The URL can be used to link to this page

CCPC Minutes 08/25/2010 EARAugust 25, 2010 CCPC/EAR TRANSCRIPT OF THE EAR MEETING OF THE COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION Naples, Florida August 25, 2010 LET rF BE REMEMBERED, that the Collier County Planning Commission, in and for the County of Collier, having conducted business herein, met on this date at 8:30 a.m. in SPECIAL SESSION in Building "F" of the Government Complex, East Naples, Florida, with the following members present: ALSO PRESENT: Mark Strain, Chairman Melissa Ahem Donna Reed -Caron Karen Homiak Paul Midney Bob Murray Brad Schiffer Jeffrey Klatzkow, County Attorney Heidi Ashton - Cicko, Assistant County Attorney Mike Bosi, Comprehensive Planning Manager Page 1 of 89 August 25, 2010 CCPC/EAR CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, thank you. Good morning, everyone. Welcome to the August 25th meeting of the Collier County Planning Commission. This is a workshop for the EAR, which is the Evaluation and Appraisal Report. With that, I'd like to ask everyone to stand for Pledge of Allegiance. (Pledge of Allegiance was recited in unison.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. It's been about two months since we met, so a little rusty here this morning. It's going to take a while to get back in the saddle. And I want to make sure everybody is still aware of the basic rules. And that is we talk as fast and as unclear as we can so Cherie' can't get anything right. (Laughter.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And we will do our best. I do miss the coffee from recording department. But -- oh, well. Somebody out there probably isn't listening. And let's go with the roll call. Before we do, Ms. Ebert was appointed last -- in July to start at our regular meeting in August. And we didn't have a regular meeting in August. And at the time no one told her that we had these meetings going on, special meetings, because they're unscheduled. So she had a commitment that she made during this period of time, and she can't be here for these meetings this week. So with that in mind, if the secretary — vice- chairman would please do the roll call. COMMISSIONER CARON: Ms. Ahern? COMMISSIONER AHERN: Here. COMMISSIONER CARON: Mr. Schiffer? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I'm here. COMMISSIONER CARON: Mr. Midney? COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Here. COMMISSIONER CARON: Ms. Caron is here. Mr. Strain? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Here. COMMISSIONER CARON: Mr. Murray? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Yes. COMMISSIONER CARON: And Ms. Homiak? COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Here. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And that's out of order, so that's probably -- Ms. Caron usually sits down at the end. "Okay, the approval of the agenda. We have a -- I've talked with staff about how to format today's meeting, hopefully to move us through this in an organized fashion. Mike's going to start out with chapter one in the introduction part of it. And then I thought we'd get to chapter three and get that behind us, because it isn't a chapter that is of elements, it's basically a chapter of issues that they've just notified DCA we're basically working on. So I thought it would be good if he would explain those two before we get into the EAR text element by element. What I intend to do today is, as we go through each element and we go through the pages like we normally do, as members of the audience have issues, they're more than welcome to raise their hand and let us know, and they can come up and speak. But at the end of each element, I'll certainly ask if anybody would like to speak on that element, so you'll have at least that opportunity to come up if you don't raise your hand during the meantime. This can be done fairly informally today. There isn't a lot of people here. So hopefully we'll move through it. The one element that will not be heard today is the Conservation Coastal Management Element, CCME. That element is going to take some staff involvement. Staff members that need to participate in that have not been feeling well, they won't be here until Friday. So it will be Friday before we can hear that element. So that certainly is one that we won't be talking about today. And if you're here for just that one, that will be put off till Friday morning; at the earliest it will be 8:30. And the other item I'd like to note is that there are certain elements that the public is more concerned about than others. And if it's singular elements, rather than ask you to sit here while we talk about a lot of dry topics for hours on end, we'll try to move those elements that you're most interested in forward in the agenda so that you're not Page 2 of 89 August 25, 2010 CCPC/EAR here all day if you don't want to be. I know that there's some people missing I heard that were going to be here. And when they show — various members of the audience show up, I'll ask them what their concerns are. And if we can move it up once we finish with whatever element we're discussing at that time, we'll try to move into their element next. And so with that in mind, after the introductions I'll ask the audience what elements you all are here for, and we'll try to move you forward. So Mike, let's do chapters one and three and then we'll go into the elements of the EAR. MR. BOSI: Thank you, Chairman Strain. Good morning, Planning Commission members. I've got a couple, about five or 10 minutes, just a little brief introduction about the entire process that I'm going to go through. And then we'll proceed on to the chapters as the Chair has directed. Just want to let you know, as part of the EAR process, Florida Statutes 163.3191 requires every local jurisdiction, every county, every municipality to not only adopt a Growth Management Plan, but every seven years you have to review that Growth Management Plan for its effectiveness. The EAR evaluates the performance of the elements of the GMP, the successes, the shortcomings that are contained within each one of those elements, and it provides opportunities for the local plan to respond to changes in federal, state and regional planning issues, as well as assessing the shortcomings and the successes that have been expressed within the elements that are contained within the Growth Management Plan. And the EAR -- and this is a very important process, especially for the recognition before the audience as well as the Planning Commission -- the EAR is a two -part process. The first part is where we make the assessments, where we go through the workshops. We will have adoptions of the elements that we say that we believe there has to be modifications or some alterations or changes or deletions or whatever the case may be. And then after the adoption of the EAR where we recognize the changes. And then we have 18 months to actually formulate those changes, the specificities of the words that are contained within the policies that we say need to be addressed. Where we're at in that process. Right now we're in the early stages of part one -- well, about mid -stage of part one. And the specificity, as I mentioned, the specificity of the exact changes that we're going to move to isn't what we're discussing today. We're just trying to recognize that a policy needs to be made more effective to accomplish the individual objective and further the individual goal that's expressed within the element. This process started last year in August of 2009. A number of the staffers were at the Regional Planning commission -- or Council and had a presentation from Walker Banning of the DCA to describe the EAR process, the steps, and go over in detail the areas of concern that the state has for this upcoming round of EAR'S. In September, at Community Development, now Growth Management, we held an intergovernmental meeting and invited all the local jurisdictions, all the interesting (sic) parties to come and talk about the process and discuss some of the issues and opportunities that we see within this process. In December of 2009 the Board of County Commissioners entered into a letter of agreement on the eight major issues that were contained in chapter three of the workbooks that were presented to you. And then we had three public participation meetings: On January 25th, at the North Regional Park, February 23rd at the University of Florida Collier County Agricultural Extension Office, and then March 15th in this very room. At those public participation meetings we asked the public to come and throw out every issue that they felt that was in front of this county government and things that we -- and things that we needed to tackle and the challenges that we needed to overcome. And that's really -- that is the basis of chapter one within your book, which is described, all of the comments that we received during those three meetings. Between April and July is what -- is the results in chapter two of your book. April and July is when staff went about, and in policy -by- policy analyzed each individual element to see whether those policies were effective in terms of furthering the objectives that they're designed to promote. In August -- or this month, the 1 lth of this month we had our workshop with the EAC. As we go through a number -- and the EAC reviewed the CCME Element, the Future Land Use Element, the Drainage Element and the Natural Groundwater Aquifer Recharge Element. And those four elements, the policies that were discussed by the EAC, we didn't have enough time to incorporate those within to the books that you were provided. But the staff members will indicate which policies that Page 3 of 89 August 25, 2010 CCPC /EAR were discussed when we go through those individual elements that were a topic of discussion by the EAC and what the purview of the EAC was regarding those individuals policies. From these workshops we will send this book with the areas that were