cross - through method we saw earlier. MS. MOSCA: That's correct. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: All right. Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody else on 1 through 5? Jeremy, I know you're here with the Conservancy's issues on the letter. If we hit the sections that pertain to something you want to speak, just raise your hand so I know, and we'll try to hit you at the same time. Thank you. COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: Just a question, Mark, if I could, on Objective 1.2. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Go ahead. COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: First of all, I guess put a period behind "system." But why did you delete the updating portion of that? MS. MOSCA: This is Objective 1.2? COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: On Page 1, right. COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: On Page 1. MS. MOSCA: This particular objective was reformatted, and the last sentence appears in the new policy. What we tried to do is reformat the elements so that the objectives read as objectives, which are more general, and then the implementing policies. So you'll see -- actually the last portion of that sentence appears as Policy -- new Policy 1.2.1. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Top of the next page. MS. MOSCA: Yes, top of Page 2. Mr. Chairman, if I may, as we go through this particular document, because the EAC did, in fact, review this document, I'd like to address some of their recommendations, if that's okay, or how do you want to handle -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's okay. We're not -- I mean, do you want ours first and then address theirs? If Page 43 of 84 1/26/2012 CCPC "Special EAR Amendments" meeting you want to address theirs first, go right ahead. Why don't you address theirs first -- MS. MOSCA: I just didn't want to pass the first five pages without addressing the EAC comments. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Why don't you address the EAC comments first so if we have comments on that when we go through each five pages we can respond. So do you have any EAC comments from the first five pages? MS. MOSCA: I do. On -- it's Objective 1.2. The EAC had requested that we insert language that includes "collect the highest practical quality data with data - quality indicators." And as you saw in the summary page when you went through that, staffs alternative recommendation was to follow the statutory language which was used "best - available data." But since that language, there's been House Bill 7207, and the new language is "relevant, appropriate, and professionally accepted data" to describe what type of data we use. So we'd like to go with the House Bill 7207 language. And I can put it up on the visualizer if that helps. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No. The house bill's a state statute, so I don't know why we wouldn't want to -- MS. MOSCA: That's right. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: We can't contradict state statute, so why don't we just use it? MS. MOSCA: Okay. Well, we would like to do that. That was our alternative recommendation. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Anything else on the first five pages? MS. MOSCA: I do have another item. This would be Objective 2. 1, which is -- which begins on Page 3 and ends on Page 4. And this is not directly related to this particular objective, but it was the EAC's recommendation that we address low- impact development. Staff felt as though it was out of the scope of the EAR, so we're proposing that it's a good idea that LIDS will be addressed as part of this -- the Watershed Management Plans, that if we want to include regulations for the LIDS, we either put it in the Land Development Code or we propose policies as part of the Watershed Management Plan. So we would not recommend doing that at this time but did want to address the EAC's comments. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. I don't have a problem with your suggestion. I think it's appropriate. I don't know if anybody else does. (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Do you have anything else on the first five pages? MS. ASHTON- CICKO: Michele, just for -- if I may, for the purposes of people watching this, could you explain what -- or say what the acronym LID is, please. MS. MOSCA: Yes. It's low - impact development. MS. ASHTON- CICKO: Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. So we're still on the first five pages. Is there anything else, Michele? MS. MOSCA: Yes, I do. Thank you. Objective 2.1 C, the EAC had recommended that we include, most likely at adoption hearings, the references to the new FEMA maps once accepted. So you'll see that 2.1 C, and that's on Page 4. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I'm -- so you're suggesting 2.1C on Page 4 needs language changes? MS. MOSCA: If you look at C, it has an effective date for the FEMA maps. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. MS. MOSCA: When the new maps are accepted, we would include that date. And that won't likely occur at transmittal, but I thought I would mention it because it was, in fact, a recommendation by the EAC to include it at the adoption hearings. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: If they're available by then. MS. MOSCA: That's correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah, I think that's fine. MS. MOSCA: Just so you're aware of it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Michele, is there anything else on the first five pages? MS. MOSCA: 2.1.7 is just a grammatical change, which is not large. Actually, 2.2.5, and that's on Page 5. The Planning Commission -- let me just go through this one. This has to do with the stormwater- management systems and the inspections. And the Planning Commission at the October workshop had requested that we insert "if feasible" after "require," and, again, that's on Page 5, Policy 2.2.5. Page 44 of 84 1/26/2012 CCPC "Special EAR Amendments" meeting And in the summary pages we've included revised language that was discussed by my administrator as well as my director. And so that information's in there as well. Hopefully that's been reviewed. And if you want, I could put that on the visualizer. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah. Your alternative language, if you could, because -- MS. MOSCA: Yep. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- this is the language that -- oh, no. It's a little different than what's in front of us, isn't it? MS. MOSCA: Right. And that was in the -- contained in the summary pages. And this is what staff would propose in addition to what the Planning Commission proposed last October. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I mean, it gets the same place. I don't see a problem with it. MS. MOSCA: Yes, it does, but I wanted to make sure you're aware of that as well. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Thank you. Michele, do you have anything else on the first five pages? MS. MOSCA: No, I don't. Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Are you going to do this every five pages? You had a lot. MS. MOSCA: I won't. I just want to make sure -- well, this was also reviewed by the EAC, and there were several elements that weren't. There was only a handful that were. So I wanted to make sure that the EAC recommendations are forwarded to you folks, you have an understanding of them. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I understand, and I appreciate it. I just wanted to make sure I understood the time frames that -- and I keep going back to you because I don't want to forget you. MS. MOSCA: Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I have some questions on Page 2. The Objective 1.3, a bunch is crossed out, and it starts, "Protect identified environmental systems through the Natural Resource Protection area" (NRPAs), and then "Rural Lands Stewardship programs." Well, I'm wondering why you added the Rural Land Stewardship programs when you didn't add all the other programs that we have that are protecting the environmental systems in Collier County. We have watershed plans, we have the rural fringe, which moves from sending areas to neutral areas. So why did we single out -- I mean, I understand NRPAs. The title itself dictates it. But why are we adding Rural Land Stewardship Areas? MS. MOSCA: The Objective 1.3 was actually reformatted. So we struck through a lot of language to structure it as an objective. And what's referred to in the following policies are just the NRPAs as well as Rural Land Stewardship. So you'll see those other programs, watershed - management plans and so forth, in other objectives and policies. So it's just following that format. So everything under Objective 1.3 will refer to either the Natural Resource Protection Area or Rural Land Stewardship program. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. But NRPAs I understand; I understand the addition. I guess the -- where it says, "Protect identified environmental systems, if you're going to add a system here like a NRPA, which is discussed in other sections, why don't we add them all? I mean, why are we -- why are we singling -- it's kind of like, you know, why are we singling out specific programs for specific objectives when we're going to -- we're protecting environmental systems through a number of different programs? MS. MOSCA: Right. And you'll see -- as you go through the CCME, you'll see other objectives that address the protection of environmental systems through means of, for example, Watershed Management Plans. So it's just really the structure of the CCME that this objective would have policies that just strictly relate to the RLSA and NRPA. I understand what you're saying, but you'll look throughout the document, and you'll see other references and the policies that correspond to that objective. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. COMMISSIONER EBERT: So we can't just cross out the Rural Land Stewardship program? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No. It's got to be -- I guess what Michele -- this is -- somewhere in this entire CCME all the program are referenced. This happens to be the location that the RLSA is referenced. The NRPA's being added in because it wasn't referenced in enough other places? MS. MOSCA: No, the -- actually -- again, if you look through Objective 1.3, it references the NRPA in Page 45 of 84 1/26/2012 CCPC "Special EAR Amendments" meeting there. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Oh, up above. MS. MOSCA: Right, the struck- through language. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yep. MS. MOSCA: So it --again, it was just simply reformatted. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. I had a question on Page 5. Oh, no. You just --you answered it because you just clarified everything. Okay. Any questions? Move to Pages 6 through 10. Anybody have any -- well, let's start with Michele. Michele, pages 6 through 10. MS. MOSCA: I'm looking at my notes. Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No hurry. I just want to make sure it was -- MS. MOSCA: I appreciate it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: It's in your ball game. MS. MOSCA: Most of the EAC changes, those were just grammatical for 6 through 10. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Anybody have anything on Pages 6 through 10? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And for once I don't. Pages 11 through 15? COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Mark? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Go ahead. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Page 15. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Page 15, Mr. Midney. Oh, well, let's let Michele go first in case she -- COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Yeah, let's go with her first. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Michele? MS. MOSCA: Okay. We're on 11 through 15? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. MS. MOSCA: I'm sorry, Mr. Chairman. I have to back up to Page 10. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Can't do that. MS. MOSCA: Okay. By putting me first, then I have to go through the notes and rush back. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Because you can do that normally when you ignore us talking and you -- I understand. MS. MOSCA: I don't do that. Okay. This would be Policy 4.1.3. And the EAC had recommended that we actually look at the actual agricultural pumpage. This isn't something that we do. We had recommended that we look at this at a later date, and it was outside the scope of the EAR. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. MS. MOSCA: Just wanted to provide that information. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Up through 15 now, Michele. MS. MOSCA: Okay. I might need the assistance of the county attorney. This is -- on Policy 6.1.2, and we'll also be referencing 6.2.5, as well as the Conservancy letter regarding native vegetation retention for the Lake Trafford/Camp Keais Strand area. And I've been informed by the County Attorney's Office that -- well, I'll let -- I'll go ahead and defer to Heidi. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. MS. ASHTON- CICKO: Well, I have two concerns. One is that, from what I read from the Conservancy, is they want to change the overlay map which is currently being proposed as part of the amendments to the Immokalee Area Master Plan. So it would amend the Immokalee Area Master Plan. We did not advertise today for any amendments to the Immokalee Area Master Plan, so I don't think that we can make that change to change the overlay today unless you want to readvertise it and hear it again. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Can you guide us to the specific language you're referring to that's in the policies in front of us right now? What policy are you talking about, 6.1.2? MS. ASHTON- CICKO: Well, it relates to the amendments that you heard as part of the Immokalee Area Master Plan where they wanted to designate the Lake Trafford/Camp Keais overlay as neutral or some other type of Page 46 of 84 1/26/2012 CCPC "Special EAR Amendments" meeting land for purposes of setting aside the preservation requirement. I don't believe that that's currently in your package today; however, I understand that you've received a letter from the Conservancy requesting that that be addressed as part of the GMP amendments. They're EAR based. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. But I think -- and the Conservancy's here. So, Jeremy, why don't you come up to the mike. But I thought their issue was that because the Immokalee Area Master Plan wasn't adopted and it addressed the issue and it referred -- and the CCME referred to that plan, and that plan -- the new -- the old plan refers back to the CCME, which refers back, so we're in a loop that doesn't get resolved and -- because the new plan wasn't adopted. That's my understanding, briefly, of what's going on. Jeremy, can you help us with that? MR. FRANTZ: Yeah. Jeremy Frantz with the Conservancy of Southwest Florida. Yeah, we're not proposing any amendments to the Immokalee Area Master Plan. Our understanding was that 6.2.5 was originally in the EAR -based amendments -- or was originally part of the EAR -based amendments and got taken out because it was being addressed in the Immokalee Area Master Plan. Now that that plan has been delayed, we think that it should be reincorporated back into the EAR. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: 6.2.5? MR. FRANTZ: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: 6.2.5's not being taken out, is it? MS. MOSCA: No, it's not. Six -- and those were the two references I've provided. 6.2.5 -- COMMISSIONER EBERT: What page? MS. MOSCA: It's on Page 18. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah, we skipped ahead, but I understand why. MS. MOSCA: Right. Because we started out with 6.1.2 -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Correct. MS. MOSCA: -- that actually has the preservation standards contained within that policy. So 6.2 -- 6.2.5 on 18, Page 18, you'd see the text in the first line refers to the Lake Trafford/Camp Keais Strand system, and then it refers you back to Policy 6.1.2 of that element, which are the preservation standards. Currently there are no standards in place for the Lake Trafford/Camp Keais Strand, and that's been the issue. The boundary which was delineated on the new map, on the new FLUM, is on the visualizer. That went through the various committees, and the recommendation was made by both the CRA for Immokalee as well as this body that we pull it out of Immokalee Area Master Plan and we provide for it within a 2011 amendment cycle. 2011 has come and gone, so what we're seeking is some sort of direction. So we have all of the data and analysis available for the actual boundary, but what we don't have is a finn commitment for the preservation standard. My understanding, after talking with staff and staff met with the Conservancy, that they looked at a neutral lands preservation standard, which is 60 percent or 45 percent total site. What we'd like to do is sort of get some direction from this body where we should go. Should it remain as part of the EAR, or should we pull it out for our 2012 cycle, or whatever's the consensus of this board? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And, Paul, this may be the subject you were going to talk about, so you want to talk first? COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Yeah. It's very near and dear to my heart. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: I mean, the Immokalee Area Master Plan is dead. We don't know if it's ever going to come back, and I can't see putting this off for another 10 years, or potentially for another 10 years and just leaving it, because I think it's important enough that all we're really asking is that staff do -- finish doing their data and analysis and come back with a recommendation. So it doesn't seem as though we're really -- but I don't know, Heidi. MS. ASHTON- CICKO: Well, like I said, I heard two parts to it. I heard one being we're going to amend the overlay, and that is an overlay that is part of the Immokalee Area Master Plan. So to the extent that change is desirous for today, I don't believe that proper public notice has been made. So that can go on a separate track for amendment separate and apart from the Immokalee Area Master Plan overhaul amendment if you would like because, remember, 7207 removed the requirement that you can't -- you can just bring a GMP amendment at any time. And I don't recall whether that would be considered an area of critical state concern. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Not right now. Page 47 of 84 1/26/2012 CCPC "Special EAR Amendments" meeting MS. ASHTON- CICKO: If it's not, then it can go on an even faster track. It's the shorter process for that amendment. Now, the second question is, can you amend the preservation requirements that apply to the existing overlay as it exists today? And my concern with that -- I think that we probably have sufficient legal notice the way we've advertised that the -- the conservation master -- the element that would -- CCME element has been properly advertised. So I think that you probably could pull that in, but I have a concern over the public vetting of the impacts that that would have to property owners so that they'd have the ability to come forward and provide their comments. I don't know if that public- vetting part was completed or not as part of the Immokalee Area Master Plan amendments. MS. MOSCA: And I'd have to defer to our other staff. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I hate to ask this, but I think for the benefit of a lot of us, we need to get our arms around what it is we're doing here first. I understand you all have lived this for a longer period than we have at the intensity that you have, including the Conservancy. Let's get a handle on the issue. We have an Immokalee Area Master Plan that has the Lake Trafford area in it right now. Because the Immokalee Area Master Plan did not get passed with the revisions, how does the current Immokalee Area Master Plan treat that Lake Trafford overlay? MS. ASHTON- CICKO: With -- the overlay is a little bit smaller because, my understanding, it was expanding. I don't know -- MS. MOSCA: It's on the visualizer. MS. ASHTON-CICKO: --how much. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Oh, you have it on the visualizer? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: This is the old one? This is the existing one, right. MR. SCHMIDT: It is. MS. ASHTON- CICKO: That's the existing or the new? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No. She just -- he just switched it. This is the existing. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: The old. MS. ASHTON- CICKO: Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The old. MS. ASHTON- CICKO: And how it treats the preservation I'd have to defer to staff. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: How does it treat the -- here's what I'm trying to find out. Let's forget the Immokalee Area Master Plan; it didn't get adopted. It's off the table for now. So what do we need to do to protect this area if it is not already protected? So my question is, how is it protected currently? COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: The law is silent on what it's -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, that's what I'm trying to get them to say. And then if it is, then what we need to look for is an interim solution so that the law isn't silent. And then whenever these other plans get adopted or changed or modified, they can address it at that point. But I want to make sure we're covered in the interim first. That's the first step. How is the Immokalee Area Master Plan -- how is any master -- how is the Lake Trafford Overlay protected right now? MR. LENBERGER: For the record, Stephen Lenberger, land development services department. Right now the preservation requirement for the overlay is not clear. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. What do we have to do to make it clear? MR. LENBERGER: We either set some standards or preservation requirement in the interim and then look in the future amendment to address it more fully and analyze data. But right now it's open. It's been -- it's been open for a while now and not been addressed. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. So, basically, if we were to take the section of Policy 6.2.5 where it does include a reference to Lake Trafford, or the Strand, but it refers it to Policy 6.1.2, but in 6.1.2 there's no direct correlation between the reference in 6.2.5 to Lake Trafford, but included -- say in 6.2.5 we included a reference to what part of 6.1.2 applies to Lake Trafford, that would solve the problem for the interim. MR. LENBERGER: And during the hnmokalee Area Master Plan -- and Carolina can correct me if I'm Page 48 of 84 1/26/2012 CCPC "Special EAR Amendments" meeting wrong -- staff recommended the preservation requirements for the neutral lands within the fringe for the Lake Trafford/Camp Keais Strand wetlands as a middle position, and that was our position during the master plan. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Well, the idea or the discussion that Heidi started with where we can't take the overlay out of the Immokalee Area Master Plan, now, what's that? Because right now all I'm hearing is we have a specific area defined. We're telling you how to apply it, but then I heard there was a discussion to take it out of the Immokalee Area Master Plan which would then reduce the Immokalee Area Master Plan by a certain acreage because it puts it in another part of our element? MR. LENBERGER: No. It remains in the Immokalee Area Master Plan. The preservation requirement is for that portion in that overlay within the Immokalee Area Master Plan. Right now the boundary of the overlay -- of the wetland is different than what staff has proposed during the Immokalee Area Master Plan amendment. That will have to be corrected or at least proposed to be corrected at a future date. And staff has provided data and analysis for that, as you saw when you reviewed the Immokalee Area Master Plan. But right now the preservation requirement is open. We -- staff doesn't know what to apply. I don't know if you want to apply the middle standard like we did for the Immokalee Area Master Plan, the neutral in the interim, and have staff come back in a subsequent cycle with more data and analysis. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And, Jeremy, what's the Conservancy's position? Then I want to ask Paul his, and then we'll try to come to some conclusion on it. MR. FRANTZ: In the past, my understanding is that we supported staffs recommendation for the neutral -- CHAMMAN STRAIN: Okay. MR. FRANTZ: -- designation. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. Paul? COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Well, we have a major problem with this because this boundary is wrong. The reason that they changed the boundary is because it wasn't actually reflective of the actual wetlands on the ground. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah, I remember all that. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: And that revision came, like, six years ago. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But I don't think, based on Heidi's comments, we can change the overlay at this meeting. Is that a fair statement, Heidi, or not? MS. ASHTON- CICKO: No. My opinion is that you can't change any to the Immokalee Area Master Plan text or maps at this meeting. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. So the only thing we can do at this meeting, Paul, to be effective is we have to accept it like it's shown on that top page, but it's not protected law based on staffs comments. So staffs recommending it go neutral. Conservancy's recommending it go neutral during the interim period, and that we accept that neutral reference as the way to go now, and then subject to whatever changes occur in the future with more data and analysis and implementation and modifications to the overlay. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Yeah. And I think that we probably need to, if we can, direct staff to finish their data and analysis, which would include what are the impacts to the landowners, to their property values and, you know, everything that's involved in making a designation, so that everybody feels as though they have a chance to have their issues vetted in public. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well --and I think the recommendation could be to just consider --continue the data - and - analysis process for the Lake Trafford/Camp Keais Strand overlay to modify that overlay as needed in the future regardless of the outcome of the Immokalee Area Master Plan. Is that a fair way to approach it, Heidi? MS. ASHTON-CICKO: I think so. Let me just put a little bit on the record, though. I mean, my hope --that if we add the neutral lands is how you're going to apply it to the overlay through this CCME amendment process that we're here about today, that essentially what we would be doing is short- circuiting going through official interpretation that then says what staff believes the correct native - vegetation requirement would be. I'm assuming that staff thinks it's 60, and that's probably how they would apply it if they had an 01, and that's why we're not putting it in here. Page 49 of 84 1/26/2012 CCPC "Special EAR Amendments" meeting COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: I agree with your point. I think that the staff hasn't done that. The 45 was just -- the 60/45 was just something that was, like, in the meeting sort of like a compromise that they came up. It's not really been studied and it's not been -- I think the staff is interested and they have done a lot of analysis. They would like to refine it. MS. ASHTON- CICKO: Yeah. I think that if staff believes that their opinion -- the GMP director's opinion would be that the 60 percent would apply, then we sort of short- circuit the OI and we haven't really impacted anybody's rights from going from 45 to 60. You know, staff thinks it's 60, and now we're just codifying what staff thinks it is. And if it wants to be reevaluated in the future as to going to 90, then at that time we can evaluate whether county has to provide any types of incentives to reach that point. I would be in favor, instead of just jumping to 60 and just saying, well, you know, we've got to do something, so let's just do that, to direct staff to complete their study and to actually come up with a more exact, based on data and analysis, and either bring it back -- I don't know if it could be done as an LDC or as a Growth Management Plan amendment, but to bring it back as a separate thing and to give it sort of the attention that it needs to be done right. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I think, Paul, everybody's on that page except for the time it takes to do the study, which could be extensive, because it's money driven, expert driven, consultant driven. We could be sitting out there with a lack of coverage for any kind of preservation for -- and for a long period of time. I think what's being suggested is no different than what you said the ultimate outcome would be. But for the interim, at least use the neutrals as a beginning point so that it's not uncovered. Right now it's uncovered. There is no preservation. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: And then my question is, well, when would it be coming back? How long -- because my understanding from environmental staff was that they had done most of the data and study, that it wouldn't be that much more staff time. MS. VALERA: Carolina Valera, principal planner, been handling the Immokalee Area Master Plan. I think there's two issues, and one, of course, is what we're talking about about, you know, what criteria to use. And staff needs to go to the Board of County Commissioners and seek direction, and we wanted your recommendation, because we cannot do a study of what the percentage will be if we don't have direction to do that study. So we're kind of in limbo right now of, you know, what to do and when to do it, so that's part of it. And, of course, that -- the other issue was of just a housekeeping matter, which is the new delineation of the wetland, of the overlay, so -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I would suggest, Paul, that we use the neutral as a reference in 6.2.5 for now subject to recommending that staff proceed with the overlay data and analysis as quickly as -- and -- as possible based on Board of County Commissioners' direction and then incorporate the new values whenever they become available. MS. VALERA. Perhaps bring at adoption, at the adoption portion of the -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: If you have it done by then. Does that work for the Conservancy as well? MR. FRANTZ: Yeah, that's acceptable. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Thank you, Jeremy. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: The adoption, though, is in, what, six months. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I don't know when the adoption is. MS. ASHTON- CICKO: It could be shorter than that. It's a -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Does anybody know when the adoption is? MR. BOSI: The adoption by the BCC is October, by -- for the CCPC is August. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Is there any chance that something like that could be done that quickly? MR. LENBERGER: Staff has done some preliminary analysis, and we looked at the parcels, but right now I'm coordinating with the County Attorney's Office on legal issues. So how long that could take I couldn't say for sure. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And would it depend on board direction as well? MR. LENBERGER: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. And I think, unfortunately, Paul, it wraps it up into the whole discussion of the Immokalee Area Master Plan and a lot of other things that are happening with the board right now. I don't know if anybody can pinpoint a time. I'm trying to get it to a point where at least there's something covered for now. Page 50 of 84 1/26/2012 CCPC "Special EAR Amendments" meeting COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Yeah. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And whenever it can happen as expeditiously as possible, it happens. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: And from our board, if we could encourage the BCC to direct county staff to start work on that, you know, maybe they will be able to get it done in time. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And that work could be done independent of the Immokalee Area Master Plan? MR. LENBERGER: Yes, it could. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Oh, okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. MR. LENBERGER: Also too, though, if we have this data and analysis, we would also have to bring it to the Immokalee CRA. The board has given us direction in the past that we coordinate efforts, changes that affect Immokalee to the Immokalee CRA. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Oh, and I think that would be beneficial. That would get it out to the community. I don't think there's anything wrong with that, so -- now -- MS. ASHTON- CICKO: Mr. Chair, if you're going to go with the interim measure of the 60 percent that we've talked about today, you -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: We're going to go with the reference to the word "neutral," so actually it will be -- Policy 6.1.213, it will apply to Lake Trafford/Camp Keais Strand. MS. ASHTON- CICKO: Okay. And if you're going to go that route but you want further analysis, then, you know, separate from your vote on this transmittal, I would make another recommendation that that be pursued and that any incentives that would be needed to support a higher native preservation standard be evaluated at that time -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And I think that's -- MS. ASHTON- CICKO: -- to push it forward. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- the direction this board's going. Is anybody in disagreement with that direction? COMMISSIONER EBERT: Nope. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. So basically staff would insert in Policy 6.2.5 where it references that it -- the Lake Trafford/Camp Keais Strand goes back to the vegetation policies is 6.1.2; it's specific. 6.1.2, and it would be B, neutral lands. MR. LENBERGER: Neutral. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Then in a separate note, this board is recommending to the Board of County Commissioners as expeditiously as possible to proceed with a data and analysis and establishment of the correct overlay boundaries and percentages with incentives as required for the Lake Trafford/Camp Keais Overstrand (sic) -- I mean, yeah, overlay. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: And how could it come back to us then? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, it would come back to us by adoption if it's done by then, or if it's done separately, it has to be -- it's part of the GMP. We would see it under normal -- our normal cycle of review. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: When's the next GMP? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, it can be done at any time based on the new house bill. So whenever they're ready, they can schedule it, and they can do it. We can hear it on a regular meeting, in fact, so -- well, it would be a special part of a regular meeting. MS. ASHTON- CICKO: Yeah. And you don't need to attach it to a cycle. You can just ask that it be run separately, because our cycles currently go every April. You don't want to be -- well, I guess April's coming up. Maybe that's quick enough, but you might even get there faster. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Does that work? COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Sounds like we've tied together all the loose ends. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Sounds like it, too. Staff see anything that we need to address that we didn't on this issue? David's up there now. He's always got something. Okay. Okay. Michele, we were actually working through Pages 11 through 15. Did you have anything in those specific pages left that we haven't killed? MS. MOSCA: No. I'm all set with 11 through 15. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Anybody on the board have anything from 11 through 15? Page 51 of 84 1/26/2012 CCPC "Special EAR Amendments" meeting (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I have on Page 15 a parenthetical up on top, 14. Can you refresh my memory as to why we're doing this? And it, basically, if -- two acres or less is exempt from this requirement of native - vegetation retention? MS. MOSCA: Okay. This is -- oh, No. 14, I'm sorry, on Page 15. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. MS. MOSCA: The board had directed staff to look at industrial parcels and to exempt them from the native - vegetation requirements, and that's what -- staff did the analysis and had determined that those parcels two acres or less would be exempt from the native- vegetation requirements. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Do you know what spurred this request? I mean, just out of the blue they were sitting there one day and said, you know, let's just forget all these two acres or less? I mean, what brought it on; do we know? MR. LENBERGER: Stephen Lenberger, land development services department. This came up when we were at the board hearing -- the question came up about compatibility preserves as to certain uses and, particularly, they were speaking about industrial parcels. And Commissioner Henning was talking about an automotive junkyard with a preserve. And they asked staff to take a look at exempting industrial parcels where they do some sort of analysis to see -- address the compatibility issue of the zoning versus the preserve. I did a little bit of analysis. I had given it to comprehensive planning staff. And during the last LDC amendment cycle, as you may well remember, we looked at off -site preservation requirements, and we kind of looked at different uses in preserves, and to allow for off -site native vegetation and retention as opposed to on site. We pretty much said under two acres for industrial and commercial properties that you can go off site, recognizing that smaller parcels are harder to maintain. They're harder to maintain because the habitat's been fragmented. It's small. It has a lot of edge. It has a lot of surrounding impacts. And so when staff did an analysis -- and I went through all the different zoning, and most of the industrial areas have already been platted. Most of them have subdivided into very small parcels. There are a few exceptions. For example, the Immokalee airport has larger parcels as well as CitiGate; they also have some larger parcels down there. By and large, most of the industrial areas have been built out and very small. So I made a recommendation that we go with the 2 -acre preservation requirement and less than the two acres as being exempt for industrial. As a limited area within the county, it's not going to affect a lot, and that was my recommendation. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. So let's take CityGate, for example. It's 300 - and -some odd acres. They had to set aside a certain amount of native vegetation for their overall application for their overall PUD. What this would provide is that if they had a 2- acre -or -less parcel with -- inside their PUD that they were selling to someone else, they wouldn't -- there wouldn't need to be additional native vegetation within that parcel itself because the requirement was met by the overall PUD? MR. LENBERGER: Well, the requirement for a subdivision would be met by the entire subdivision, not by an individual parcel, so -- and that's normally decided in a -- some sort of a zoning action, whether it be a conditional use or a PUD, as you know. But if -- there would have been no -- some properties, like the CityGate PUD -- and I went -- I don't have -- oh, I have some -- I have some of the information here in front of me. Some of the parcels or the PUDs are less clear on where that preservation requirement is. And if I remember correctly, CityGate was one of those, also was the Ford test track. It's very clear on how much and where the preservation requirement is. So with those -- for CityGate, for example, we would have to follow the existing PUD. It has certain criteria laid out in it, but it really doesn't identify the exact location of most of the preserve area. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So -- and theoretically, if the exact location wasn't identified for the overall preservation required by, let's say, the full 300 acres, if they took all the 300 acres up and made 150 parcels, then they would not be required to have any native preservation by this paragraph; is that -- MR. LENBERGER: No. The preservation requirement would be based on the entire PUD, and if it were subdivided, the preserve would be identified at the time the property was subdivided. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. But what you just said about CityGate is that it wasn't clearly shown on the Page 52 of 84 1/26/2012 CCPC "Special EAR Amendments" meeting plan. So how would you -- MR. LENBERGER: Right. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- tell any particular 2 -acre parcel that they're the ones that have to provide for this if this language provides that they don't? MR. LENBERGER: Most of CityGate is not platted. It's -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. So they've still got to come in for subdivision? MR. LENBERGER: Right. Most of it has not been platted. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. So that -- does that mean for others you can accumulate to the ones that aren't platted? MR. LENBERGER: I don't quite understand the way you worded that question. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I'm just concerned that there's a loophole being -- MR. LENBERGER: No, the loophole -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- opened up that we don't -- MR. LENBERGER: -- should have been covered by the end of this and says that the exemptions shall not apply to the overall native - vegetation- retention requirement for a PUD or subdivision used to create these parcels unless the overall native - vegetation- retention requirement for the PUD or subdivision is two acres or less. And that was trying to close the gap so that there wouldn't be a loophole. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. Well, that's the piece I was worried about. MR. LENBERGER: Excuse me? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's what I was worried about that there's -- if someone really was thinking ahead when they laid out their subdivision and cut all the parcels out of it and didn't identify exactly where the native preservation goes, then come back in and say, well, this language exempts me from it, you walk away with nothing then. MR. LENBERGER: But that last sentence covers that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. As long as you're comfortable with it, I'll accept that. Thank you, Steve. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Mark, a question. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Go ahead. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Steve, wouldn't that really apply to -- I mean, I'm trying to do the math -- 15 percent. These are large tracts of land to hit the two acres, aren't they? I mean, it's -- if I'm reading it right and it talks about -- MR. LENBERGER: Are you talking about CityGate, or are you talking about in general? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Just in this requirement. MR. LENBERGER: Okay. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I mean, it would be, obviously, greater than five acres at 10 percent; 10 percent would be 20 acres. So this is 15; it would be a little bit less than that. So these -- that would be a large piece of land -- MR. LENBERGER: Fairly large. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: -- for this exemption. I mean, this exemption would kick in on a large piece of land. MR. LENBERGER: It would be roughly 15 percent preservation requirement on your larger parcels. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Right. It would be two acres. MR. LENBERGER: So if 15 percent is a 2 -acre requirement, you can do the math and you can see that you're looking at at least a 10 -acre parcel. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Plus, yeah. MR. LENBERGER: But most of the -- like I said, most of the industrial areas -- and I went through each one of them. I looked at the preserves for the larger ones and I looked at all the parcels. Most of them have been subdivided into very small parcels, certainly less than 10 acres. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And if you had one of those small lots, we were requiring people to set aside a preserve area? MR. LENBERGER: Currently, yes, if one was not established at the time the property was platted. And you have to remember that a lot of these older subdivisions, you know, they didn't set a preserve way back when, so staff Page 53 of 84 1/26/2012 CCPC "Special EAR Amendments" meeting has to look at each and every lot as they come in. And, literally, the preserves are postage -size stamp (sic) preserves. It's just -- in the compatibility issue addressed -- asked by the commission is very valid. And the -- for example, the automotive junkyard we looked at the preserve, and that parcel was, like, .8 acres. It's very small. It's just -- it doesn't really function that well. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. This is a good thing. COMMISSIONER EBERT: It's a good thing. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Anybody else through Page 15? If not, let's go through Page 20. Michele? MS. MOSCA: I don't have anything through Page 20. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Does anybody on the Planning Commission have anything through Page 20? (No response.) CHAIlZMAN STRAIN: Okay. How about -- Jeremy, you okay? Yep, unless you're getting up, we're through Page 20. MR. FRANTZ: Oh, I'm sorry. I think I have a different set of policies than you. My pages are not lining up. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. That would be through Page -- through Goal -- up to Goal 7. MR. FRANTZ: No, not yet. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Thank you. We'll start on Page 21 with Goal 7. That will take us through Page 25, which is to Goal 10. Anybody have any questions? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Michele, do you have any comments? MS. MOSCA: I don't, I don't. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. And for a change, I don't. Goal 10 through -- might as well go through the end, through Page 31. So from Goal 10 on for the rest of the project. Anybody -- Michele, you've got yours first, then we'll go to the commission, then Jeremy. MS. MOSCA: Okay. The -- Policy 10.1 point -- it's .5, or new Policy -- new policy, renumbered Policy 10.1.6. And Stephen Lenberger is going to address this particular policy and the following policy, Policy 10.1.7, and that's on Page 26. And this is the same policy, the first one; 10. 1.6 is the same policy that the Conservancy has some concerns about. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. MR. LENBERGER: For the record, Stephen Lenberger, land development services department. I had spoken to Jeremy about this during the lunch break as well. The EAC wanted to insert public benefit in -- and I'm going to defer to the new numbers -- Policy 10.1.7. And subsequent to that staff met with management, and we discussed these policies, and we decided that we'd like to talk to you about it because we have difficulty implementing these. If you'll look at the policy, just stand back a minute, 10. 1.6 starts off with a statement that marinas and all other water - dependent and water - related uses shall conform to all applicable regulations regarding development in marine wetlands. Okay. They all do anyway, but it's there. The second part of that policy deals with public use, general public use. The following -- the policy following that, the 10.1.7, deals with the fiscal analysis for public benefit and financial feasibility. And I guess the first questions we would ask is the first policy, the way it was originally written, it would require water - dependent and water - related uses to provide for general public use if they destroy marine wetlands, and water - dependent and water - related uses, they're listed on Policy 10.1.1, and it includes residential development, marinas; and they're all listed there on the page. So the question is, at what point do you want to require a private facility to be open to the public? That's just one question. Another is, if you look at this, it talks about destruction of marine wetlands. I mean, we've talked about this among staff, and we get all different kinds of answers, what's destruction of marine wetlands? I mean, is that impacting a branch of a mangrove tree? Is that removing one mangrove to -- so your boardwalk can transverse through it so you can access your dock? Is that building a boardwalk through mangroves to enjoy them such as at Clam Pass? Page 54 of 84 1/26/2012 CCPC "Special EAR Amendments" meeting You know, are these destroying the mangroves, or are these utilizing the systems? You know, you can argue both ways, you know. It's not -- what does that mean, "destroy marine wetlands "? You know -- and then how does mitigation come into a factor in that you know, to balance -- when you go through your state and federal permitting, you know, you go through a public- interest test when you impact these systems, and you have to mitigate for their losses. So then you can argue, well, you're not destroying the system. You're mitigating for your impacts. You know, you can -- so you can see kind of a dilemma here. And then you look -- and also in 10. 1.6 it talks about general public use. I mean, what exactly do we mean general public use? If you have a marina, for example, you know, it means you can buy fuel there? Does it mean you have to have a wet slip or dry slip to allocate it to public use? Does it mean you can use your, you know, bathroom facilities? You can park in your parking lot, use that? I mean, what exactly does that mean? So these are just, you know, some of the problems we have in implementing these policies. And we'd like to get your, kind of, direction on them. You know, we can't implement them -- implement these as they're written, so we, kind of, need your direction here. The second policy, the 10.1.7, is pretty interesting. It says, "All new marinas," and I'll read the new language -- "and water - dependent and water - related uses that propose to destroy marine wetlands, the applicant shall be required to perform a fiscal analysis in order to demonstrate" -- and we crossed out "public benefit" -- "and financial feasibility of the proposed development." Well, public benefit, you know, you're going to do a fiscal analysis to demonstrate public benefit. Well, just by the fact that you have your facility, you're taking demand off public facilities and, therefore, you have a public benefit. I mean, there isn't much to demonstrate there. Financial feasibility, is that to completion of construction of the project, or is that in perpetuity? You know, I mean -- and how would you demonstrate "in perpetuity "? You know, these are all questions we have. We have difficulty implementing these policies. We'd kind of like to get your thoughts on it and maybe your direction. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, Steve, first off, the GMP doesn't implement the policy. The LDC does. So I would have assumed that the implementation of the language questions you just brought up would have been addressed in the LDC with more specific language. Apparently you're saying it's not been. MR. LENBERGER: Correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. But wouldn't that be the right vehicle in which to implement the policy? MR. LENBERGER: It would be. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. So then I guess it comes down to how ambiguous can we get with policies such as one -- 10. 1.6 so that implementation can occur in the Land Development Code. And you pointed out some things that are concerning to you that have been, apparently, existing language and maybe for a long period of time. Have you any examples as to projects that have been controversial or created problems for the county because this language has not been implemented properly in the LDC? MR. LENBERGER: I haven't had to deal with these policies specifically, but I -- we did talk with our department director and, you know, they have -- you, obviously, have residential development creating, you know -- well, just think of all the docks you permitted, multifamily docks that impacted some mangroves. We didn't allow public use of the condominium, for example, because they impacted some mangroves, but then did they really destroy the mangroves? This is getting back to that other argument. That's just for an example. And you've seen many docks for multifamily, I'm sure you have, for extensions. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You're asking us for language that would make this a little more tolerable, I guess, for staff to use. Generally that's what staff brings to us to evaluate. It seems that the situation's reversed. And I certainly don't mind coming up with language, but I wasn't prepared to provide it to you today. I reviewed the language that I thought someone provided to us in Policy 10. 1.6 as acceptable language to staff as a recommendation to move forward, and then we evaluate that. And I had circled this one in Policy 10. 1.2 with questions, some of which may be similar to yours. Did you prepare Policy 10. 1.6 changes? It used to be Policy 10.1.5. Is the strikethrough and underline your language? MR. LENBERGER: Right. Well, there was quite a bit of wordsmithing, and Michele helped there. She was Page 55 of 84 1/26/2012 CCPC "Special EAR Amendments" meeting trying to clarify a lot of these. I'm sure I had crafted some of it, but most of it was wordsmithing. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, why didn't you craft it in a manner that works for you? I mean, why didn't you craft language that you would tell us, this is -- clears up the problems that you previously had? MR. LENBERGER: You know, the whole issue surfaced again when the EAC last heard this, and they talked about the public benefit. And during the first hearing for the EAC and the Planning Commission, the board -- we removed "public benefit," the EAC brought it up again, and it caused staff to think more about this. And, you know, it's -- we can -- I can -- staff could go through this and give you ideas on what you want. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: We don't want anything. You're telling us you can't -- you don't like the language so -- wait a minute. Don't put it on our back. You guys are supposed to come to us with language that you want us to recommend and consider for approval. I'm asking you, what is that language? And now you're telling me what's been presented to us isn't that language. MR. LENBERGER: Right. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. MR. LENBERGER: We're rethinking it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So can you come back with us with something that is? MR. LENBERGER: Well, we're wondering if we should even have these policies. COMMISSIONER AHERN: That was my question. COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: That's what I was going to say. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Then maybe that's the way we start is that we strike the policies altogether, but that's not the way it was presented in this package or in the previous meetings. MR. LENBERGER: I understand. I'm not putting it on as a topic. I'm just having this discussion. I think it's a good discussion. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, no. I just want to make sure we understand where you're going, because I thought you -all wanted to change the policy by the mere fact it was given to us. And if you want to eliminate the policy, I would have suggested you started with a complete strikethrough. MR. BOSI: And from the beginning the understanding was we needed the -- we were having trouble implementing what that meant, the public benefit of making these decisions. So we felt that the elimination of those components within these policies would eliminate us having to make those arbitrary determinations. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But at the same time, what does it eliminate with implementation language in the LDC in which we have to use to review water - dependent uses like docks and things like that? Because we don't -- right now we're finding a lot of problems with our dock - implementation language. We have constant discussions about all kinds of things that we feel should have been there that aren't. I don't want to cut this out and then, in return, the corresponding section of the LDC gets dropped and find out we have less issues -- more problems and less ability to understand what they are. Phil? COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: But didn't you say, Paul (sic), that there were no LDC requirements -- MR. LENBERGER: There's no -- COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: -- to in fact -- MR. LENBERGER: Not specific to these policies, correct. COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: Okay. I see no benefit in having policies that, number one, you have no implementation language, okay, and, two, you don't even quite understand the benefit yourself. I mean, I would be all in favor of eliminating these policies, both of them. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I'm not going to jump into it that fast. I didn't review this under the idea that it was going to be completely eliminated, so I'd want to see a fallback position on what's left. And I -- really, myself, I need to sit down and take a look at these policies as elimination rather than a change. And I understand -- thank you for your frank explanation as to why it's bothersome for you, and I understand why it is. But this whole document, the GMP is an ambiguous policy - riddled document that has all kinds of ambiguous statements in it that are simply supposed to be cleared up through implementation. And the fact this one hasn't been or isn't sufficiently is where the concern is. And I think that's David Week's fault. Oh, there he is standing up there. David, I love it when you jump in. MR. WEEKS: Yeah. For the record, David Weeks in comprehensive planning section. Page 56 of 84 1/26/2012 CCPC "Special EAR Amendments" meeting Commissioners, I think it's -- Steve touched on the issues. I want to add -- go a little bit further on one of those. And I think it's clear the direction of this Planning Commission is you guys, staff, go back and bring us back something to vote on, not throw a bunch of questions at us. The notion of providing for general public use for these facilities is problematic for private facilities or private developments. Imagine a private gated community that has a marina or has a multifamily -- has a multi -slip docking facility. And if we're implementing this policy to say that that private development has to be available for general public use, you know, Steve's already touched on, does that mean one boat slip, does it mean one parking spot -- space, does it mean use of their restroom facilities? I mean, you could go on and on with what potentially that means, but at some point it means letting the public have access to a private facility. And then that raises the question, what about liability? You know, this is my private development, but now I've got to let the public come in. Now I've invited more liability as well. And then you get into the whole -- if you cross that threshold, then we do get into that, what is the magnitude? Is it one slip? Is it all the slips? And is it fuel sales? Is it -- all the details of just how far that goes or how narrow it's constricted. But one thing I want to emphasize here is we're talking about what, from my perspective, is an extreme, and that is by saying allowing for a development that destroys marine wetlands. Not impacts; destroys. And whatever definition we come up with, to me that suggests an impact to the greatest extreme. And my thought would be that that marine wetland or that part of it that is destroyed no longer has function, as opposed to it being impacted by trimming a mangrove or cutting down a path of mangroves, but still having the same elevation, still having the tidal influence underneath, say, that boardwalk that might be built. So if we're going to the extreme of saying you destroy, the marine wetland in this area is gone, then maybe it is appropriate to go to the opposite extreme and say you will allow public use of this facility; whereas, somewhere in the middle, if you're impacting it, well, okay, impact, but not destroying it, so you've affected the functionality but you've not stopped it, then the county does not go to that extreme and say you must allow the public some use to whatever degree that is, but you must allow the public to have some use. That's the perspective I have. And I know at some of the staff discussions we've seen that distinction between destroy versus impact. And if you go to one extreme of destroy, then, yes, maybe it is appropriate to go to the other extreme and say you've got to open up your doors to whatever -- you know, however wide that doors' open to allow the public to come in and use your facilities. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Melissa? Oh, and then Brad. COMMISSIONER AHERN: Well, my first question would be, there's already processes in place through the state that -- that handle if you're impacting wetlands or -- and mitigation as well. And then I think it goes back to the -- what right does the county have to -- I mean, you're effectively taking private property by forcing public use. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well -- and then -- she touches on a subject that I was involved with for -- a while back, and that is some submerged land leases from the State of Florida. It wasn't possible to get a submerged land lease at the time without having a commitment to a certain portion or a certain percentage to public use. So if you had 50 slips, 10 had to be for public use or some number like that and such. So I think the state does address in the fact that you have to get a submerged land lease for most of your marine operations so -- those that aren't owned wetland bottoms, the public participation side of it, and that may be a consideration in how you write any future language for these two policies, because it may be partially, if not all, addressed in that manner. Because if they own the bottom lands, the state doesn't touch it. But if it's a submerged land use, the state does require -- at least they used to -- public participation. So, Brad? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Yeah. I mean, this objective is really controlling the use of the land on the shoreline and essentially giving preference to water - related uses, which -- over land -based water uses. So what would the water - related dependent uses be? Would that be like a fishing area or a dock system for fishing boats, and then the other one would be the marina for the private club? MR. WEEKS: Steve, I'm going to jump in in part. Policy 10.1.1 lists water - dependent and water - related uses. I wouldn't say it's all inclusive, but it does list them and give the priority for them. The statutory definition of water - dependent use is rather narrow and limited. It would include marinas, it includes water taxis, it includes hydroelectric power facilities, and I think there's maybe a couple of more. Page 57 of 84 1/26/2012 CCPC "Special EAR Amendments" meeting In our reading of the statutory definition of water dependent, at least in our -- so far in our local experience marina is the only use that falls under Collier County. We don't have hydroelectric power, we don't have water taxis, and those other few that were listed in the statutes. Water dependent also is defined in statutes, and I forget what that is exactly now, but it certainly is more broad. And then again in that list in Policy 10.1.1 you see a variety of land uses that, here at our local Growth Management Plan, we have identified as either water dependent or water related, and then the priority for how we should treat the approval of them. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. So a marina, private or public, is a water dependent, which gets the highest priority? MR. WEEKS: Yes. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And then -- okay. Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: David, have you guys ever thought of looking at 10.1.6, 10.1.7 as a means to create or incentivize the participation by the public in those elements under 10.1.1? So in 10.1.1 you list all the certain water - dependent and water - related facilities and uses. In 10.1.6. and 10. 1.7 you want to make them available to the public to some extent, but you don't provide an incentivization to do it. You provide a demand to do it. Why don't we look at incentivizing -- ways to incentivize it to be done so that when -- people coming in, they want to give a percentage up to the public because it has a certain benefit to them. Maybe that would be the way to turn the language around to something beneficial, kind of like we've done in other categories in these documents. I mean -- MR. WEEKS: That's a thought. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- it might be easier than demanding something of the private sector because -- and I certainly agree with the staff position on 10.1.7. I don't know how you would do a fiscal analysis on the public benefit. I think the fiscal analysis is done by private individuals on their private properties. So -- then the fact that it was covered in 10. 1.6 still gets you into the public process. But if we're going to change all this language and we're going to -- and we have a list of what we consider the uses we're prioritizing, why don't we just incentivize those as we incentivized other items we want as a priority? And leave that as the way to get to the public - benefit use. It's just a suggestion, but I think that this -- these two policies, based on what we've heard, definitely need to be rewritten. But I'm going to leave that up to you guys. If you want this board to rewrite it, you may not like the outcome as much as if you rewrite it you can understand it better. MS. MOSCA: And we would suggest the same, that we would come back with some revised language and possibly some implementing LDRs at a later date in order to define some of the terms in here that are ambiguous. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And I would suggest you do that at a regular Planning Commission meeting prior to the -- going to the Board of County Commissioners so we could weigh in on it like we're doing with the housing one. MS. MOSCA: Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Does that work? Does that work for everybody? Jeremy, I'm sure you're following this. So whether it works or not, that's what we're going to do. David, does that get you there? MR. WEEKS: Sure. I did want to make one more comment. As far as incentive, that's something we'll have to think about. How do you incentivize certain types of developments? But I will say that the Future Land Use Element already allows for water - dependent and water - related uses in the urban mixed -use district as opposed to the usual rigid category of commercial, certain nonresidential uses, industrial residential, and what the density allowances are. It broadly allows water - dependent and water - related uses. Point being that a marina is a C4 zoning - district use, but you don't have to have a land -use designation that would allow commercial uses. Because it's a water - dependent use, the Future Land Use Element would allow for that use to exist in a waterfront location without otherwise complying with commercial locational criteria. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. And the idea of incentivization was one just to throw on the table as a means to rewrite it if it helps get there. I mean, if you guys have a better rewrite, I'd just as soon you approach us with whatever was -- best works for you -all so we can see where it is you're trying to go, so -- COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: And that would come back to us with some proposed implementation, Page 58 of 84 1/26/2012 CCPC "Special EAR Amendments" meeting Land Development Code -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That would be after the EAR's done, yeah. COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: I mean, that was my concern, having a policy without the appropriate LDC. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah, with all that -- what happens is after the EAR and other GMP changes are done, then we have to do the LDC amendments that go with them. MS. MOSCA: And, Mr. Chairman, we could -- if that's the decision that staff concludes, we could also provide within that policy the standard language, within X period of time staff will develop implementing Land Development Code regulations to address those items. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: Steve, sorry I called you Paul. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. We're still on finishing up this element Page -- through Page 31. Does anybody else have any other questions? Michele, did you have any other issues? MS. MOSCA: I don't see any as of yet. If we want to go ahead to questions by the board, and I'll just double -check my notes. Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. On Policy 10.2.1 on Page 26 and the top of Page 27, it talks about existing public -beach access shall be maintained and new beachfront development will show on their site plans existing beach access ways, and the proposed development shall continue that access way relocated on site as deemed appropriate by the county or donated to the county. How would -- how would decisions like that be made? I mean, if a developer comes in and doesn't like where the beach access is and he wants to move it, and if deemed -- it has to be deemed appropriate by the county, does that mean it's done in a public process, or how's it done? MS. MOSCA: It refers to Site Development Plan, so I'm assuming it's done administratively, but I don't know for sure. I would have to check with Parks and Recreation. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. The only reason I'm concerned is we have certain beach - access locations now, and if they were ever -- and some of them are on private properties. I didn't know how easily they could move them around, so -- Steve? MR. LENBERGER: Stephen Lenberger. The -- as far as I know, the -- they are easements already, so -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. MR. LENBERGER: -- yeah, they're recorded. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So they'd have to stay in place? MR. LENBERGER: They'd have to stay within the easement or create another easement for a different location. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, thank you. Page 28 -- oh, that was already -- we already did Dan, so we're done. That's all I've got. Jeremy, did you have any other issues that you didn't -- that we didn't touch on? MR. FRANTZ: (Shakes head.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No, okay. The backup supporting material, why don't we just take it as a whole? Does anybody have -- let's thumb through it. Does anybody have any questions or notes from that that they want to ask? MS. MOSCA: Mr. Chairman, I don't want to address this for Conservancy, but we did Policy 7.1.2, which is on Page 21. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. MS. MOSCA: It addresses the habitat for the black bears. And my understanding is that the Conservancy is okay with the language we have on Page 21. And I'll defer to Conservancy staff. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Thank you. Boy, Michele's being nice to you today, Jeremy. You're lucky. MR. FRANTZ: Jeremy Frantz with the Conservancy again. I had actually thought I would just withhold comment because we got more information from staff during Page 59 of 84 1/26/2012 CCPC "Special EAR Amendments" meeting lunch, and we are just going to take some time to continue working with staff so that we get a little bit more clarity of -- about how that policy works out, so -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. And if it doesn't work out, let us know at the next convenient time. MR. FRANTZ: Right. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. That works for us. MR. FRANTZ: Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. And we're done with the CCME, then. And, Michele, there's a lot of staff members here. I'd like to resolve what issues they're waiting for first since we only have three or four elements to go through. Is there anything in particular? Dave, okay. What's he -- oh, he's waiting for the whole thing, isn't he? MS. MOSCA: I think we should do the Public School Facility Element first. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. COMMISSIONER EBERT: You want to leave. She wants to leave. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Oh, I don't blame her. This is the dryest -- one of -- these kind of meetings are dry to say the least, so -- let's move to the last element, jump to that so we can get rid of some staff and let them out of here, and that's the Public School Facilities Element. And there's only three pages to it with backup. So why don't we start with any questions anybody has with any of it. Michele, do you have any clarification from any group that you'd like to tell us about? MS. MOSCA: I don't, thank you. And there were actually no comments from this particular body at the October workshop. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. I don't have any either. Tom Eastman objects to the whole thing, but that's -- I'm sure -- no? MR. EASTMAN: I have no objections, just a small comment. For the backup materials on Page 1, it's the fourth paragraph in, that information may be dated with the exception of the last sentence. And I had spoken with Michele about it, and she said this was just backup material that at the time was correct, but maybe that could be refreshed. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. So there's no questions on the Public School Facilities Element, then I guess we're done with it. Thank you, Michele -- oh, Diane. COMMISSIONER EBERT: I do have a question of Tom. In listening to the emergency management -- and they're saying there are no schools planned to be built. The two of you worked on that together. Is that how you do your emergency and -- within the schools to be built? Do you have anything within the next five years? MR. EASTMAN: No, not according to our capital plan, but we revisit the capital plan each and every year. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Okay. MR. EASTMAN: And that capital plan is presented in a coordinated fashion with the county, and you'd definitely be apprised of any new construction and, yes, we do a good job of working with Mr. Summers and making sure that, you know, we work together to create synergies for the taxpayer. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Okay. Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you, Michele. Now, we've got three elements left. Who is here for -- let's go to the shorter ones. The Economic Element, is anybody here for that? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: How about the Golden Gate Area Master Plan, is anybody here for that? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So you're all here for the FLUE, so we'll move right into it. Terri, I was going to wait another 15, 20 minutes. Is that okay? THE COURT REPORTER: (Nods head.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Future Land Use Element. COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: Mark, excuse me. Do we have to do the Intergovernmental Coordination Element? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Oh, did I skip that one? Page 60 of 84 1/26/2012 CCPC "Special EAR Amendments" meeting COMMISSIONER EBERT: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Sorry about that, guys. How about the Intergovernmental Coordination Element first? Thank you, Phil. It was such a short one, I -- MS. VALERA: Thank you, Mr. Brougham. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: All your work for nothing, huh? It's only three pages, so does anybody have anything on the Intergovernmental Coordination Element? Either that or the backup. The backup is only four pages, so it kind of slipped in quietly. I know we had some discussion about this on the Lost Grove Mine. But after seeing some of the activities of some of the other governments, I like what Collier County's doing. So I can't say I got a complaint about it. Anybody else have anything on that section? COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: Cooperate, but not copy, is that what you meant? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah, definitely not copy. So we're a much better run county than our one to the north, that's for sure. Go ahead, Paul. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Yeah. I remember that one of the things they were talking about was neighborhood information meetings where you have a development that's straddling the line. Right now there's no requirement to notify the neighbors if they're in another county, and we were saying that maybe we should incorporate that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's a -- is that a notification -- a requirement of the GMP or the Land Development Code? MS. VALERA: That's within the Land Development Code. We have a whole section in regards to how -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So when we come forward with the land- development amendments, which we're preparing to do, that might be pointed out, reminded by staff to talk to us about so we take a look at it. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Thank you. Because that's important. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Because staff said, well, we -- we didn't have -- nobody told us we had to let the neighbors know in Lee County, so -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I think LDC, we can get that fixed, and that's the shorter way to fix it actually, so -- okay. Anybody else on the ICE, or IG, whatever it's spelled? MS. VALERA: ICE. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: ICE, I -C -E. Okay. Thank you, Carolina. That's all you were here for? MS. VALERA: That was it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Oh, lucky you. MS. VALERA: Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Let's go back to the FLUE. And we'll take them five pages at a time again. Does anybody have any -- David, did you have anything as we went along, or are you just going to respond as we have concerns? MR. WEEKS: For the record, David Weeks, comprehensive planning section. Commissioners, I'd just as soon let you go along, at least until we get to a point, I think, near the end with the Coastal High Hazard Area changes, at whatever point we come to that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah. Your new maps have brought in some questions that I know we're probably going to have, so we'll -- when we get there. Okay. Pages 1 through 5 anybody? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Heidi? MS. ASHTON- CICKO: Well, David, did you want to read in that change on the Housing Element. MR. WEEKS: Sure. MS. ASHTON- CICKO: Why don't we go ahead and take care of that. MR. WEEKS: Okay. To backtrack to the Housing Element, Commissioners, one of the policies you discussed -- excuse me. It's Objective 7, which will be Page 5 of that element, of the Housing Element. Page 61 of 84 1/26/2012 CCPC "Special EAR Amendments" meeting COMMISSIONER EBERT: We're going to housing. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: We're going back to Page 5 of the Housing Element, just -- MR. WEEKS: This has a correlation to the Coastal High Hazard Area. That's what triggered our finding it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. MR. WEEKS: And you see some language being modified there pertaining to mobile homes allowed to be placed in the Coastal High Hazard Area. The -- there's a problem here, and that is that the base language used in Objective 7 is old. The existing, in -effect Objective 7 already provides that no new mobile home -- excuse me. No new rezones to allow mobile homes will be allowed in the Coastal High Hazard Area, and that correlates with the Coastal High Hazard Area Overlay in the Future Land Use Element. So basically this Objective 7 was being modified to not allow new mobile home development in the Coastal High Hazard Area but, in fact, the objective already contains that prohibition. So what staff needs to do -- and I've discussed this with Heidi and also with Michele, who is the assigned planner for the Housing Element -- we simply need to remove this Objective 7 proposed language change. MS. ASHTON- CICKO: Can you put up on the visualizer for everybody the language that -- how it would read. So the way -- what you previously saw earlier today restricted new mobile homes. This just restricts new rezones. So you can't go from ag and do a new rezone to mobile home in that area. But if you're already zoned for it and you want to rezone it to what you already have without increasing the intensity, you can do that. It doesn't affect that. Just no new rezones. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. And I guess -- MS. ASHTON- CICKO: So if you can already be there, you can be there now. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: We're jumping ahead of when this comes up in the FLUE, but since you have, I guess it's pertinent to ask concerns about it. I looked at your new Coastal High Hazard Area Map and at your old one. You're bringing in a lot of new acreage in the CHHA. And by this language, you'd be eliminating the potential for ag to go to mobile homes. So what kind of property rights are you infringing upon by doing that? MS. ASHTON- CICKO: Well, if you were in the ag and you already have a mobile home or can have a mobile home, you can do it. You just can't rezone to add a mobile -home community, is my understanding. David, is that yours? MR. WEEKS: That's correct. It would -- this does not impact existing zoning. If you're zoned mobile home or if you're zoned VR, which allows mobile -home units, or if you're zoned agricultural with a mobile -home overlay, your existing zoning allows you to have mobile homes. That is not being affected by the change to the Future Land Use Element. What it -- what the existing language in the Future Land Use Element and this housing objective provides is that you cannot rezone property to a zoning district -- from a zoning district that doesn't allow mobile homes to a new zoning district that does allow mobile homes if you're in the Coastal High Hazard Area. That's already in effect. Now, the difference in changing the map to move that coastal- high- hazard boundary inward means that now more properties are going to be subject to that restriction or prohibition. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. But it's strictly the new rezones then? MR. WEEKS: Correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Now, that doesn't -- all -- now that -- okay. We've got a whole'nother couple issues with the movement of that line when we get to it. But I understand this one now. So mobile homes, if it's -- as long as you have an A/MHO or -- you're okay -- or dash MHO, you're still okay to go. MR. WEEKS: Correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Go ahead, Brad. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Dave, would this affect the use of mobile homes and other kinds of things other than a development? I assume a mobile -home development is somebody laying out a nice little mobile -home park, amenities, and everything else. But what if -- we may have some emergency programs where mobile homes will be brought to existing residences during storm repair, stuff like that. This would no way affect that? MR. WEEKS: It would not affect that. It would not affect the LDC provision that -- I believe it's still in Page 62 of 84 1/26/2012 CCPC "Special EAR Amendments" meeting place -- that we are allowed to have a temporary mobile home while you're constructing a house -- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Caretaker. MR. WEEKS: -- would not affect that item. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: So it's purely a development, and those would not be considered development. MR. WEEKS: It's purely rezoning to a zoning district that allows for that development. We purposely worded it that way back in, I think, 2007 to make sure that we -- that the intent was to stop the rezoning, not to keep someone from having a mobile home on their property that already has the zoning that allows them to do so. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Does anybody have any objection to the changes shown on the screen for Objective 7? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Looks like we're good. You know, I noticed, by the way, when you do -- when you do amendments for the GM -- MR. WEEKS: Mr. Chairman, sorry. The clarification is that this -- what I had on the visualizer is the existing Objective 7. So the change that we're making is to -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Go back to the existing. MR. WEEKS: Yeah. Is to remove from your EAR document for the Housing Element any changes to Objective 7. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. MR. WEEKS: Leave as -is. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But I just noticed -- and it's something I just wanted to ask about. You use Roman numerals to show changes in the GMP. Just out of curiosity, why? I mean, as time goes on, when you get bigger and bigger, I mean, Roman numerals run out in a string. Why wouldn't you just use regular numbers? MR. WEEKS: That goes back to the original plan adoption in 1989 and the first set of amendments. And staff made that decision at that point, or staff or someone made that decision at that point in time. I can tell you that we are finding, administratively, regardless of what type of actual numbers we use, some sections of the plan or policies get amended so many times that it's getting pretty long, and so we're either going way out into the margin to show those change footnotes or we're pushing the beginning of the provision or policy further to the right on the page. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, Roman numerals will get you there quicker; that's why I was wondering why we're going that direction. I mean, the little footnotes we have on our zoning atlas and numbers like that, they work real good, but I guess -- oh, well. MR. WEEKS: Well, one thing, too, I'll -- just a sidenote -- well, comment about that -- is Roman numerals, I think, are easier to distinguish and less likely to cause an error. If you have two ones or for 11, or one and two, is it one comma two, or is it 12? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, if you've got different supplements or addendums, it would be one comma two. If it's addendum 12, it would be one, two, wouldn't it? MR. WEEKS: I'm talking about errors in typing and whatnot, but that's the thought. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I think Roman numerals is easier to make an error than numbers. MR. WEEKS: Oh, well. I'll give up while I'm behind. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Pages -- back to the FLUE. Pages 1 through 5, does anybody have any issues. (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: David, did you have anything on the first five pages? MR. WEEKS: No, sir. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Under Policy 4.7, there's an added language about redevelopment. "Such redevelopment plans may only be prepared by the county or its agents unless otherwise authorized by the Board of County Commissioners." What is the intention of that? MR. WEEKS: It's to preclude something that happened, or at least was discussed at one point in time, and that's where someone comes in with a rezoning petition located within one of these identified redevelopment areas and says, my rezoning petition is a redevelopment plan which, in my opinion, is hogwash. CI IAIRMAN STRAIN: Tell us what you really think, David. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Thank you. Page 63 of 84 1/26/2012 CCPC "Special EAR Amendments" meeting MR. WEEKS: Redevelopment plan is broader, more encompassing. It doesn't involve just one piece of property. It typically involves a general area, an identified area, not a parcel -by- parcel private - property- owner - initiated action. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So a private - property owner couldn't go in and accumulate a series of parcels and then come in under a plan of redevelopment for it; it would have to be a PUD or something else? MR. WEEKS: But they could come in for a redevelopment plan, but they need board authorization first. That's what this says. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Now, how does a redevelopment plan in that particular place differ from a PUD? MR. WEEKS: Well, at least in our experience. Here the redevelopment plan is more general and more broad in terms; whereas, the zoning document is very specific as to exactly what actions can and cannot happen. Think about our community redevelopment areas both in Immokalee and the Bayshore /Gateway Triangle area. The redevelopment plan is much more general; it talks about maybe incentives. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. MR. WEEKS: It's a planning document, not a regulatory document, like zoning is. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But the redevelopment plan by an agency creates a bureaucracy, as we've certainly done with our CRAB. MR. WEEKS: Right. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: A redevelopment plan by a developer may not do such, but we're restricting them from being able to do that, it seems. MR. WEEKS: Well, we're saying that it needs to be board sanctioned if you're going to do that. And it doesn't necessarily mean you have to have a CRA -- you know, an agency. But if you're going to create a redevelopment plan, then the board should give sanction to that before you start. MR. BOSI: And I think it's more of the utilization of the term "redevelopment plan." Yeah, they're doing a redevelopment of the process, but it's not an official redevelopment plan. I mean, the only way that we can start with both of our CRAs is the first criteria, key criteria, is that it has to be finding of blight for that designation for that area. And there's a lot of specifics you have to go through to get -- for an individual private developer to go underneath that umbrella, there would have to be more specificity to the plans than what normally would be proposed during a PUD. So I think it's more of -- to be able to label yourself as an official redevelopment plan is kind of what this distinction is trying to clarify for. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Pages 6 through 11. Anybody have anything on those pages? MR. WEEKS: Mr. Chairman, this is probably where I should jump in because -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. MR. WEEKS: -- on the elephant in the room, the Coastal High Hazard Area changes, because there -- first of all, state statutes require us to depict the Coastal High Hazard Area on the Future Land Use Map, and statute, within Chapter 163, does discourage development within the Coastal High Hazard Area, but it does not prohibit it. I just want to be clear that the state is not coming in and saying, Collier County, you need to amend your density rating system or other provisions in your Growth Management Plan to limit density here. It is not specifically saying that. That is a county- generated idea first in the EAR and then now in these amendments with specificity. There are, I think, four -- broadly four impacts of the change to the Coastal High Hazard Area boundary. The biggest is the change to the density rating system, which applies to rezonings of property, upzonings of the property, because the density rating system provides for what is the allowed base density for a given piece of property based on its location, and then what is the additional density that could be granted through various bonus provisions. A second provision or impact is what we just touched on a few moments ago, and that is that within the Coastal High Hazard Area, new rezonings to allow mobile -home development are prohibited. Thirdly, there's a provision that pertains to vegetation- retention requirements in the Conservation and Coastal Management Element. Specifically it's Policy 6.1.1. Properties within the Coastal High Hazard Area, residential and mixed -use development only, have a greater vegetation- retention requirement than if they're outside of the Coastal High Hazard Area. And so the effect of a property being moved into the Coastal High Hazard Area for a residential or mixed -use Page 64 of 84 1/26/2012 CCPC "Special EAR Amendments" meeting project will increase from 10 percent of the site up to as much as 25 percent of the site for properties two- and -a -half acres in size up to just shy of 20 acres in size. And then the fourth is something that is very narrow in applicability, but it's a provision in the Capital Improvements Element that -- I think it's the CIE -- that all new sewer facilities within the Coastal High Hazard Area must be floodproof, and a couple other things specific to sanitary sewer facilities. But those are the -- broadly the four impacts upon properties that are placed within the Coastal High Hazard Area. But the biggest one, most particularly for the private - property rights perspective, is the changes to density. The Traffic Congestion Area is an existing density- reduction provision right now in the Future Land Use Element. For all properties in the Traffic Congestion Area, they're subject to a one - unit - per -acre reduction from the eligible base density of four units per acre. So if you're looking to rezone your property, usually from ag to some type of residential zoning, you start at eligible density of four units per acre. Now you're going to drop to three. All of the properties east of the City of Naples that are within the Traffic Congestion Area -- no, I need to say that differently. All of the properties that as a result of this new Coastal High Hazard Area lying east of the City of Naples are already within the Traffic Congestion Area. So requiring those properties to be subject to a one - unit - per -acre reduction is a wash. You're -- in the TCA today, Traffic Congestion Area, you're subject to the one - unit - per -acre reduction. With these amendments, you'll be within the Coastal High Hazard Area -- some of these properties -- and you're subject to one unit per acre. We're changing the lettering, but the bottom line is, you're subject to one unit per acre yesterday and you will be tomorrow if these amendments are approved. A greater impact, though, will be that we're taking the remaining density bonuses that are presently applicable within the Coastal High Hazard Area and we're saying they are no longer applicable. So that, additionally, removes some potential density for properties that are being moved into the Coastal High Hazard Area. COMMISSIONER EBERT: So you are removing that? MR. WEEKS: Pardon me? COMMISSIONER EBERT: So you are removing that portion? MR. WEEKS: Correct. So we're eliminating density bonuses from the Coastal High Hazard Area without exception. Some of the bonuses already are not applicable there, but we're changing that to say none of them will be. On the ground -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: We're working through Page 10. Could you refer us to what paragraph you're starting to talk about. MR. WEEKS: Certainly, the first is on Page 11. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The prelude to my statement is where I was having -- I kind of figured you went past the first 10 pages, but I didn't know you were already there. So can you direct us as to where you're specifically going? MR. SCHMIDT: It may only be in your agenda, David. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You're on Page 12, probably, right? COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: Eleven and twelve. MR. WEEKS: Starts on 11, Paragraphs B and C. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. MR. WEEKS: No. Actually, it starts at the very top. Top of Page 11 is a continuation of Paragraph A, conversion of commercial zoning bonus. And you can see the added sentence precludes the applicability of that bonus within the Coastal High Hazard Area. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. MR. WEEKS: And in Paragraph B, same thing, that's for density bands; not applicable in the Coastal High Hazard Area. Same thing for Paragraph C, affordable /workforce housing bonus; not applicable in the Coastal High Hazard Area. Moving over to Page 12 -- MS. ASHTON- CICKO: David, if I may. MR. WEEKS: Yeah. Page 65 of 84 1/26/2012 CCPC "Special EAR Amendments" meeting MS. ASHTON- CICKO: It might be helpful if you'd give them your visual so they can kind of get an overall of what do we have now and what is being proposed. MR. WEEKS: Okay. MS. ASHTON- CICKO: And why are we moving along. I would start with that first. MR. WEEKS: Okay. The handout that was provided to you should have been delivered to you last Friday, the 19th. The first map I want to put up on the visualizer, or Corby will, is Coastal High Hazard Area work map, an 11 -by -17 map that was distributed to you last -- on the 19th. That map shows a few different boundaries that are relevant to our discussion. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's the wrong one, Corby. I think it's the one with the green, blue, and red lines. MR. WEEKS: Now, the green line is the existing Coastal High Hazard Area boundary; the red line is the proposed generalized Coastal High Hazard Area boundary; the yellow shading represents the precise location of the Coastal High Hazard Area boundary. MS. ASHTON- CICKO: So -- MR. WEEKS: And then the blue intermittent dash/dotted line is The Traffic Congestion Area boundary. And so from there you can see what I was referring to earlier that all of these properties that are yellow now, that's the new Coastal High Hazard Area, are already within the traffic congestion -- they're already seaward of the Traffic Congestion Area, the blue dashed line, where you're south and east of the City of Naples. MS. ASHTON- CICKO: So to make sure that you understand is -- the county already has a CHA line, and that's what's shown in green, and it's also a requirement in the state law, Chapter 163, that you designate that line. And what's happened is the RPC has issued a new line, and so David is showing you where the new line would be depicted on the map. But today we also have -- we've got the minus -one density reduction in the CHA today, David; is that correct? MR. WEEKS: Correct, for Traffic Congestion Area, density reduction of one unit, correct. MS. ASHTON-CICKO: But for CHA is there one, or no? MR. WEEKS: There is no density reduction for being in the Coastal High Hazard Area today. MS. ASHTON- CICKO: Okay. MR. WEEKS: But all of those properties east of the City of Naples that are in the Coastal High Hazard Area happen to be within the Traffic Congestion Area. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Not quite. The one by Davis and Radio isn't. Go ahead, Brad. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: But, Dave, just to make sure I understand is we're -- in the traffic area you back down one unit per acre, but can you build that back with density bonuses? MR. WEEKS: Some bonuses are applicable in the Traffic Congestion Area and some are not. It's a mixed bag. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. And what we're saying now in the coastal high hazard, we're going to back down one acre -- or one unit per acre, and you cannot build back. MR. WEEKS: Correct, that's the proposal. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Because that's different. Because remember when you said that that area east of Naples, which is -- it's actually east of the line, you mean, right? MR. WEEKS: Yes. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Which is different, because even though they do lose an acre, they have the potential to build it back. MR. WEEKS: Correct, correct. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: In the coastal high hazard, they don't. MR. WEEKS: Correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But, David, your statement earlier, east of the City -- look where your blue line intersects Davis Boulevard and Airport- Pulling Road. MR. WEEKS: They're -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And look at that rectangle that's outside of it, and it's -- but it is -- and it's outside of the old CHHA, but it's now in a new CHHA, but it's outside the Traffic Congestion Area. How have we -- I mean, Page 66 of 84 1/26/2012 CCPC "Special EAR Amendments" meeting isn't that a -- what do we do with that? See what one I'm talking about? MR. WEEKS: I do. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. MS. ASHTON- CICKO: You know, I think David is really trying to do good planning and promote a -- you know, prepare for what will come in the future. Now, from the legal side, you know, we share some very serious concerns over exposure that the county would have. I still have very significant legal concerns. I think David ought to present what he's proposing. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Sure. MS. ASHTON- CICKO: Make clear to you -all what he believes the impacts are, and then make clear to you what is required and what is not and whether there are alternatives, like what is required is the boundary be set. What is required is that the county at least look into some mitigation, but it doesn't specify what the mitigation would be and how you'd get there. So he's proposing one form of mitigation, which is to remove some of the eligibility of density in this area which, from a property- rights standpoint, I've some very serious concerns over the county's exposure. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Before we get into all that, I've just realized we've run Terri now for almost two hours, which is beyond what we normally do, and I think the next discussion's going to get lengthy. So why don't we take a break and come back at 10 after three, and we'll resume at that point. And, by the way, our intention is still to resolve this before five minutes to five tonight, okay. Ten after three. (A brief recess was had.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, everyone. Welcome back from the break. And we started out with the -- we were getting into the FLUE, and David was making his presentation, and we lost two members because of that. So Brad Schiffer and Melissa Ahern have had to leave, and now, David, we'll see how many other people you can scare off here, so -- MR. WEEKS: Commissioner, I want to back up and first explain what the Coastal High Hazard Area is, most particularly because we have some new members, but also it's been a while, I think, since we've dealt with this issue, a few months at least. The Coastal High Hazard Area is defined as the area subject to storm surge from a Category 1 hurricane. That's the definition. Heidi mentioned the RPC earlier, the Regional Planning Council; Southwest Florida Regional Planning Council in Fort Myers has a model, and they -- a computer model which generates the Coastal High Hazard Area, and that's where this yellow shading that you see on your maps came from. And as was stated earlier, we are required by state law to identify the Coastal High Hazard Area boundary on our Future Land Use Map, but we are not required -- there is no specific requirement as to how we treat development or development potential within that Coastal High Hazard Area. There's just a general discouragement of development within the Coastal High Hazard Area, and it's because of concerns for putting property and lives in harm's way. Presently, there's, I think, two -- I think it's two density bonuses that are not applicable within the Coastal High Hazard Area, and it follows that rationale of we don't want to be encouraging more development to occur within this area that is subject to storm surge and, therefore, potential damage to or loss of property and lives. So that safety concern is the rationale that staff has for proposing to remove the density bonuses within the Coastal High Hazard Area and to impose the density reduction of one unit per acre. Chairman Strain, you've pointed out correctly that I misspoke earlier when 1 said that all of the properties lying east and south of the City of Naples that are within the Traffic Congestion Area -- I'm still saying it wrong. All of the properties that will newly be added to the Coastal High Hazard Area are already within the Traffic Congestion Area, and there's one exception, and that is roughly the west half of Section 1, Township 50 south, Range 26 east, that runs from Radio Road south to Davis Boulevard. And if you look on the Coastal High Hazard Area work map, the one that was on the visualizer a few moments ago, you'll see the blue dashed line representing the Coastal High Hazard Area, and to the right or to the east of it you'll see some yellow shadowing. So that's new property within the Coastal High Hazard Area that is not presently within the Traffic Congestion Area. So those properties would be newly subject to a one - unit - per -acre density- reduction factor in addition to also being subject to no longer being eligible for certain density bonuses. Page 67 of 84 1/26/2012 CCPC "Special EAR Amendments" meeting On the visualizer is the zoning map showing the north half of that Section 1. And the properties that are shaded yellow are all zoned "E" estates. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Where is the --just so we get orientation so when you talk about this map, where's Davis Boulevard --where's Radio Road on this map? That's the north half. Radio should be on the uppermost side of it. MR. WEEKS: Yes. Radio Road is at the top of the map where my pen is at here. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah, but you don't -- you need to zoom out. MR. WEEKS: Oh. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So it's everything from where your pen is at south, not just the ones with the yellow? MR. WEEKS: Yes. From the top of the map where my pen is at, Radio Road, all the way down to -- where my pen is at, that's labeled as North Road. Now, there's another zoning map that will go another half section down to Davis Boulevard. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. MR. WEEKS: The reason I shaded these in yellow -- and this is Donna Street where my pen is pointing to now, roughly the half section line in an east/west direction. Those are all zoned estates. Those are properties that reasonably, one could think at least, might come in for a rezoning, upzoning to a higher residential density. They at least are eligible to do so. These other properties within this westerly half of the section are already zoned commercial or commercial PUD or a light industrial PUD. I made the judgment call that I think it's rather unlikely those properties are going to pursue a residential rezoning. They're all zoned commercial or industrial, and they're all developed. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. So just those estates zoned --those estates lots are at risk? MR. WEEKS: Yes. And I have the zoning map for the south half of that section. And I similarly made a judgment call that I did not believe those properties were likely to pursue a rezoning. Davis Boulevard at the bottom of the map, Airport- Pulling Road over here to the west, and roughly this line here would represent where the new coastal high hazard boundary would be located. So it's these properties from Airport- Pulling Road east to about the half - section line. And here you see property zoned RMF6, multifamily PUD here, more RMF6 zoning, C4 and 5 commercial zoning along Davis Boulevard and Airport- Pulling Road, and then RSF4 zoning within this area here. Properties are platted; they're zoned; they're developed. Again, I think it's rather unlikely that the commercial properties would pursue a residential rezoning both from a perspective of presumed land value and use value of -- as commercial versus residential, secondly because of the relatively small size of these individual parcels and their frontage on multi -laned divided highways. The residential zoning here is already at six units per acre. At most -- under current conditions, at most these properties could rezone up to 7 units per acre. But these are individual platted single- family lots, and they're developed. So, again, I think it's highly unlikely that there's going to be a rezoning to try to increase the density. Same thing for the RSF4 zoning over here because of, again, the zoning, platting, and development pattern. Someone would have to buy up a large number of lot -- well, buy up a number of lots to initiate a zoning change, and I just think that's unlikely because of the development pattern that's there and potential compatibility concerns of significantly increasing density. I mean, that's my opinion. Certainly, persons could disagree with that. I also have zoning maps identifying the other properties that potentially would be affected. And let me give you some numbers first. In the memo distributed on the 19th, I mentioned a figure of approximately 222 acres and I think it was 52 parcels that potentially could be impacted by these changes, and that includes properties in the coastal urban area that is from the edge of the urban boundary, which is along 41 east, about two- and -a -half miles east of Collier Boulevard westward, but also including the Copeland urban area. This zoning map is of a portion of the Lely Country Club PUD, so we're north of U.S. 41 East, and we're west of the Lely Resort area. Now, these blue properties are county owned and ones owned by East Naples Fire District. But for the privately owned, this is Warren Street here. This is the -- at least historically was known as the Lely Wastewater Treatment Plant. It may be known as the South Regional at this point. I'm not sure. Warren Street, there's Little League ballfields on this "P" zoned property. This yellow property here you can see it's labeled 1.87 acres. It's owned by the, I believe, Forest Hills Country Club, which is the golf course over here. Page 68 of 84 1/26/2012 CCPC "Special EAR Amendments" meeting It's a golf maintenance facility. And, once again, my professional opinion is, I think it's highly unlikely that property would pursue a rezoning to increase density. And if it did, I think it's not likely to go beyond three units per acre. Again, my opinion. This property here, it's a little over 10 acres, privately owned, just east of -- south and east of St. Andrews Boulevard. And if you jump over off the zoning map, you're at the western edge of Lely Resort PUD /DRI, which wraps around this area some here. This is forested wetland habitat. This -- to the east of this property and southeast is large preserve area within the Lely Resort PUD and DRI. And because of the habitat there, forested wetland, my professional opinion is I think it's unlikely to see that pursue a rezone to residential above the three units per acre that would be allowed if these regulations change as proposed. But, again, that's my opinion. There's only about three or four more maps, Commissioners. Well, maybe five. I'm eliminating the maps that have government -owned properties because I don't think there's any concern over those. Here we have U.S. 41 East and Collier Boulevard. In this blue area is the southerly portion of the Marco Lakes reservoir, the large pit that provides a water - supply source, potable water for the City of Marco Island. There's seven parcels; they go off onto the next zoning map, but they run from this entranceway here to the Falling Waters Beach Resort PUD over to the canal that is shown on the map here, then continues across U.S. 41 East to the south and eventually runs into the Henderson Creek. These properties are approximately 400 feet in depth off of U.S. 41 East, and this one here is about 200 feet in width, so these others will be, I guess, about 100 feet. The largest, then, is about 200 by 400. Again, I think it's highly unlikely -- they're fronting on U.S. 41. I think it's highly unlikely that we're going to -- we would see those properties pursuing a residential rezone. My best guess is they might come in for a Comprehensive Plan amendment for commercial zoning in the future or pursue development under a conditional use allowed in the ag zoning district or some other non -- some other zoning district that allows uses that are consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. And now the area with the largest both number of parcels and acres that would be impacted, and this also -- potentially impact -- well, impacted by the regulations. And this is also an area where Habitat for Humanity owns two parcels. And you know Margie Student's here on their behalf today. Here's U.S. 41 East again. This is Section 12, Township 51 south, Range 26 east. This section is the easternmost portion of the Coastal Urban Designated Area. Looking on the Future Land Use Map, you jump to the east of this section, and you're now in the rural fringe area. And this is the north half of the section, and you can see there's several parcels in here, and then on the south half of the section, several more properties. Again, U.S. 41 East lying here. For all of these properties -- and it's a judgment call. Will these properties pursue a rezoning to residential at all, the owners of them, and if they do, would they -- might they pursue a density greater then three units per acre, which is what they'd be limited to under these proposed regulations. Might they pursue development under their existing agricultural zoning, such as conditional uses that are allowed, or in the case of those properties, most particularly in that -- on those last maps, some of those smaller properties, might they simply be content to retain their agricultural zoning and the dwelling unit that they have on their property at present, or for those undeveloped that might choose to develop in the future, and be content with that zoning and, therefore, not be concerned about the density change -- changes that are proposed. This is the Copeland urban area, and the blue, again, is the government -owned properties, and then the yellow are the privately -owned properties. And this is State Road 29 here next to my pen, and then again continuing on to the south here. So we're, I don't know, what's it, three miles or so north of U.S. 41 East, the urban area of Copeland. There's two large parcels. This one here is, I believe, around 50 acres. That's within the urban area. The actual parcel goes beyond the boundary. And then down here is a parcel that, I believe, is in the neighborhood of 10 or 12 acres within the urban area. The legal description goes beyond the urban designation. The rest of these are very small parcels here. And then one small one -acre parcel over here. So, Commissioners, that shows on these series of maps, those yellow properties, what I believe all of-- areal] of the properties that potentially would be impacted. This is the PUD map, and the northern boundary -- I've just folded the map over -- is Radio Road. Here's Airport Road and then U.S. 41 East. Page 69 of 84 1/26/2012 CCPC "Special EAR Amendments" meeting The yellow color is to show the location of those different zoning maps I just got through showing you, and actually a couple are -- two or three that I didn't show you because they only had government -owned properties. But that's area that would be potentially impacted by these changes. The gross acreage, if we looked at the what I'll call worst -case scenario or maybe most conservative approach, would be almost 300 acres of land that would be impacted, and that would be 80 -- currently 80 tax parcels. I believe a little more reasonable would be 222 acres or 52 parcels, which I mentioned in that January -- January 19th memo distributed -- memo distributed on January 19th. But, again, even those, as I walked through the maps, I think some of those properties are not likely to go through a residential rezoning. But, anyway, that's what the potential impact is. The policy decision is whether or not to go forward with any or some of the changes that would impact eligible density for these properties or not to make the regulatory changes. Either way we have to make -- we're required to make the map change. But do we or don't we make the regulatory changes affecting the eligible density on these properties? And the reason, of course, that I'm going into some of this detail and showing you properties and whatnot is going back to your October workshop of last year; this body expressed concerns over the impact on private - property rights. One more thing to say, and this really goes in the opposite direction, and that's to say we -- these proposed changes in eliminating the Traffic Congestion Area boundary and only having a density- reduction factor within the Coastal High Hazard Area, for these properties here that lie west of U.S. 41 East all the way over to the Coastal High Hazard Area, there's an increase in eligible density. So we're actually, arguably, giving development rights to those properties there. Of course, most of that is already zoned and developed, but there are some properties there that could still benefit from an increase in their eligible density. I think I'm ready to stop and let you -all jump in. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Paul? COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: I was just surprised to hear that Copeland, which is three miles north of 41, could be that big -- impacted by a Category 1 hurricane. It seems -- I didn't know Category 1's were that powerful. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's RPC. MR. WEEKS: That's what the modeling -- that's what the computer modeling shows. Actually, Mr. Chairman, I would like to make another comment or two. On the map, I want to explain why it is that we're -- staff is proposing a generalized Coastal High Hazard Area boundary. That's the red line. And then we also propose to have a -- part of the map series have a map that shows the yellow boundary, which is the part that would be subject to the regulatory effect. So the red boundary on the -- that would be on the Future Land Use Map would be just to give the reader a general idea of where the Coastal High Hazard Area is, and then the yellow would show the precise area. And if you look at this map, you see -- and, again, you have this map -- you can see how irregularly shaped the boundary is. And staff is just trying to square it off, sometimes following streets, sometimes not, but just trying to create a more uniform boundary. There are also holes in the yellow shading. There's islands within the Coastal High Hazard Area, pockets -- in many cases, pockets of developed land. Fill dirt has been brought in for house pads, commercial building pads, and so forth for streets. And if you look at this map or had a larger version of it, in some cases it's readily apparent that that's the case. But regardless, in drawing a boundary line here, we have to understand that there are exceptions within it. And if and when someone comes in to pursue a rezoning of their property if these regulations go forth, or even if they don't, any other impact, such as no new rezonings for mobile -- to allow mobile -home development, staff will rely upon the detailed Coastal High Hazard Area Map to determine if that subject property is or is not within the Coastal High Hazard Area. And we will have this map available on our website with the zoom capability and the kind that, where you zoom in, you see more details. You see street names. You see more features that are helpful to the reader to identify where a given property might be located. But the reason, again, is to generally show the boundary in red, but then to have the more detailed map also adopted so that it is officially part of the Comprehensive Plan and available for public viewing readily on our website. Page 70 of 84 1/26/2012 CCPC "Special EAR Amendments" meeting CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Does anybody on the Planning Commission have questions at this point? David, the Traffic Congestion Area kind of tails off after 951, so I would think that all the properties that are within the Traffic Congestion Area that already have a reduction would be -- and that -- we're swapping that reduction out for a Coastal High Hazard Area reduction. That seems kind of not problematic. But when you get east of that, I understand that it applies to rezones only. But when we did the GMP years ago, we started a zoning re- evaluation process in which parcels of property or owners could write in or be reevaluated as to how they were to be weighed against the new rules. And we had an ordinance that I've got -- I've read many times -- I don't remember the number, though -- that actually talked about different parcels within different sections of property throughout the county and how they would be treated going forward. For those properties that are in particular concern, the ones that you highlighted in yellow, why couldn't we approach them as we did with this other process when we initiated the GMP? MR. WEEKS: Potentially we could. I think it's important that I point out to you that those are the properties that I've identified as being impacted. Someone else might disagree and think that other properties are impacted. I didn't talk at all about the properties that are north of the City of Naples where the boundary, for the most part, has not changed. Some properties up north of the City of Naples, the boundary has moved seaward so that properties have been removed from the Coastal High Hazard area, but some properties have been added. I didn't bother to map those. I identified those properties and I saw that some of them were water - retention areas that were added to the Coastal High Hazard Area. There was parts of one golf course near the Walmart up at -- west of 41, north of Bluebill Avenue. There was a wetland system around the Cocohatchee River west of U.S. 41 that -- a portion of which was added. I didn't think it was -- my judgment call was that wasn't necessary to map those and present those. But the landowner up there might disagree with me and say, I, nonetheless, have lost some rights, and I should have been availed of whatever opportunity there might be to protest these changes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, let's take your Cocohatchee as an example. You just said that that was one where they -- we've expanded the Coastal High Hazard Area, thus causing a potential reduction, but we wouldn't have because they -- you're giving them -- you're taking away the traffic congestion which did apply and just applying a CHHA deduction. So I don't think that -- is that -- why is that an example that you would have used as -- MR. WEEKS: Because that part of it is a wash, but the additional changes are to take the density bonuses that, today, are available in the Coastal High Hazard Area and make them not applicable. So that's where the eligible density -- for all of these properties, the eligible density would be between six -- for most of them it's six units per acre, for some of those at Copeland -- all of those at Copeland, I think it would be -- almost all of them -- it would be seven units per acre. We will be dropping that eligible density down to three units per acre. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. And I understand the legal reason why we have to move the line. But the difference now really falls between the green line and the red line in regards to what can or can't be done. And then if you go ahead and remove the bonuses from all the yellow, whether it's on the north or south or east or west of the green line up to the red line, you're now affecting not only just the new properties added north of the green line, which I'm using north because most of it is, but you're also affecting the properties already existing in the CHHA because of the full density bonus. So I think it comes down to a legal question from the County Attorney's Office; how far can we go without, I guess, violating someone's rights? MS. ASHTON- CICKO: Well, I think whenever you take anything away, it could lead to potential exposure on the county's part by removing the rights. Just a couple points. One is that the bonuses that are being taken away for the entire CHA area are bonuses that are -- essentially the property owners can ask for it, but it's not by right. They don't get those by right. But that is something that they could ask for during a rezone, and they can no longer ask for it. David and I have been talking at length on a number of these issues. In your package he also had some other language that we used in the Immokalee Area Master Plan that I've edited a little bit, should you choose to go forward, that gives the property owner an avenue to have a vested - rights determination. David also told me that under the FLUE, the section that deals with the rezonings would be applicable. So if there's a property owner that has a current density out there and they want to rezone, they wouldn't lose what they Page 71 of 84 1/26/2012 CCPC "Special EAR Amendments" meeting already have. They would at least be able to stay at the level that they currently are. But it's -- certainly there is a potential to impact property owners that might have bought property and had plans to put some high - density development on their land. And at this point David's done the best he could to research, but there would be ones that would come up that we wouldn't know about. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I didn't see this -- did I miss this policy? Is it in our package? MR. WEEKS: That was part of the handout, the supplement on January 19th. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Oh. That's why I haven't seen it, okay. The part about this that becomes concerning is the limitation in the middle. "All such applications must be submitted within one year from the effective date of the aforementioned CHH changes." That is only useful if you're going to individually notify every single lot owner -- parcel owner that is affected, because -- I don't know. I can tell you, most people haven't been watching this meeting today. If they have, I feel sorry for them. So no one knows this is going on. You do your little advertisement. How many people read the legal notices in the back of a newspaper? In fact, not everybody gets the newspaper. So I don't know -- I think that part of that is certainly unfair to have a limitation of one year without -- unless you notify them. But if you notify the property owners and say "one year from notification," that changes the whole ballgame. So, I mean, that's the first part. I mean, my first concern was this -- not having a policy like this here. But if this policy gets it to -- instituted, a lot of that concern's taken away with the exception of the time frame without notification that spells that -- that's spelled out in that middle sentence there. MS. ASHTON- CICKO: I mean, one option is for -- you know, this is certainly a policy decision. And one option would be -- I think -- let me just say that I think David's tried to take a proactive approach, and I think that this is an issue that a lot of counties are looking at at this point, and I don't know that it -- there's any county at this time that's a forerunner on how they're handling it. But there are different ways to try to reduce development and redevelopment in an area that could be explored. It doesn't have to be just strictly a density reduction. That's one option. And if you're -- you know, you could direct staff to look at the various options of how that could be handled. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But there are options all attempting to avoid a collision with a disgruntled property owner -- MS. ASHTON- CICKO: Right. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- who feels that he's been slighted on his property rights. On the other hand, if we provide notice -- and I remember Ken Baginski was here back in the old days, and he would send out all these letters to property owners saying, you're potentially in an area that's going to change your zoning. If you feel that you've got an issue, you contact him. And he issued a lot of letters correcting -- or not say correcting, addressing the concerns. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Addressing. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So I'm wondering why -- and I know it's an expensive process. I know it's time - consuming, but it seemed to be -- and the ultimate way to protect the taxpayers from a series of lawsuits for property right. Why wouldn't we approach it that way again? MR. WEEKS: The concern I have, Commissioners, is it becomes the county making the decision over who we think is impacted. I've identified properties here. But I'm telling you, these are not all the properties. I'm telling you that there's some that have not been identified. I mentioned, for example, up north of the City of Naples. But there's also all of those landowners that, today, are not in the Coastal High Hazard Area but with the new boundary would be, that might believe they're impacted in some way, if nothing else, from that standpoint of the mobile homes. I don't think it's very likely that someone wants to rezone their property to allow a mobile -home development. I can't remember the last time we had a rezone to allow mobile -home development in Collier County. But someone may have that interest that we don't know about or assert that they have that interest. My point being that it's -- it would be a very significant notification. Arguably we should notify everyone that it being added to the Coastal High Hazard Area plus those that are already within it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And I'm not disagreeing with you, but we did that -- we did a huge scope back in the old days, and we had a lot of properties. They weren't even developed, but there were still a lot of properties. MR. WEEKS: Right. Page 72 of 84 1/26/2012 CCPC "Special EAR Amendments" meeting CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I'm just wondering, why wouldn't we want to take that cautious approach now? I mean, I know for staff it makes it easier not to do it that way but, honestly, I'm not -- I don't think it's fair to the property owners, and I don't -- I'm not relying on your opinion of what could or could not be affected. I'm suggesting we notify everybody that potentially is affected, period, and just say, here is your opportunity, and you have within one year to respond to this letter. And staff will then take your response and decide how -- and whatever evaluation process like we did before. We actually wrote an ordinance; it's many pages long. Difficult as -- it's really difficult to follow. But if you do follow it, if you do track the legals, you can find properties that are exempted from a series of different issues that happened in the county based on that document. But it's rarely used because I don't think anybody can understand it. I did use it on one. MR. WEEKS: I wonder if you're talking about the zoning reevaluation ordinance, Ordinance 90 -23. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That sounds like it, yes. It's multi pages, it has a series of legal descriptions in different parts of the county, and then it tells what those legal descriptions were zoned, what they were going to be zoned, and what rights they retained. But it's --there was a --I mean, I just got done reviewing that document for a parcel on the East Trail. Sure enough, it was correctly -- they had applied correctly, but that document pertained to them. It was to their benefit to know about it. I'm just wondering why we wouldn't want to go to that extent. And I understand the time and the cost, but we've got time. We don't have to impose these, from what the county attorney says. We've just got to simply move the line on the map. MR. WEEKS: Right. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So why don't we look at it that way? MR. WEEKS: I think part of the cost -- well, first of all, of course, we'll need board direction because that's something that needs to be budgeted because that, I can tell you from personal involvement with the Zoning Reevaluation Ordinance where -- real quick explanation. We adopted the Growth Management Plan in 1989. The Future Land Use Map provided for eligible densities -- and the element -- eligible densities where commercial and industrial was allowed to be located, and then we look at our zoning maps, and there's a lot of properties that didn't match with that Future Land Use Map designation for the various properties. So we went through, adopted these on a reevaluation ordinance, went through a process of notifying by certified mail a few thousand landowners. The ordinance had application provisions, some based on vesting rights principles, some based at least on compatibility, and another one or two things, and application procedures so landowners could come in and submit an application based on one of those provisions for compatibility or vested rights status or, you know, based upon those principles and maybe get their application approved and no longer be subject to a downzoning. I should have said the first part was sending out a notice to the landowners saying your property has been identified as potentially being downzoned. The end result was we spent a few years -- ultimately, it was spread out over a few years implementing that, pretty sizable costs, and the end result was we rezoned out of a gross inventory of over 4,000 acres of commercial, roughly 1,000 of it developed at the time, about 215 acres of commercial zoning was downzoned, and about 6,000 dwelling units -- potential dwelling units based on zoning was downzoned, but much of that was within wetland areas that -- it was density on paper. My point is, it was an exercise, for the most part, in futility, and I kind of get the sense that we're heading down the same path here if we pursue what's being discussed as far as notices and maybe application procedures. I think the -- we have to consider just how few properties we're talking about here. And, again, my estimation of maybe a little over 200. Is it worth that exercise? Maybe the better approach, if there are serious concerns -- and the attorney's office has expressed them, I'm hearing them from the Planning Commission. The best approach might be simply don't implement these changes. And that certainly is an option. Weighing the benefit -- you know, there's the cost and time of this -- of such a process to notify the landowners and so forth -- what are we going to gain? We're going to gain at most a couple hundred or so acres of property that is subject to a lower density. Page 73 of 84 1/26/2012 CCPC "Special EAR Amendments" meeting And again I go back to this map here. Where is the PUD map? You know, maybe it's not worth it if that's the approach we're considering. And again that is far more than the actual 200- and - something acres, because this is all county owned, this is all county, this is school board, part of this is county owned, that's state owned. It whittles down to, again, just a relatively small amount of property. MS. ASHTON- CICKO: Well, I think the greatest impact is the removal of the density bonuses. MR. WEEKS: Yes. MS. ASHTON- CICKO: And, you know, they're -- none of the bonuses are bonuses as of right. They're all ones that are awarded discretionarily during the rezoning. So if they stay, I mean, couldn't -- if you didn't remove the bonuses, which I think has got a potential for big numbers against the county, then that can be something that's looked on at a case -by -case basis when they go through the rezone process, right? And the fact that they're in the CHA could be a factor that's considered when the board and the Planning Commission review the rezone. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I would rather take a cautious approach than a flagrant just -- let's just do it because it's where the new line is. I don't think that's logical. I don't know if the impacts have all been considered. Heidi pointed out something during break that the CIE has a section in it, Objective 3, that pertains to improvements in the Coastal High Hazard Area that -- we understand now where it operates, but if we move the line as far north as some of these do, what does that really mean for some of the other processes and other departments like transportation and the utilities that have to weigh in on it? And I'm not sure by moving the line we have to do any of this stuff that we're asking to do. And I think the impracticality of someone cashing in on these density bonuses to any great extent right now is probably rarer than the im -- than anyone objecting or knowing that their land's being rezoned on the yellow areas that you have here. I mean, we're -- we seem to be swatting a fly with a sledge hammer in some regard, and I don't know why it's necessary to put us at risk for that. So that's my opinion on it, David. Right now we don't have any problems in the Coastal High Hazard Area with density because it's all built out and we're -- the potential for more of it, and if it's subject to -- it's not -- I mean, it's non -- they can't demand. They can only ask it. And it's -- if it turns out it's impractical in the process, we just say no. And we have plenty of reasons in which we could say no, and so could the board. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: I agree. And you're just talking about properties on the very eastern fringe of the CCHA (sic), and so you're not talking about a lot of added risk of flooding. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So I would suggest we accept the new line and we include that and incorporate it into our exhibits as it's supposed to be, but all the references to the changes in the density within the coastal high hazard and new reductions outside the old line -- outside the Traffic Congestion Area don't happen. I mean, I think that your swap for the Traffic Congestion Area seems reasonable. I don't see how that's going to hurt anything. But other than that, I don't know why we would want to -- why we'd want to expose ourselves, our taxpayers. I mean, my God. Just filing an issue in court right now becomes a nightmare in legal fees. Why do we want to go there? MS. ASHTON- CICKO: Mr. Chair, can we go over the different items of impact with the CHA and make sure that we're clear on which ones you're saying to keep or eliminate? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I'm not -- I mean, this board's going to be saying it, but I'm suggesting we take a more cautious approach to it because there's no reason not to. MS. ASHTON- CICKO: Yeah. There's -- I've identified -- I think we've got five or six of them. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, why don't we start, then, with your identifications. MS. ASHTON- CICKO: Well, the first one I think you've already -- you've already given your thoughts, and the rest of the board needs to concur, and that's eliminating the language that staff has put in to remove the density bonuses. So you would take out the language, and that would be on section -- COMMISSIONER EBERT: What page are you on, Heidi? MS. ASHTON- CICKO: Let me get to the page. MR. WEEKS: The density bonuses start on Page -- bottom of Page 10 of the Future Land Use Element. MS. ASHTON- CICKO: Okay. So, then, starting on Page 10 you would delete the underlined language that's on the top of Page 11, the conversion of commercial bonus. That would be deleted. Then you've got the proximity to the activity center. You would remove the language that says "Coastal High Hazard Area" on the bottom. That would be deleted under B. Page 74 of 84 1/26/2012 CCPC "Special EAR Amendments" meeting MR. WEEKS: And let me interrupt, Heidi, because the present -- presently that density bonus, it's stated as not applicable in the Traffic Congestion Area. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: See, and that mirrors the Traffic Congestion Area which, by using that as a substitute, I can't see how that's going to be an issue that's going to be challenged and hurt us in any way. MS. ASHTON- CICKO: Okay. So you're okay with leaving it in there? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. That's why I was saying leave the ones in relative -- MS. ASHTON- CICKO: Okay. So that one will stay, and then the affordable - housing- workforce bonus would be -- that language would be deleted, correct? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Correct. I mean, it doesn't -- you're not going to be able to afford to put a workforce housing in that area anyways. The land's too expensive. It's a fight we don't need to have. MS. ASHTON- CICKO: Then there was a roadway- access bonus. MR. WEEKS: Mr. Chairman? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's a traffic- congestion swap, I think. MS. ASHTON- CICKO: I think it's the next one, but I'm not sure. Go ahead. MR. WEEKS: I'm sorry. I don't want to debate. I just want to -- the comment you just made about didn't think someone would pursue the affordable- workforce - housing bonus -- and I should point out that that largest cluster of properties down off the East Trail is -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's north of the current CHA line. One of my statements earlier was not change anything north of the CHH (sic) line and only change those subject to the Traffic Congestion Area. So that's outside of the Traffic Congestion Area and it's north of the current line. MR. WEEKS: No. It's within the -- it's currently within the Traffic Congestion Area. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No. It's Regal Acres, isn't it? MR. WEEKS: Yes, which is within -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No. That's within the Traffic Congestion Area? MR. WEEKS: Yes, because the Traffic Congestion Area comes down -- heading east down Davis Boulevard, it goes around the density band around Rattlesnake Hammock Road -- I'm sorry -- comes down Rattlesnake Hammock Road to the east and then goes around the density band in the southwest quadrant of Rattlesnake Hammock and Collier Boulevard, and then continues east, and then all properties lying seaward of that line are within the Traffic Congestion Area. So that captures all of those properties east of Collier Boulevard from Rattlesnake Hammock Road imaginary extension. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Look at your map. You're saying that blue line on that map goes all the way straight to the county line all the way out to the Miami -Dade County? MR. WEEKS: It goes to the edge of the -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Regal Acres is not -- if you were to drop a north/south line from where that dotted traffic congestion line ends, you're not -- I don't believe you're hitting Regal Acres. It's out where your pen is. MR. WEEKS: Right. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. See where your blue -- MR. WEEKS: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. So I -- MR. WEEKS: And text describes it as continuing eastward, the text in the Future Land Use Element, all lands lying seaward, right? So it's not a matter of stopping at one mile east of 951. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Why is the rural area a Traffic Congestion Area? I mean, guys, that's out in the middle -- U.S. 41 East? MR. WEEKS: That's still part of the Coastal Urban Designated Area. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But why is it considered Traffic Congestion Area? MR. WEEKS: I think the same reason that the rest of the areas -- it historically was based on social, physical, and environmental constraints to how much road widening could occur, how many new roads could be constructed within that area. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Well, they're planning -- they're doing a PD &E study right now to widen U.S. 41 all the way out to San Marco. So how would -- I mean, okay. It makes no sense. MR. WEEKS: Well -- but on that point, staff is proposing the deletion of the Traffic Congestion Area Page 75 of 84 1/26/2012 CCPC "Special EAR Amendments" meeting because transportation staff has told us, we don't think that's necessary any longer. We tried these very same amendments we're discussing today with the exception of moving the Coastal High Hazard Area boundary itself during the last set of EAR -based amendments, and we had support to do so by the county commission at transmittal, but by a 3 -2 vote. Adoption, no one changed their position. That was a stalemate, so the regulations stayed the same. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So the Habitat project that is concerned over loss of density wouldn't have any density change if they already lost a unit, because of the Traffic Congestion Area, right? MR. WEEKS: Correct, as long as we leave the bonuses as you're proposing. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right, okay. Well, then that's -- that's the only caveat we need to make to where Heidi's heading, so -- MS. ASHTON- CICKO: Okay. So at the bottom of Page 11, that last sentence regarding the workforce housing, language would be deleted? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. MS. ASHTON- CICKO: Okay. And then on Page 12 the roadway- access bonus, did you want to keep that or leave it? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, if it's not applicable within the Traffic Congestion Area but we take out that and we substitute Coastal High Hazard Area, what difference have we made from a property- rights perspective? Nothing. MS. ASHTON- CICKO: I'm okay with that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So I would just -- I'd leave the new language in. Substitute the -- substitute "coastal high hazard" in. Okay. Then -- MS. ASHTON-CICKO: The next one is under the density reduction, the Coastal High Hazard Area. That's essentially, you know, replacing the "traffic congestion" with the "coastal high hazard minus one," although there is an area -- an added area of the "minus one" that -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, and I think here's where we need to clean the language up, if we somehow can refer to the old traffic congestion line as a solution, our -- David, I don't know what language you'd want to look at -- but in this particular one, if we arbitrarily take everything in the Coastal High Hazard Area that's greater than what's in the Traffic Congestion Area -- is that correct? MR. WEEKS: One more time, please. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Under 3A if we automatically downzone everything by one that is within the new Coastal High Hazard Area, that's a greater area than what's in the current Traffic Congestion Area; is that correct? Is that the concern? MS. ASHTON- CICKO: That's correct. Now, with the bonuses, you'd minus one, but you'd still have the opportunity to ask if you qualified for a bonus for more. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But your base density would be downzoned by one. MS. ASHTON- CICKO: Correct. MR. WEEKS: Oh, please don't use that word. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I know, but that's what's going to happen, so that's why I wanted to use it, so -- but then in reality what's going to happen, you're going to be rezoned to less than you could -- MR. WEEKS: We are not changing anyone's zoning, but their eligible density is being reduced by -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Oh, I love this bureaucratic speak -ease, but that works, David. So how would we approach "A" so that we limit it to only those areas that are -- currently have their eligible density reduced by one -- boy, I said that right -- by the Traffic Congestion Area in relationship to where the new line is? MR. WEEKS: In this case we know specifically where those properties are at. Rather than refer to a -- you know, presumably soon- to -be- nonexistent Traffic Congestion Area, I would suggest we call out the property, perhaps say the west half of section so and so. Give a description of the location. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. MR. WEEKS: That could be short, succinct, and nobody has to dig through the historical records to see where it used to be. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I would see that as a much better solution, okay. Page 76 of 84 1/26/2012 CCPC "Special EAR Amendments" meeting Then, Heidi, where is your other -- what other areas have you pulled out? MS. ASHTON- CICKO: David mentioned that -- and we already covered it, but I'll just make sure that everyone understands -- is -- I think it was Policy 6.1.1, the vegetation retention changes from 10 percent to 25 percent. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: We wouldn't be -- we wouldn't want to do that then the same, so that wouldn't -- that wouldn't be one of the effectiveness of moving the line, so -- MS. ASHTON- CICKO: But it is tied into the line, correct, David? MR. WEEKS: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So how do you -- how do we work that since you don't want to show the old CHHA on the maps but only the new? MS. ASHTON-CICKO: Well, why don't we go to CCME, 6.1.1, so you all know what we're looking at. And that's on -- starting on Page 11. MR. WEEKS: And actually that is where -- MS. ASHTON- CICKO: Where is that part, David? MR. WEEKS: There on Page 11, Policy 6.1.1, Page 1 I of the CCME, and that is -- that's the beginning of the table. It carries on to the next page, but it's -- this area at the bottom of Page 11 is the only area of change, the only area impacted by the change to the Coastal High Hazard Area. You see for residential and mixed -use development for properties inside the Coastal High Hazard Area versus outside of it how the percentages change by acreage sizes, so that's -- it's those properties, again, that are two- and -a -half acres in size up to just shy of 20 acres that would be impacted by this. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: David, how cumbersome would it be to leave the green line on this -- leave these lines on this map and use this map, the one that was just on the overhead showing the three lines in the GMP? MR. WEEKS: We could do that as a part of the Future Land Use Map series. MS. ASHTON- CICKO: So you're saying that we would keep our existing Coastal High Hazard Area or -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No. I would suggest that the map that Corby had on there that showed the three different delineations -- I mean, someone in the future's going to need to understand what we've done here today or what may be done, and this map shows it pretty clearly. Why wouldn't we -- it's not a complicated map. Why wouldn't we just add it to the series and include it, and then in the references on 6.1.1, we refer to the Coastal High Hazard Area by the delineations on the map? MS. ASHTON- CICKO: Yeah. I think David was proposing to add that as an exhibit, but it's called -- you're talking about the Coastal High Hazard Area Work Map, No. 1? MR. WEEKS: No. Just let me jump in, please. MS. ASHTON- CICKO: Okay. MR. WEEKS: What we're -- what Mark is proposing is the map that's on the visualizer, have part of the Future Land Use Map series include a map that shows the old or, right now, existing Coastal High Hazard Area boundary, the green as well as the new, and so we can have in our -- this Policy 6.1.1 could have a reference to the former Coastal High Hazard Area boundary, and then we have the maps so someone can easily see, well, what was that boundary, to help us identify in the future what properties are being exempted from this regulatory change. (Commissioner Midney left the boardroom.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Then no property rights are being violated because nothing's changed. We moved the line for the notification of the public as to where they're living in relationship to storm surge, but we've not taken away property rights. The map in color works, but if you would simply take the legend up on top where it says "old CHHA," you have the width of the green line equal to the red. Well, that's not the way the map is portrayed. The green is a little wider. So why don't you put that the same width -- MR. WEEKS: Right. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- that way if this map ever got reproduced in black and white, like it is electronically, then you could still see where the lines potentially were, and then you've got it covered both ways. MS. ASHTON- CICKO: So do you want to tie it into the date of the adoption so it's the CHAA (sic) line prior to -- Page 77 of 84 1/26/2012 CCPC "Special EAR Amendments" meeting CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I would suggest you add that to the legend, yes. Then you can see the width of the line, old CHHA -- or CHHA prior to whatever time this is adopted, then the proposed CHHA as adopted, and you've got not only dates but colors, you've got widths, a line demarcation. Go ahead. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: I thought that's what we were doing with this Future Land Use Map here, the draft. It has the old CHA and the new CHA. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, it is, but this one brings it up a lot closer. That's the whole county. I was looking at the scale. And since David's going to include this as a part of the FLUE, I think it would be helpful to have them both. It doesn't hurt. MS. ASHTON- CICKO: So then the -- are you also saying the vegetation retention you want to have prior to so- and -so date, this is the criteria, and then after the date of adoption, it's 25 percent for everything? I'm trying to understand what you're proposing. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No. Everything -- the 6. 1.1 would be based on the old CHA. It wouldn't be based on the new -- MS. ASHTON- CICKO: Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- unless someone -- I mean -- MS. ASHTON- CICKO: Okay. I understand now. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The whole purpose of leaving them both on the map is so you could use the Policy 6.1.1 easier. MS. ASHTON-CICKO: Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Does that work with staff? COMMISSIONER EBERT: Yep, makes sense. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. And, Heidi, from your perspective, do you see any other areas that need to be focused on or looked at in this regard? MS. ASHTON-CICKO: You mean regarding 6.1.1? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No, regarding any of it, CHA, any of the issues? MS. ASHTON- CICKO: Yeah. I just want to make sure the next is the CIE. David said that the sewer facilities floodproofing requirement changes, correct? MR. WEEKS: Yes. Do we want to exempt that? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No, I don't know if we need to worry about -- that's a -- MS. ASHTON- CICKO: Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's county owned, but we're not going to file a Bert Harris against ourselves. MS. ASHTON- CICKO: Okay. So that one is okay. Then we just wanted to take a look at the Objective 3 of the CIE. David, that's the public spending in the CHHA. MR. WEEKS: Yeah, that -- the existing policies, Objective 3 in policies say something to the effect of public expenditure for infrastructure within the Coastal High Hazard Area will be based upon adopted level -of- service standards and future growth protections in the Future Land Use Element. To me, I don't see that problematic at all. Wherever the Coastal High Hazard Area is, we're going to be limited to public expenditure of funds for infrastructure based on what the Future Land Use Element is going to allow, what development it would allow, and our adopted level -of- service standards. I'm glad you brought it up, but I don't see any issue there at all. MS. ASHTON- CICKO: And that's Objective 3 on Page 7 of the CIE. COMMISSIONER EBERT: That's important. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: If there's not an issue from David's interpretation, then I don't think we have an issue with it. Heidi, are there any other sections of any of the documents that we need to consider in this regard for modifying this as we've discussed? MS. ASHTON- CICKO: I think we've covered everything. David already mentioned the other one that we read in the change, so -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Well, that brings it back to full circle where we left off on the FLUE. But, Margie, if you have any concerns over what's been discussed while you're -- because you've been sitting here all day, Page 78 of 84 1/26/2012 CCPC "Special EAR Amendments" meeting and this is probably why, so -- MS. STUDENT - STIRLING: For the record, Margie Student- Stirling representing Habitat for Humanity. I want to say thank you, because all I was authorized to put on record for the client was we do own property in that area, as David pointed out, and we also own some that I believe is beyond, off of Fritchey and Laredo Drive, which runs off of Greenway. So I want to evaluate any impacts that might do to those with staff and make sure they're not. But thank you very much for considering private - property rights. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You're welcome. I think it works well. It will help staff get out of all the processes that we would have had to get into that now we don't need to, so I think it's a good conclusion. The rest of the FLUE, we're trying to finish it up. Is there any other questions from the FLUE up through the end of it, Page 20? MR. WEEKS: Mr. Chairman, on the Future Land Use Map itself -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes. MR. WEEKS: -- well, actually -- well, you can see it here, but, actually, that other exhibit. Mr. Schiffer asked me to put something on the record before he left. As I mentioned earlier, the red line represents a generalized future Coastal High Hazard Area boundary, and the yellow is the specific. Mr. Schiffer had suggested that rather than following regular shapes, that red line, to have it more closely follow the actual contours of the yellow shading so it would be curvy, wavy, and so forth, rather than following streets or otherwise, you know, in following straight lines. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But didn't you say you're going to put this on electronically so that when it blows up you can actually see how the yellow coincides with an actual pinpointed location on the map? MR. WEEKS: Yes, yes. The staff -- the staff recommendation is going to be that -- and this is a work map that we're looking at here. The version that would be adopted was also distributed to you previously. The difference would be that the Traffic Congestion Area boundary will be removed. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. MR. WEEKS: Because as we discussed a few moments ago, we want to have the green line, the existing boundary, continue to be shown. So we would have the red and the green lines and the yellow shading actually adopted into a map as part of the Future Land Use Map Series. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. But if you leave the green line on this -- I mean the red line, this scale in a more straight format, the worst it does is highlight people to that they may be in an area of concern. And then we'll either come in and ask staff or go to the website and blow it up, and it helps them clarify they're not. I would rather see that as a conservative approach than one that's so tight people aren't sure where they lie and they don't even bother to check it. So I would -- I think the more conservative approach is actually better. And if you've got it electronically, I think Brad's concerns probably would be addressed. MR. WEEKS: Okay. Because the staff rationale was in trying to follow these irregular shapes of the yellow pattern here is -- we think the line would be a real mess on the Future Land Use Map -- COMMISSIONER EBERT: Yes. MR. WEEKS: -- especially when you take -- the smaller the map gets, down to the eight and a half by 11, it would be, I think, indiscernible or -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. I think it works. On Page 14, David, there's a -- middle of the page, you've got a paragraph where a couple changes were made. The second sentence starts -- it's on the fourth line at the very end of the -- of that line. It says, "If such a product is located within the boundaries of the Mixed -Use Activity Center which is within the Coastal High Hazard Area, the eligible density shall be limited to four dwelling units per acre." Now, I circled this earlier because the four seems to contradict the drop in one to three. But now that we've made these changes, I'll leave it up to you to figure out. MR. WEEKS: Okay. No, it's important to note that this is within the mixed -use activity center. This is not part of the density rating system. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. MR. WEEKS: So this is not some adjustment up or down. The activity- center language either provides that, here's your maximum, and if you're outside of the Coastal High Hazard Area, it's 16. If you're within, it's four, period. Page 79 of 84 1/26/2012 CCPC "Special EAR Amendments" meeting No adjustments. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. I understand that. Anybody else have any other questions? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: There's a -- MR. WEEKS: Commissioner? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes, sir. MR. WEEKS: Just to point out, because one of the other concerns made by the Planning Commission at the workshop in October had to do with property rights, concerns with proposed changes to the Mixed -Use Activity Center and was -- I think it was explained in the text of this document. Staff has backed off of those changes. You'll still see some strikethrough/underline here just for cleanup, but the real impact of the changes being proposed originally we've withdrawn. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Does anybody have any questions in the support doc -- go ahead, Heidi. MS. ASHTON- CICKO: Well, maybe you just covered it, but -- COMMISSIONER EBERT: Say that again. MS. ASHTON- CICKO: -- on Page 14, under -- after "for residential -only development" -- because the way I'm reading it, it's saying you can get up to 16 units if you're in -- if you're not in the coastal area. But if you're in the coastal area, then you only get four. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. He -- go ahead and -- MS. ASHTON- CICKO: And that might be what you were just discussing. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: We were, but maybe David needs to -- MR. WEEKS: Yes. I'm not sure, if we included the text. There -- presently in the Future Land Use Element, this Mixed -Use Activity Center text, there's a discrepancy. If you're part of a mixed -use development and you're in the Coastal High Hazard Area, you can still develop up to 16 -- excuse me -- you're limited to four units per acre. But if you're a residential -only project in the Coastal High Hazard Area, you can do 16. There's an inconsistency there, and this is to correct that inconsistency. This is to provide that residential development, whether it's mixed use or whether it's residential -only, if it's in the Coastal High Hazard Area, it is capped at four units per acre. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Now, does anybody else have any other questions including through the support documentation of the FLUE? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Let's leave the FLUE. Let's get out of that document. Let's go to Golden Gate Area Master Plan. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Oh, now the questions start. MR. WEEKS: Mr. Chairman, before you go -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I knew somebody would do this. I paused a long time, but okay, David. MR. WEEKS: Nothing to add about changes and whatnot, for discussion here, but I'm assuming that at the end of this meeting this is going to get continued -- excuse me -- it's going to be scheduled for, what do you call it? I'm drawing a blank. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Consent. MR. WEEKS: Consent, thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, it will be, but I think we've got some sections that are outstanding, and I was going to strategize with Mike, as we go to conclude today, whether it's best to hold the vote off till we get to consent and the other issues resolved or vote on what we can today and then do the separate issues on consent. I'm going to leave that up to him to tell us as we get -- close out today. MR. WEEKS: All right. Because I fully understand that there's this -- housing and CCME have issues of substance that you're not done with yet. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Correct. MR. WEEKS: That will need to be continued, I believe, to a date and time certain so we don't have to readvertise. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah. If we -- we'll continue it to a specific Planning Commission meeting, whether that's the 16th of February or whatever in March, whatever the staff can produce, so -- but let's move on and Page 80 of 84 1/26/2012 CCPC "Special EAR Amendments" meeting get through the bulk of it before we leave. Anybody have anything on the Golden Gate Master Plan? It's 11 pages. We'll take it all at one time. Any members of -- David, did you have any general comments or anything you had to make? MR. WEEKS: (Shakes head.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Does anybody on the Planning Commission? I have -- start on Page 2, Mike --or Dave. Policy 1.4.1. MR. BOSI: Corby. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I'm just curious what the intention is and the changes in the sense that it says, "The County's Code Enforcement Board shall strictly enforce the Land Development Code and other applicable codes and laws." To what extent? I mean, are we bringing in -- what laws are -- I mean, the "laws to control the illegal storage of machinery, vehicles and junk, and the illegal operation of commercial activities in the Golden Gate area." Does that -- I thought that they were basically Land Development Code. So what other codes and laws are we -- do they now have authority to enforce? MR. SCHMIDT: It's sort of an inclusive statement, not being able to be specific about which ones they are, but not all the enforcement activities are covered in the LDC. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Well, what -- is it the Collier County Code of Laws and Ordinances that we're talking about? I don't like the open- endedness that anybody could bring in because they want to. And I'm not sure anybody would do that, but I -- why can't -- we try to be specific. Why aren't we specific here? MR. SCHMIDT: And that would be the more inclusive document than Code of Law. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Well, why don't we say that? Land Development Code and the Code of Law -- Collier County Code of Laws, and that takes care of the ambiguity. MR. SCHMIDT: Can do. I think there's another location on the same page for that and where else we find it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Yeah, there is right above 1.4.01. Then on Page 4, Goal 4. Goal 4 was written for Golden Gate City. You take out the reference to Golden Gate City, what does Goal 4 then apply to since it's in the Golden Gate Area Master Plan, and the master plan covers more than Golden Gate City? Likewise, in Goal 5, we did -- we took the same thing out, but the Goal 5 was written for Golden Gate Estates. So why would we take the reference there out when it doesn't really apply to the city? We had two different studies going on at the same time, and that's why we actually had committee meetings in different locations to address the two different areas. MR. SCHMIDT: Yeah, I see that now as well. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. MR. SCHMIDT: It was just a matter of reformatting. But staff did not catch that they were specific to "city" at one location and "estates" at the other. We'll revise as necessary. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Page 7, Policy 6.1.2. This goes back -- since you're changing the policy, this focuses on the 1 -75 and Everglades Boulevard interchange, and it makes it appear as though we're supporting -- we supported that interchange. Well, at the time there was nothing else on the table. A lot has changed since then. Now, the other language in this document we've changed to talk about the area in general. Is there a reason we couldn't use that in this particular policy? MR. SCHMIDT: I believe the "vicinity of was that change. Is that not vaguer enough? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. No, that's fine. I didn't see this underline, so I didn't even -- I just -- okay, okay. That will work. MR. SCHMIDT: Yeah. I believe that was one of a set of changes and that was -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. And I just had it circled before I realized it was okay, so -- Objective 7.3 on Page 8. Why did we add the sections of the county? And the Land Development Services Department, is that -- what one is that now? I thought it was the Growth Management Department. You guys -- it was CDES. I don't know. You're completely confusing me as to what you call yourselves. MR. SCHMIDT: Growth Management Division, Land Development Services Department. The correct flow of -- that you want to refer to -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, this says, "The county transportation planning section of the Land Page 81 of 84 1/26/2012 CCPC "Special EAR Amendments" meeting Development Services Department." What is that? Do we have that? MR. SCHMIDT: Yeah. MR. BOSI: It's a specific subsection of the Growth Management Division. I would work -- MR. SCHMIDT: It's our counterpart with Reed Jarvi and John Podczerwinsky. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Why don't you say -- is it part of the Growth Management Division? MR. BOSI: I would just say that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah, why don't you say -- because that's not likely to change as much as some of these underlying departments. In fact, you -all are probably going to have some reorganization here this year, so why don't we just say growth management either department or division, whatever it is. MR. BOSI: Division. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. COMMISSIONER EBERT: What's that, 7.3? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: 7.3. That takes us to my -- end of my questions on the Golden Gate Master Plan, and I'll ask anybody again if they have any questions. If not, is there anything in the supplement sections of that that you have questions on? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I don't have any in the supplement myself. So if I don't hear anybody else -- Terri doesn't have any. So let's move on to the economic element. Now, that one's a tough one. It's three pages. Does anybody have any questions on the economic element or the supplement -- or the supporting documentation as to it? COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: The lofty goal is yet to be seen. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, you know, what's nice is it was a lot -- written in a lot more difficult manner, but it was cleaned up a lot. So the outcome, I think, is good. It works. It's succinct. Anybody? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: If there's no other questions, we've come close to the end of our meeting. Mr. Bosi, what do you suggest to handle it from here? MR. BOSI: Speaking with the project coordinator, Mr. Schmidt, and he had suggested that we could be back on February 16th where you are having your regularly- scheduled Planning Commission meeting to bring back the potential changes related to the Housing Element as well as the CCME 10. 1.6 and 10. 1.7 regarding the -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Lake Trafford. MR. BOSI: -- Lake Trafford, and the modifications that David had suggested, bring those before you, and you can review those and make recommendations at that. The 1 st of March would be the date we would target for your consent approval of all of the changes. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Okay, good. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Now, in order to get to consent, though, we've got to take a vote prior to the consent-- MR. BOSI: Right. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- because the consent is affirmation our vote was interpreted in the right way. MR. BOSI: And I'm not sure. Heidi, maybe I would have to lean upon you. Could they make a vote to make recommendations as discussed today to the Board of County Commissioners and also make a separate vote on the l6th regarding the proposed changes, or would you have to continue that to the 16th so we could vote on them as a full scale? MS. ASHTON- CICKO: I think it's at your option. The ones that you think are done today, you can vote on and make your recommendation if we have -- still have one, two -- COMMISSIONER EBERT: I would just kind of -- MS. ASHTON- CICKO: You still have a quorum. COMMISSIONER EBERT: -- wait till the 16th to do it all. MS. ASHTON- CICKO: Or you can do them all. It's at your option. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Let's just wait. COMMISSIONER VONIER: I'd like to wait. Page 82 of 84 1/26/2012 CCPC "Special EAR Amendments" meeting CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Bill, wait. Do you want to wait? Okay. Well, it looks like the majority -- Karen, do you -- COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Doesn't matter to me. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Looks like we'll just wait till the 16th and vote on them all. COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: One vote's going to be cleaner than two. MR. BOSL• And then, Heidi, would we recommend for them to make a motion to continue this item -- the EAR transmittal items until the 16th then, therefore, could satisfy the advertising as well? MS. ASHTON- CICKO: Yes. So we continue that to a date certain; we don't need to readvertise. And, then, just for purposes of the public knowing it's -- it will likely come back on March 1 st for a consent approval. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Well, let's make -- someone want to make a motion to -- COMMISSIONER EBERT: I make a motion to -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- continue this meeting till -- COMMISSIONER EBERT: -- to continue this meeting until February 16th. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: At nine. Let's start -- let's do it -- let's start the meeting with this issue so we can get this resolved before we get into the hearing issues, if that's okay. Does that sound -- we have -- because this is a continuation of this meeting. So we could finish this one up before we get into our regular hearing, or do we have to start a regular hearing on the 16th? MS. ASHTON- CICKO: It's at your option. You can do this first if you'd like. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Because we have to do one, close it, then open this one, or vice versa; is that right, because there's two separate meetings? One's an EAR meeting that's being continued and the other is our regular meeting. MS. ASHTON- CICKO: I think you can probably do it all in one meeting. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. MS. ASHTON- CICKO: As old business and then new business. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: What else do we have on that meeting date? COMMISSIONER EBERT: Tuscany. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And Tuscany is a -- COMMISSIONER EBERT: Continued. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: It's going to be both a final and a continued and a consent at the same meeting. I'm trying to think of how long these are going to take. We could probably wrap this one up faster than Tuscany. MR. BOSI: There's not a tremendous amount of left -over items to address in the EAR. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: What's the preference of this committee? COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: I'd rather deal with this one, myself, and then get into Tuscany. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Before we get into -- okay, fine. Then, Ms. Ebert, your motion was made to continue this -- COMMISSIONER VONIER: Second. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- to March, and the second was made by Bill -- to March -- I mean February 16th -- COMMISSIONER EBERT: February 16th. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- at -- first up, nine o'clock in the morning, okay. COMMISSIONER EBERT: That's correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. And the second agrees. COMMISSIONER VONIER: (Nods head.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: All those in favor, signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER VONIER: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Aye. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Aye. COMMISSIONER KLEIN: Aye. COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody opposed? (No response.) Page 83 of 84 1/26/2012 CCPC "Special EAR Amendments" meeting CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion carries. There's six of us, 6 -0. With that, we are out of here until our next meeting. Thank you, all. MR. BOSL• Thank you, Mr. Chair, Commission Members. Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. Appreciate the staff. David, thank you for your help. It's always fun. There being no further business for the good of the County, the meeting was adjourned by order of the Chair at 4:25 p.m. COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION v! I W P k Attt�:� MARK STRAIN, CHAIRMAN ATTEST DWIGHT E. BROCK, CLERK These minutes approved by the Board on 3 ' L , as presented v-1, or as corrected TRANSCRIPT PREPARED ON BEHALF OF GREGORY COURT REPORTING SERVICE, INC., BY TERRI LEWIS, COURT REPORTER AND NOTARY PUBLIC. Page 84 of 84