discussed by the EAC and the areas that will be discussed over today and on Friday by the Planning Commission, and we will let the -- and we will send them to the Department of Community Affairs and the state reviewing agencies for their -- for their review. And it's a courtesy review to ensure that we are on the path that those regulatory agencies would like to see us in terms of our EAR review. We'll get some comments back from that. We have a November 3rd and a fallback November 10th dates for the EAC for their adoption hearings. On December 7th and 8th we have scheduled two days for the CCPC adoption hearings. And one of the things I wanted to point out, the books that you see here, the workshop books, contain a tremendous amount of detail. The detail that's going to be -- the detail that's going to be provided to the EAC and to the Planning Commission at the adoption won't be this level of detail. What will be provided in those adoption books will only be the policies and objectives that are being suggested to change. We will utilize — we'll utilize the workbook editions as the basis for how we arrived upon some -- if someone wants to look and say how did we get to these changes, they can look at the book that has the discussions of the Planning Commission, the EAC and staffs assessment of the individual policies to be able to make a much better determination to how we got to where we're at within the adoption book. The Board of County Commissioners on July -- or January 31 st is scheduled for an adoption hearing for the EAR. And then 18 months after that, or 18 months after the 60-day review period from DCA, we will have to initiate the GMP amendment process that will be based off of all the recommended changes that are contained within the EAR. Just to kind of describe how the GMP works. The GMP is comprised of individual elements, you know, transportation, capital improvement, future land use, et cetera, a number of individual elements with a diverse number of subject matters that are covered by them. The goals are the largest in the macro -- are the macro issues that those elements would like to try to accomplish. Those goals are supported by objectives. Those objectives are the marching orders that help support the goals. And those individual objectives are furthered by specific policies. And those policies further the objectives which build upon the goals which compromise (sic) the elements. That structural design dictated staffs review of each element. The conclusion of staffs work was the GMP is working as it's designed. There aren't major holes or gaps in staffs purview within our regulatory fabric for our GMP. But there are areas where we can improve upon. And this structured review in this EAR process is designed to identify those areas that we can improve upon. You know, how do we formulate this conclusion other than just our individual review of the policies? And it was contained within the introduction section. You know, it's -- the work and the effort and the energy that this county has placed within long -range planning efforts, such as the Horizon Study, such as the development of the Interactive Growth Model, the development and the formulation now of the Master Mobility Plan, the 10 -year Water Supply Plan that we recently adopted, those are all designed to bring the future, you know, into a little bit better of a focus. When -- as the project manager for the second phase of the Horizon Study, I always like to tell the public what we're doing is kind of like a sailor on a boat with a telescope. You've got the telescope and you look at it. And you first look out into the horizon, and it's a little -- it's fuzzy, it's unclear, so you have to make adjustments. And each planning study and each effort that we've undertaken as a county is trying to bring a little bit more clarity towards what that future is going to be so we can take the necessary steps to ensure that we can provide for the support and the requirements that are demanded by that individual future that we see. And think about it, think about the major changes to our Growth Management Plan. I mean, the major changes, not the small -scale amendments, not the individual amendment process, but the major changes that have been made to our Growth Management Plan over this past decade. The Rural Land Stewardship Area, the Rural Fringe Mixed Use District. Just recently -- I know we're not there yet, but we're partly there with the Immokalee Area Master Plan. All of those plans have been strongly based upon the principles of sustainability, you know, mixing of land uses, the preservation of open space, farmland, critical environmental area protections, providing opportunities Page 4 of 89 August 25, 2010 CCPC/EAR for transit choices, providing opportunities within housing choices, creating ranges of housing opportunities and choices, creating walkable neighborhoods. Those are the type of things that we've tried to promote over the last decade within our Growth Management Plan, within our major changes within those. The review of the AUIR and the CIE which will be before the Planning Commission next month on the 20th, if you look at the levels of service standards that we've determined that are appropriate for this county, we're maintaining those levels of service standards. And what we do, and what we do better than any other county that I know of, because an'07 level of service study that we presented to this -- to the Planning Commission and then the Board of County Commissioners, there's no other county that talks about the levels of service, that talks about the appropriate levels of service, that talks about what we deem as important and what we want to work and strive to than Collier County. And we are meeting those requirements, and we're continuing to evaluate whether those requirements are appropriate based upon our population, and based upon the trends that we are expecting over the next 10 to 15 years. Also, the role of the Growth Management Plan to the Land Development Code. It's important to understand that as well. The GMP objectives and policy (sic) that are expressed within each element, it's the basis for our land development code, for our LDR's, it has to find a basis, a rational nexus to our Growth Management Plan. So as we're reviewing and as we're going through the policies, you can see the natural extension of how this policy is related to a specific regulation that we have within the LDC. And the GMP also provides the framework not only for the individual land uses and how they're assembled, but it's much far reaching in its influence. You know, the GMP dictates the measures for protection for our wellfields and for our water supply, how storniwater management's coordinated, how services are to be delivered, and to what standards the community desires those services. From law enforcement to libraries to public utilities, transit, they're all contained within our Growth Management Plan. Economic development, emergency management, housing, recreation, conservation, environmental protection, those are all addressed within individual elements within our GMP. And you can even think about the Growth Management Plan as a connector or a hub for all those individual disciplines, you know. All those areas mentioned, they're addressed by the GMP. And as the GMP has evolved, as we have grown, the interrelationships between those elements are what we've tried to strengthen. Because that's ultimately what the most effective planning is, is when you take the information from your water management strategies and your water management plans, you coordinate that with your transportation plan, you coordinate that with your future land use element. And when they have a bearing upon each other and they work with each other in concert, the ultimate goal is a better regulatory future for how land is going to be assembled into the future. And you can't separate the levels of service standards contained within the CIE and their influence upon the individual elements. The standards that we construct our infrastructure has a direct bearing upon the Economic Element and the competitive advantage that Collier County has related to its other -- to other locations in South Florida and in the country. And that element has a bearing upon the housing and the types of housing that's provided for, which is directly related to the type of transportation systems that we have to construct to provide service to those individual housings and the choices of housing, which has a direct influence upon climate change and the amount of greenhouse gas that we emit as a county. Those are all connected. And that is one of the areas, as you'll notice within the EAR workbook, is one of the stress that we heard from the region and from the state is energy efficiency, greenhouse gas reductions is something that they want to see each locality take a stronger role. And one of the things you'll notice within the EAR report is our GMP was well ahead of the curve. Our GMP has been addressing these issues for a long time before the state has said it's time to start paying attention to them. This county has been paying attention to them. And that leads us back to the analysis and the specific goals of what we're trying to do today. To borrow a phrase from the GMP, we're seeking concurrency. We're seeking concurrency from the Planning Commission that you review the staff analysis and provide direction in the areas that we have designated for changes, areas that maybe we haven't taken far enough or maybe areas we've taken too far and we should pull back upon. You, as the LPA, as the recognized land planning agency for this county, your direction will -- shapes the final document that's going to be presented to the Board of County Commissioners beyond any other advisory board. Page 5 of 89 August 25, 2010 CCPC /EAR CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You know, much to the detriment of Cherie', you've hardly taken a breath during that entire presentation. She's struggling to keep up with you, so you might want to go a little bit slower pace, Mike. Thank you. MR. BOSI: I'm sorry. And I'm almost done. So I'll elongate the ending. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But Cherie', I happen to have a cup of coffee now too, so -- MR. BOSI: And a point again to remember, we're still in the first part of the stage of the process. And, you know, as I mentioned, this is a two -part process, and this workshop is that opportunity to address the specifics, the details. And it does, and if you think about this process, think about how elongated it is. The number -- we're going to spend two and a half to three years within this EAR process, from the workshop to when we adopt the Growth Management Plan amendments. And those opportunities for public involvement, for individuals to voice their concerns will be presented on numerous occasion, not just within this workshop, not just within the adoption process, but following that the transmittal of the EAR -based amendments and then the adoption of the EAR -based amendments. So there are avenues that are being provided for the public to provide their perspective to the entire process. As I mentioned, the EAR books that will be adopted won't contain the level of specificity, just the areas that we will be proposing for change, as well as the major issues that were agreed upon. Cautionary note related to our August 1 Ith EAC meeting. At some time we may find ourselves at a level of specificity that maybe is not appropriate for a GMP policy discussion. It ultimately can lead you there, to the -- and a good example is water quality. One of the main issues with the EAC was water quality and insuring saltwater intrusion within our water supply. Well, we got to a discussion level of location for where the individual test sites are, the frequency and the mannerism that we go about testing. Well, that's an appropriate discussion at maybe at the LDC level or the actual programmatic provision for that activity, but not -- we really don't want that type of specificity within our Growth Management Plan. And that's one of the things that we do ask the Planning Commission to look, look at the specificity that's contained within a number of these policies, and if you believe we've gone too far with that, that we make the necessary adjustment. Which finally leads us to how we move forward. And I think the Planning Commission, the page -by -page analysis -- and I will try to put the current pages on the visualizer for the audience, as well as I provided four public review copies that are back where the press desk is. If anyone at any period of time would like to pick up the book and see where we're at in relationship, those four are out there and available. With that, that's the conclusion of my overview introduction. And it's a summary of chapter one for the most part. I'm not sure -- there's no other specific comments I have related to the first chapter of the book, the introduction, the public participation comments, other than if you'll notice, during the -- or on the public participation section, we didn't try to filter the comments, we took those comments as verbatim as we understood them at those individual meetings. We tried to allocate whether it was an issue that directly relates to a policy, whether it was an issue that was a personal observation from the individual who was providing the comment, or whether it was really a pragmatic issue, meaning how we deliver service. And those -- that's how they were grouped. We didn't try to provide a general summary or an overtone towards what the general public was saying. And with that, I guess I would open myself to any questions that you would have on the introduction section or chapter one before we have a discussion on chapter three. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, Mike. One thing I thought I mentioned to the members of the Planning Commission, since we know we're going to be here for two days, both today and Friday, at some point we can decide that we've done enough for today to balance it out to Friday. So we may not need to put in 10 hours today, five or six hours may suffice, since we're going to be here Friday anyway. With that in mind, as we move through the pages we'll kind of keep track of the time. One item I thought we'd do is start with up to chapter two, but through chapter one, and just go through the tabs and the pages. Now, this is general introduction information, but I want to make sure that everybody on the Planning Commission gets an opportunity to ask any questions about the introduction or the concept before we go too far. And with that in mind, the first four pages of our book are Mike's cover letter with basically some maps and Page 6 of 89 August 25, 2010 CCPC /EAR introduction. Does anybody have any questions on those pages? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: By the way, when we finish the chapter one and chapter three discussion, I'll then ask the audience what you all are here for individually, and we'll tabulate who's here for the most and we'll start taking those elements in order of the attendance of the audience so you don't have to sit through the first couple chapters or sections like this. The next item is the table of contents. I can't imagine there would be any questions on that. And then we have the EAR introduction page. Does anybody have any issues on that tab? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And Mike, just for clarification, in the introduction stage you referenced the extensive two -year review of the RLSA overlay will form the basis for the EAR review and analysis of the overlay. This is on Page 9, second paragraph from the bottom. Can you explain how the RLSA changes that we had in that two -year review are being processed? Because they're not really part of this, but they're a separate transmittal; is that correct? MR. BOSI: Well, they're separate. The assessments that were derived over that two -year period from staffs perspective, we could not have done the level of detail and specificity of a review that was performed by the EAC and the Planning Commission related to those individual amendments. Those amendments have not been initiated for the amendment cycle. One of the things that we recognize is the development right now between U.S. Fish & Wildlife, some of the NGO's and the large property owners in the eastern Collier area, is the development of the Habitat Conservation Plan. The development of the habitat conservation plan is really going to be that road map that the feds are going to put forward for the RLSA as to how it moves forward. We believe there may be some influence that will be shed on those discussed and proposed amendments that will come from that Habitat Conservation Plan. We are not actively scheduling those amendments right now. The timing of when those are going to be initiated are going to be coordinated to be able to coincide with close to the conclusion of the Habitat Conservation Plan. But they will not -- it's not anticipated that those individual amendments are going to be part of the EAR -based amendments that we're going to start next April and May, but they will be ruining on a separate track. Because the level of specificity and the ability I think of that issue to dominate the entire EAR process, it's staffs perspective that we need to run those on a separate transmittal track when it's deemed appropriate to move forward with those. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. On Page 11, you discussed — started discussing the floodplain watershed management plans. And I know those are going to be further discussed in detail when we get into the element. But since you introduced it in the introduction, from a time perspective when do you see those watershed plans being completed? MR. BOSI: As we've discussed, Mac Hatcher, who is the project manager, wanted to be able to -- wanted to utilize this EAR workshop as an opportunity to provide you an oversight of the water management planning effort to give you the schedule and where it's at and where it's going in terms of the timing. We weren't sure when was the most appropriate, whether it was going to be during the drainage, whether it was going to be during the CCME, or if it's during this introduction, the preference of the Planning Commission towards when you would like to hear that update from Mr. Hatcher. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I would prefer we waited till we got into the elements that pertained to it more, as long as the Planning Commission doesn't object. So I just wanted to -- and you and I did talk about a lot of issues, and I'm going to keep bringing those up again today, even though you spoke to me about them, only because I want to make sure the Planning Commission and the public have the benefit of what we discussed. On Page 13 you talk about the Master Mobility Plan. And that's the only reference I can recall seeing of it. Are we going to be able to have some discussion of that Master Mobility Plan during the presentation process of the -- say the transportation element or something like that? MR. BOSI: I mean, the discussion points can probably be of, you know, where that project is at in terms of activities that have happened to date, where they're at within the schedule. Page 7 of 89 August 25, 2010 CCPC/EAR I'm not sure if there's -- if the transportation is ready to discuss some of the details and whether there are specific findings yet that have been arrived upon that are ready for that type of public vetting. But Pin sure between Mr. Podczerwinsky and Mr. Casalanguida that they can give you at least the status update as to where we're at within the Master Mobility Plan. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, since it was introduced in this discussion, I certainly think it's appropriate we get kind of a reading on where we're at. And also -- and part of that is for one of the other purposes I mentioned to you, that I notice in all the chapters we have bits and pieces about saving greenhouse gases, we have savings on energy, we have bike paths, we have pathways, we have the Master Mobility Plan, we have the transit. We have a lot of issues related to mobility. And at some point during the discussion over the next two days, I would like to conclude our meeting by having a general discussion with the Planning Commission on the idea of introducing a new element to our Growth Management Plan that is talked about in the Florida statutes somewhat. And that's a mass transit element. But I'm suggesting we look at it a step further. I like an alternative modes -- alternative mobility element where we can consolidate all the issues that we're trying to bring into play for countywide mobility. That includes the planning of the mobility plan, pathways, any alternative means of transportation. And look to an element to set benchmarks. And through that benchmark process take a look at it on a regular basis like we do the GMP to see what our progress is. A lot of times the government, if you don't have a way to show that you've measured something against your progress, you don't make progress. So anyway, towards the end of the day it's something I would like us to consider. And I know you and I talked about it, and you seemed to think it was a positive idea, one that I think even staff had surfaced a time or two before. So as we get into it, we'll have further discussions on that. Yes, Mr. Murray? MS. MURRAY: I just need to have a question answered. On that same page, on 13, Roman 13, under number four, building energy retrofits. Do I take that to mean conversion of engines to biofuel and so forth? I'd like to understand what that really is, building energy retrofits. MR. BOSI: Well, I think that is -- that could be part of it. I think also, you know, the utilization of solar energy as a portion, as a contributor to the electrical demands of an individual building or buildings is also a potential application of what that could possibly mean. I think it probably has -- COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Okay, I was using it as a verb. You're using it as a noun, building. Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, and the last tab on this particular section of chapter one is the public participation tab. And that takes us up to the beginning of the tab for chapter two. Does anybody have any comments or questions concerning the public participation tab? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mike, I just have one. Somebody went through and labeled what they thought the public's comments were related to in regards to their effectiveness. I think the word programmatic was used and observational was used. And sometimes there was a definitive reference to a policy and a specific element in response to what the member of the public may have said at one of those prior meetings. What was your basis for saying observational? I know we've talked about it, but I just as soon you make sure everybody's aware of it. MR. BOSI: I did that. I did that. I went through each one of the public comments and I tried to find each individual comment. I would try to find the appropriate element that it was related to, whether it was a transportation issue, whether it was a land use planning issue, whether, you know, for future land use element, whether it was a drainage issue, and see if there was a direct bearing upon an individual policy or an objective. If I wasn't able to do that I tried to classify it more as this was an observation the person was making, whether it maybe was -- maybe it was based on fact, maybe it wasn't based on fact, but it was an observation that they felt they wanted to put forward. And the other portion, the pragmatic was how we deliver those services. As I mentioned within the opening introduction, how we deliver services is not something that we want to try to contain within our Growth Management Plan. And therefore a lot of these issues where they have relevance, they have relevance to concern and how we're providing these individual services, but that doesn't -- and isn't -- that issue isn't housed within the actual Growth Page 8 of 89 August 25, 2010 CCPC/EAR Management Plan, and that's how those labels were derived upon. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Because a lot of the comments from the public were more political in nature, and it seems like all those got the label observational. And the ones that weren't so political in nature were labeled programmatic. And I'm not sure that's the appropriate way to write off someone's comment. I just thought it was --I couldn't figure out how the observational got in there. They're all related to the GMP. And under transportation, for example, it says public safety in the Estates has been ignored. And it's labeled observational. The second bullet says paving not followed through on local roads. That's considered programmatic. Paving is an operational function, basically staff has to go out and align the funds for it, but so is public safety. So I'm wondering why one would be more observational than the other. MR. BOSI: I'm not sure how the statement that public safety has been ignored in the Estates, I'm not sure how that conclusion was drawn. I don't know. I don't know if that indeed is a factual statement. I don't know. I don't live in the Estates. I haven't heard a lot of issues we had related to safety in the Estates. And I wanted to put these issues out there, you know, for the advisory board, for the Board of County Commissioners to see what the public was saying to us. But I didn't know how to treat public safety has been ignored through a specific policy application or an objective. Or maybe it could be programmatic in the number of patrols that are implemented from our Sheriffs Department, but I didn't have that level of understanding to be able to draw that conclusion. And that's why it was strictly observational. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I'm not taking a position on whether these are right or wrong, I'm just trying to understand. And the reason that one -- that just happened to be the first example I looked at. There are multiple references in the Golden Gate Area Master Plan to public safety issues. And that may have been a response to that public input, in lieu of just saying it's observational. Mr. Murray? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Returning to Roman 15, where it talks under the Master Mobility Plan, just a question having to do with physical fitness and health. And how is that envisioned as an objective? How would that be carried out by the county or individuals or some -- I'm assuming. MR. BOSI: Physical fitness and health? I think there's a pretty strong, growing, overwhelming conclusion that our land use policies in the assembly of how our land uses interact have had a detrimental effect upon the physical fitness of the residents of the people who live within a built environment. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Could you give an example? MR. BOSI: If you live within a gated community and you've got to go to the -- you need to go to a grocery store or you need to go to your -- you need to run an errand, for the most part a large number of our residents are placed a considerable distance away from those goods and services that are required. The only option that they have available to them is to drive to those services. There's not an option for them to walk. There's not an option for them to bike. They have to drive. That's directly related to the physical health and physical components of the individual. Our land use policies, and our land use assembly is dictating a limitation, only one choice to get around for mobility. And those choices of mobility have a direct bearing and manifestation upon our activity levels. Those type of connections are starting to be recognized more and more by individual health departments. And I think you'll hear an individual from the Collier Health Department who wants to speak just to that issue. I think that they've spoken to you in terms of -- before as a body. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Yeah, I remember the smart growth questions — but I guess it's also possible that the same individual you're referring to might just as well have come from an hour workout in their gym in their gated community and are keeping their physical fitness. My concern there is how far we intrude upon personal life, okay, not that government shouldn't be helpful, but that's a question I'll be posing. MR. BOSI: And I understand. And it comes down to choice. And we have -- COMMISSIONER MURRAY: No, not if government requires it, choice is then therefore limited. MR. BOSI: But if you're living in an individual location that you don't have a choice to be able to ride your bike or walk to get some of your daily needs met, I don't know if we're providing -- are we not subjecting them to the choice that we've decided upon for them? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: It's a good question. MR. BOSI: There's no right answer on that. Page 9 of 89 August 25, 2010 CCPC /EAR COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I understand. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, we have gone through the tabs for the introduction part. And before I go into the next set of tabs, as I said, I was going to ask the public for any comments on the introduction part. And Nancy, come on up. MS. PAYTON: Nancy Payton, Florida Wildlife Federation. And it actually is a question of clarification maybe on the public participation. And it revolved around or as it's presented here on the eight major issues. And I don't recall the opportunity for the public, and maybe I was preoccupied, to comment and help direct and develop that list of eight major issues. Certainly we think they are lacking in some major areas that should be addressed. And are we going to have that opportunity today to, or this week, revisit that, or was that done internally and we just have to live with it? MR. BOSI: That was an agreement that was made by this county and the Department of Community Affairs to start the process. And those are the major issues that were agreed upon by those two bodies. The opportunities at the workshops, the EAC workshops, the Planning Commission workshops, the adoption hearing by the EAC, the adoption hearing by the CCPC, the adoption hearing from the Board of County Commissioners are all -- and then the subsequent GMP amendments that follow those, those are all opportunities for other issues to be addressed in great specificity and length. So the major issue agreement portion is between the two entities of Collier County and the Department of Community Affairs and it does not limit by any means the issues that were discussed during this workshop or going forward within the EAR process. MS. PAYTON: I understand that, that we can bring up basically whatever issue we want, but this process already has been cast into those eight major issues, and the public didn't have the opportunity to say those are our issues, and yes, that was -- the process has already been sort of outlined before the public participation process began. So that's what I want the Federation's comments to reflect is that for public participation, the public did not have the opportunity to participate in the development of those eight major issues. And there are other issues and expansion of these issues that really should need to be addressed. And I think you're telling me that we can bring up other issues, but those eight major issues are really cast in stone. MR. BOSI: If you look at the focus of this EAR workbook, it's not the major issues that's the focus, it's the individual elements of the policies, the do. It's the do. It's what makes up our GMP that is our focus. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, Nancy — MS. PAYTON: I disagree with you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: There may be a more direct answer because, Mike, if you recall when we met on the second page of your introduction letter, I circled and asked you, it says chapter three evaluates the eight major issues as agreed upon between Collier County and the Florida Department of Community Affairs. And my specific question was who within Collier County were the specific people that made that agreement. Can you answer that for me? MR. BOSI: Yeah, the Board of County Commissioners, at an advertised public hearing. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I asked the same question, Nancy. I was surprised that the eight -- I wouldn't have picked the eight. But that's how it happened. So I guess that's a more direct answer. MS. PAYTON: Just reflect in the record that the public really didn't have an appropriate opportunity to help determine those eight major issues. Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. Any other comments by the public? Yes, sir, come on up and -- MR. ROSENBERG: My name is Morton Rosenberg. I'm a retired citizen of Collier County. And I just want to say, first of all, Chairman Strain, I was so happy to hear you say that you would like to introduce a mass transit element and to consider alternative modes of transportation. I say that as a person who does not own a car and who came here by bus today. I use the Collier area transit regularly and walk. And I just wanted to mention first of all regarding transportation, there's a fascinating article that I read in the American Conservative magazine about public transportation. They talk specifically about rail transportation, but Page 10 of 89 August 25, 2010 CCPC /EAR applies to us, to bus transportation too. And I'll readjust two sentences from there, please. The first conservative political virtue is prudence. Prudence suggests the first goal of a conservative transportation policy would be to provide options; that is, ways to get around without a car. Just as you mentioned, Chairman Strain. I have the article here. I would be happy to leave it with the members of the Planning Commission. And I think you'll enjoy it. Whether you agree with it or not, I think you'll enjoy it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: If you were to leave that, we would make copies. That would be helpful. Thank you. MR. ROSENBERG: Okay, great. Should I leave it -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Leave it with Mike, and he can get the copies made during a break or have someone make them and then we can distribute them here. MR. ROSENBERG: Excellent. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. MR. ROSENBERG: And also, regarding land use, there was something here that also appeared in a monthly magazine called Natural Awakenings. The headline is sustainable communities in the works. And it talks about a planned town of Bella Vita, which would be in northeast Collier County on -- where is it -- DeSoto Boulevard and Oil Well Road. They plan to have 1,500 residences. They plan it to be an ecological community. And they also plan to have bicycles used within the community, and their own bus service, so they say. But what's interesting is if you want to talk about mixed use residences, they say that they plan 1,500 residences that would include homes, duplexes, quadruplexes, condos, and rental apartments. Something for everyone. Something for every budget. And that location of Bella Vita is going to be, according to today's plans, on the border of the new town of Big Cypress, which also bills itself as an ecological community, whenever it gets built, as soon as they straighten out the issue of the panther habitat. My practical suggestion is that the planning staff work with these two communities and encourage them to initiate, for example, bicycle trails linking the two communities. They are also bordering on the town of Ave Maria. And it makes sense to me to have those three communities linked, and it's easy to do. I don't think there would be any big budget outlay, if you're talking about bicycle trails or golf cart trails. And what I'm suggesting is being proactive and making these communities an example for the entire county, the entire state, maybe the entire nation. And I'm just suggesting that the Planning Commission be proactive, take a look ahead and see, take a look at the opportunities that are possible with these new communities that are planned. And also, I am glad to hear -- I was glad to read in House Bill 697 that it advocates a significant bicycle and pedestrian ways and compact walkable neighbors. And I hope that the Planning Commission will move us closer to that because I think that among the public there is, I'm not going to say huge, number of people who are interested in that kind of community, but there are. They exist. And I think their numbers will be growing over the years. So I thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you, sir. Appreciate it and thank you for the literature. Anybody else from the public like to speak on the introduction part of this before we get into chapter three? Okay, yes, ma'am, come on up. MS. REVAY: Good morning. Good morning, Commissioners. My name is Stacy Revay, I'm from the Collier County Health Department. And Pm speaking on behalf of our director, Doctor Colfer today. So I'm just going to read this. She wrote, the alarming statistics that nearly 60 percent of adults and 12.5 percent of high school students in Collier County are overweight or obese is of grave public health concern. The Collier County Health Department has a vested interest in the health and safety of our community. Through the Smart Growth Coalition, we are working to improve the health of our community by addressing issues related to health in the built environment. The inextricable link between infrastructure design, transportation and health is driving the Smart Growth Coalition to develop relationships with the transportation and comprehensive planning department to decrease the obesity and inactivity epidemics currently plaguing Collier County and the United States. Page 11 of 89 August 25, 2010 CCPC/EAR Access to healthy foods and multi -modal transportation choices are recommended by the Center of Disease Control, CDC, to be implemented in designing future communities. Land use patterns and transportation impacts health directly. It affects air quality, injury risk, physical activity levels and access to necessities such as health food options and health care. All too often the broad smart growth objectives in our general Comprehensive Plan lack the detail that is needed to guide actual development and are not translated into the zoning code. Did you get that? So I'm speaking on behalf of the director today, but I might make some comments throughout the process a little bit later. So thank you for your time. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. Mike, I think that is it for the introduction part of it. Want to move into -- walk us through chapter three to whatever extent you feel is necessary. MR. BOSI: In chapter three were the major issues that were arrived upon by the Board of County Commissioners and the Department of Community Affairs. Those issues are water resource protection, the Rural Fringe Mixed Use district, Rural Land Stewardship Area, climate change and energy efficiency, affordable housing, concurrency management, urban development patterns and intergovernmental coordination. Each one of those issues has a write -up trying to frame the issue in terms of how it relates to our Growth Management Plan and the policies that are affected by those individual issues. Really, I don't have a presentation related to or an overview related to each one of those issues, but however the questions -- however the Planning Commission would like to proceed, we definitely will be -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, there are eight tabs. The issues are not elements of the GMP, they're just general issues that the Board of County Commissioners agreed were important for Collier County. So we'll take each tab, and I'll ask the commission if there's any questions of anybody on each particular tab and then we'll go into the elements after that. First one is the water resource protection. Anybody have any questions on that outside the questions that would be in the element phase of our discussion today? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mike? MR. BOSI: And again, I would just like to point out, when we get into the potable water issue and drainage, saltwater intrusion into our potable water supply is one of the major concerns that was expressed by the EAC, and it's basically related to water resource protection, and the specifies in the individual policies will be addressed during those issues. But just wanted to let you know that that was one of the overriding concerns that were expressed from the EAC. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The other major element is the Rural Fringe Mixed Use district. There's a discussion, several pages on that issue. Any questions from the -- comments from the Planning Commission? Mike, only one. Like the Golden Gate Area Master Plan, the Rural Fringe Mixed Use district is somewhat stale. There's some questions from the public regarding the possibility of resurrecting and revisiting both the Rural Fringe Mixed Use district as one possible restudy and the Golden Gate Area Master Plan as another. I didn't see a reference to the potential of a restudy suggestion, and I m not suggesting a time frame, because we know what the budget constraints of Collier County are. But I think it would be helpful under both the Rural Fringe Mixed Use district where appropriate to suggest that a restudy of this land use area would be appropriate timing wise. MR. BOSI: And on Page 9 of that major issue, the last sentence, it says reasons behind the perception. It's talking about all the comments that we've received. Because there have been a number of divergent comments that haven't been in agreement. But there are individual issues that have been brought. Based upon the scattering of perspective and interest related to this individual, it says the reason behind the perceptions can be explained by a number of micro, macro conditions, it's talking about the success of the program. But regardless of the reasons, staff believes that the public review process of the Rural Fringe Mixed Use district should be conducted prior to the -- before the next year. Meaning that we're in agreement with you, Chairman, that there needs to be a public planning process where we're trying to bring the stakeholders and bring all the Page 12 of 89 August 25, 2010 CCPC/EAR divergent interests together through that program, review of the program to see what changes could improve the program and the viability of the program. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: When you refer to a public review process, do you mean more than the process that presented these eight criteria to us as part of this EAR? I mean, because that process wasn't as open, maybe, or as knowledgeable in regards to the public being involved as a restudy committee is. Are you referring to a more focused process? MR. BOSI: As you remember, the five -year review of the LSA, and not trying to say that we're going to program 33 individual meetings for the Rural Fringe Mixed Use district. But that same structural review of the regulations with all the -- with invitations over a number of series of public venues to bring the vested stakeholders together to review those policies and objectives of the program. That's what staffs referring to. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Anybody else have any questions on that tab? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: If not, the next one is the Rural Land Stewardship Area. And I had initially questioned staff on why this was all here when the process hasn't been fully vetted yet, we haven't gone through transmittal adoption. And staff made it clear to me this was just to give the DCA a conceptual update that something has been done and were moving forward as I guess financing or whatever time permits. So anybody else have any questions or comments on the RLSA portion of it? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And I'll ask, when we get done with the chapter, I'll ask for the public to have any comments that they would like to have. The climate change section, the climate change tab, there is some -- or there will be some elements -- suggested changes in the elements of the GMT that relate to climate change that would have some direct impact as a result of the issues discussed here. Does anybody have any comments on the climate change tab? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Yeah, I have. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Murray? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: With regard to climate change on Page 2 when we talk about carry out an energy use greenhouse gas emissions re- inventory in three to five years, are we currently in inventory? Are we currently inventorying? MR. BOSI: The energy efficiency report that was presented last year to the Board of County Commissioners is our only assessment or attempt at inventory in terms of the utilization of energy and the efficiency of that utilization by county government. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I don't remember it being in great detail. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: It's the first supporting document in the binder. In the support -- in this it's the very first document. I had the same question. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I'm talking about what he's referring to. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's what I'm suggesting -- COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I'm sorry. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The report's there. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I guess my point is, is that sufficient? Because I want you to tell me, I don't know necessarily, whether that's sufficient to be a basis for a re- inventory. Is that considered -- MR. BOSI: It's our first and only attempt at that type of an assessment. It would be -- the Board of County Commissioners will make the determination as to we want to revisit this in five years, following the same program approach to see if there's been significant departure or improvements within those areas. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Okay, because I see within the reading of all of this that there's a great deal of emphasis being placed on this and there's a great deal of cost associated with it. So the question becomes how much energy are we putting into it and have we already begun the process in sufficient enough detail to really capture something? MR. BOSI: I think we have been. We have — there's an energy efficiency task force that was formulated by the Board of County Commissioners, and I believe Steve Hart is one of the primary movers within that advisory board. And I believe that they are -- they're meeting on a regular basis. And they are to -- they're the body that's Page 13 of 89 August 25, 2010 CCPC /EAR going to provide recommendations for how far this county wants to go regarding this individual issue. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Good, thank you. That answers my question. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, the next tab is the affordable housing tab. Are there any comments on that issue? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Next one is the concurrency management tab. Any comments? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The seventh one is the urban development patterns tab. (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And the last one is intergovernmental coordination. (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And just so the public knows, this isn't an element review, these are just issues presented as things that will probably be just reported to DCA. So it's not an area where there's a lot of questions, more than just general comment. So that kind of explains why we're more silent on those. Anybody from the public like to comment on any one of those eight tabs before we go into the elements? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. And Michael, there's one last question I had asked you to find out by today's meeting, and I'm not sure you were able to, and that is in your discussions with DCA about self - amending documents being referred to within the GMP. What was your finding on that, or have you gotten a reading on that from DCA? MR. BOSI: I haven't gotten to speak with Scott live. He's left a message with me. And basically as static as that is, you don't want references to documents that the regulation, the specificity of a regulation is contained within. Now, if a document supports the policy or -- supports the policy, then DCA finds that that's an appropriate inclusion. But if there is -- if there is a reference to a policy or reference to a support document that you have to go to to find out what the regulation is within that individual policy, then that's their concern that DCA has related to that type of self - amending process. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, then let's -- as an example we have -- and I have finally collected them all. I think there's about 10 references to specific ordinances, some of them dating back to the Eighties. Obviously those ordinances are amended. Most notably are the ones referenced repeatedly in the utilities section. Now, if you reference an ordinance and you say as amended, is that acceptable? Because the ordinance then could change the structure or the intention of the policy by a minority vote of the Board of County Commissioners, meaning a three vote instead of a four, whereas a GMP element requires a four vote. So can that self - amending process, is that allowable like that? Is that what they're considering self - amending? MR. BOSI: That's what they consider self - amending. And the ironic part is we have that within our Growth Management Plan existing today. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I know. MR. BOSI: That has been approved by the Department of Community Affairs. But based upon the message, those are — when you reference the ordinance as amended, that becomes those areas of concern. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. So that means, I would think then, where we reference ordinances and plans, and there are 34 to 35 separate such documents that I've tabulated and actually pulled up in this master document, then we would need to be very specific as to the one that we're referring to at that time and date. So if we have an ordinance and it's amended, I think we ought to list the most -- the ordinance and then its amendments and then that's where it stops. And then anything after that, we'd have to come back in and readjust the GMP for that reference in the future, I would assume. MR. BOSI: That would be in line with the message that was left by Mr. -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And would that also be applicable to the various studies that are referred to? Because you and I had this discussion about some of them say by policy we will initiate and maintain a certain thing. Okay, that sets it up for that policy then to start a study and the study to be maintained and implemented as the response to the policy. But in many of the elements we say Collier County shall, and it refers to a study, abide by or perform or do according to a certain study. That's more definitive. Yet the study can be amended outside the context of the GMP, Page 14 of 89 August 25, 2010 CCPC/EAR and in essence it becomes a change to the GMP because of the way the study was amended. So are we saying that where the word shall and those stronger words are used in reference to an outside study we need to carefully look at that and possibly change it to initiate and maintain or some other format? MR. BOSI: Well, we have to pay attention to the wording within that. But that kind of hits on some of the areas towards where those studies support what that policy is trying to promote. And if that policy defers to that individual study, and I guess it's how it's expressed, will really dictate as to whether it's in line with that aversion to self - amending policies within GMP's. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Well, prior to today we didn't have a handle on this, because you hadn't talked to DCA. So as we go through the elements, there may be an occasion where some of those documents that I've collected, I missed them. But I think now knowing what DCA is looking for and having this discussion, by the time this comes back for adoption and we reread it, all those will be caught. MR. BOSI: And that's one of the things that I do want to point out is at the conclusion of this we are sending this to DCA, and we will cull out those areas of concern. And we'll get some preliminary feedback that will be able to help us put a definitive conclusion to those issues that we raised regarding DCA's purview too, whether they view that this is acceptable or not in practice within the GMP. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Anybody have any other general comments? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: If not, what I'm going to do, there's about 10 or 12 members of the public here. I'm going to read the elements of the GMP, just the names of them. And if you're here for that specific element, I'm just asking you to raise your hand. If you're here for all of them, that's fine, too. You're just going to be sitting here then for a couple of days and then participating as we hopefully get you involved. But if you're here for a specific one and there's a quantity of people by the number of people here, I will try to move that element forward for discussion. And staff, I know a lot of you are here for specific elements, but were going to deal with your elements and your issues after we get the public's out of the way. So the first one in order is Capital Improvement Element. Members of the public, anybody here for Capital Improvement Element? Transportation element? Oh, that's going to be a fun one, okay. Sanitary Sewer sub - element? The Potable Water sub - element? Drainage sub- element? Solid Waste sub - element? Natural Groundwater Aquifer Recharge sub - element? Housing Element? The Recreation and Open Space Element? Conservation and Coastal Management Element, that will be on Friday. So if you are here for that, we're just going to put that off till Friday. Intergovernmental Coordination Element? Future Land Use Element? Golden Gate Area Master Plan? And I know there's more people coming for that, so we'll wait. They asked me when that plan would come up, and I told them it probably wouldn't be right away because of introductions and things, so there'll be more for that. Immokalee Area Master Plan? The Economic Element? And the Public Schools Facility Element? Okay. And the Immokalee Element, I know Mr. Midney can't be here on Friday, so we're going to make it a point, we are going to hear that today. So I'll put that down. Now, with that, we'll start on the transportation and then go to the Future Land Use Element. Then after that we'll go to Housing, Recreation Open Space, and then if everybody's here, the Golden Gate Area Master Plan, then the rest of the elements that are -- the sub - drainage, the Economic Element and the Public Schools Facility Element. Page 15 of 89 August 25, 2010 CCPC/EAR So with that in mind, let's start out with the Transportation Element. Michael, do you have any problem with that order of events? MR. BOSI: At your discretion, Chair. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Planning Commission satisfied with that? Okay, well, let's turn to the Transportation Element tab in our chapter two review. What we'll probably do is — well, I know what we will do is go through this two pages at a time as we have in the past, ask questions from the Planning Commission. Then at the end of the element, we'll ask for public comment. If there's something pertinent to members of the public that they need to express before we get to the end, just raise your hand. We're not too formal here. We actually enjoy your input more than trying to avoid it. So anything you want to contribute along the way, as long as we know you're trying to, we'll get you involved. So with that, under transportation, the first page, first and second pages really are just the policy -by- policy breakdown. We're going to be getting to those individually. We take the first two pages and the first cover page of the Transportation Element labeled Page 1. Anybody have any questions with that beginning piece? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The elements themselves or the objectives and policies get into on Pages 2 and 3. Do we have any questions on Pages 2 and 3 from the Planning Commission? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, Mike, the -- there was some discrepancies between the reference to SIS and FIRS in the CIE. Did those get straightened out? And that's on Page 3, the very top of the page. MR. SCHMIDT: They have. They are two specifically different references. And they're not interchangeable. So they're deliberately mentioned in one place in the GMT and deliberately so in the other location. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, so they don't need to be the same. So the reference to the FIRS in the CIE is not inconsistent with the reference to the SIS in Policy 1.3. MR. SCHMIDT: It is not. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. And those two policies can function together with a similar reference? MR. SCHMIDT: They can. For the record, Corby Schmidt. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: In that Policy 1.3, we talk about a level of service D. I find CIE had some references I thought to level of services that were more -- less stringent than D, like a level of service E. Mike, did you take a look at that by any chance? I'll actually try to find the -- on Page 5 of the CIE, under Policy 1.5.A.1, it talks about level of service E on all six-lane roads. And what (sic) I question it is because Policy 1.3 in the Transportation Element refers to a level of service D or better as addressed in the implementation strategy of the Transportation Element except for roads that have been widened to six lanes and cannot be widened any further. So I just want to make sure there's not an inconsistency between the reference to a level of service E for six-lane roads in the CIE and a level of service D on Policy 1.3 of the Transportation Element. MR. CASALANGUIDA: Sure. Good morning. For the record, Nick Casalanguida. You're talking about collector roads versus arterials, and that Policy 1.3 talks about county collector roads. So arterials at six lanes go to E, collectors and locals, D, that are not widened to six-lane roads. And a road once it goes to six lanes is not a collector road anymore, it's usually an arterial. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, on the Policy 1.5 of the CIA, it says arterials and collector roads, level of service indicated below on the basis of peak hour traffic volume, level of service E on all six -lane roads. MR. CASALANGUIDA: Convect. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. And that is not inconsistent with a reference to level of service D on the six -lane reference in Policy 1.3? MR. CASALANGUIDA: No, they talk about collector roads and it says or better addressed for roads that have been widened to six lanes cannot be widened any fuuther. So we're always doing level of service E on six -lane roads and then D on roads that are below that, four -lane and two -lane roads, typically. And they're not -- they mention collector versus arterials, that's the difference. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And as far as widened any further, that is physically constrained? Page 16 of 99 August 25, 2010 CCPC/EAR MR. CASALANGUIDA: Correct. We typically go to D, we don't go to E if it's constrained at four. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So that would be the criteria, if it's a constrained roadway and it's six lanes, it's D. MR. CASALANGUIDA: No, once it's six lanes -- no matter what, if it's six lanes, it's E. Then it's considered an arterial. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Any other questions on Pages 2 and 3? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Pages 4 and 5? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Murray, then Mr. Schiffer, then Ms. Caron. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: On the top of Page 5 where we speak about the need to modify away from fee simple and broaden it, would you consider or are you going to consider dedication of property for roadways as being one of those that you would use? And if so, I would just tell you I have a recollection of events where roads had been dedicated but not accepted by the county, and so that might be a little sticky point for you. MR. BOSI: Noted. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Schiffer? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Yeah, my question is I guess to Mike. You know, we're using the words in Objective 3, you're providing the protection and acquisition of right -of -ways. What does protection mean? Is that what you're referring to in three, four and five where you're going to have a thoroughfare corridor protection plan, but is -- MR. BOSI: What that means is a set -aside within individual future corridors that there will be an area that's going to be dedicated towards where there will be no physical improvements that will be allowed for, because they want to protect the ability to be able to develop that future corridor when that need is dictated. And the acquisition process, trying to -- when there are structures within the roadway becomes much more complicated, much more costly, based upon that recognition that the thoroughfare protection plan is dedicated to try to prevent that very situation and make the acquisition for that future roadway more cost efficient for the government to meet the needs of the system. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. So — and I kind of support this. But so what you're really saying is prior to the ability to acquire it, you're going to put it into a status called protection. And if you look at Policy 3.5, you're preparing a thoroughfare corridor protection plan, which I guess based on the reading of that, it didn't happen within a year. So is that what that means then, totally, or -- MR. BOSI: Well, that's the intent, I believe, of the thoroughfare corridor protection plan is to just do as I had described, to provide for -- provide for the identification of where those future corridors will be and the restriction of building within that anticipated future right -of -way. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And you want to take away the EAR requirement, that's one of your recommendations. MR. BOSI: We haven't satisfied it within the EAR. We haven't made that. So we want to take away the time frame associated with that for when the funding and the process works itself out. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. So we won't know when that will really happen. And then again, what's the difference between that thoroughfare corridor protection plan and the thing you reference in Policy 3.1 called an advanced right -of -way preservation? Are they the same thing, or -- MR. CASALANGUIDA: Part of our five-year CIE has advanced right -of -way in there. So one of the comments in 3.1 is the county has implemented and maintained an advance right -of -way preservation acquisition program. Without the thoroughfare corridor preservation ordinance, you really can't do -- it doesn't have any teeth to it or at least a mechanism to get it done. Right now all we do is anticipate where projects are within the five years and in the LRTP and allow for funding to be set aside to purchase right -of -way when it's available. We've done that many times. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay, so the 3.1 is essentially an in -house planning. This thing in 3.5 will be something different than that, that will actually give something a status. You call it protection, but -- so Page 17 of 89 August 25, 2010 CCPC /EAR landowners are aware of what's potentially going to happen. MR. CASALANGUIDA: Correct. And we've talked, we're going to have to vet an ordinance, you know, that's both fair to the landowner and fair to the county and, you know, that's going to be processed. That's separate outside the GMP but it will be a standalone ordinance. It will come back to this commission. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I'm done, thanks. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ms. Caron? COMMISSIONER CARON: Yeah, I wanted to go back to the top of Page 5 and this whole business of the fee simple and wanting it to be more flexible. I'm not sure I really understand the need for it to be more flexible. And what do you actually end up with if you take some of these other ways of -- MR. CASALANGUIDA: We'd always prefer it to be fee simple. There are times where for whatever reason it's an easement that the owner grants, and he doesn't grant all of his rights under that dedication to the county. He says I want to maintain certain rights to that property but I will give you roadway rights and utility rights and easements. And I can tell you it's on a case -by -case basis, we review it with the County Attorney's Office and we bring them to the board and we say for this reason this is an easement. Sometimes it's for density, sometimes it's for a setback. There are various reasons why sometimes they don't want to give you the property in fee simple, they just want to maintain the underlying ownership of it and give you an easement. And it's reviewed on a case -by -case basis. COMMISSIONER CARON: I think we have a lot of that out there right now and I don't think most of it is to the benefit of the county and its citizens. MR. CASALANGUIDA: Agreed. COMMISSIONER CARON: So I'm really -- I don't think we should be going away from fee simple. MR. CASALANGUIDA: I think you saw a case just recently where there was a PUD on Goodlette -Frank Road where the abutting property was an easement, and you were trying to figure out the setback. I think it was Naples United Methodist PUD. You remember that? And that was an issue, it was dedicated as an easement. We didn't physically own the road in front of the road, we had an easement over the road. So I would love to have it a fee simple. There are times it's not cost effective and there are underlying circumstances or it might be one of those where we recommend fee simple but have the opportunity for an alternative. COMMISSIONER CARON: But -- well, I'm just wondering then if we should actually though be changing the Growth Management Plan or whether if an issue comes up you try to deal with it at the time. I mean, that would also afford some more public discussion of an event like that. Now, I don't know whether you have to give yourself some flexibility in this language. I don't know. We've been living with it all this time. MR. PODCZERWINSKY: Commissioner, John Podczerwinsky for the record, Transportation Planning. Just to interject for a moment. One of the specific reasons that we're asking for a little bit of flexibility in this policy is in the specifics of our right -of -way handbook there's a requirement for compensating right -of -way to be turned over whenever a required turn lane is installed. What that means is that when a turn lane is constructed it remains in county right -of -way, but the county doesn't have to purchase additional right -of -way to install a private turn lane. The problem that's been presented by that is as developments have moved forward with their SDP's, for example, the requirement for compensating right -of -way in fee simple, based on this language here, is sometimes difficult for them to meet. They've already designed their SDP around a certain layout on their land, they've already designed it with an easement to contain their turn lane. And requiring that in fee simple sometimes changes their setbacks, which requires changes to their building footprints. There's quite a domino effects to that when we don't allow it as an easement in specific cases. Direction to staff from this document really points us towards acquiring those even gifted lands in fee simple. So the change in language there is just to build in the flexibility for when we actually need it. COMMISSIONER CARON: Maybe there just needs to be a strict priority adhered to or something. Because I just know there's a lot out there, and it's really not to the benefit of the county, it's to the benefit perhaps to the landowners, but it certainly isn't to the benefit of the county. So when we lessen standards, when we weaken standards, when we weaken our regulations, I'm always Page 18 of 89 August 25, 2010 CCPC/EAR concerned. Moving on to 3.5 and the whole business of the year, I understand that we didn't make it in a year. We don't usually make most of the deadlines we set for ourselves. But if we just simply take out the deadline altogether, then that just allows us to carry it — you know, to do nothing for 20 years, as opposed to perhaps we could actually accomplish something in three years. And since we review this often enough, perhaps setting some reasonable deadline would actually be the way to go. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody else on Pages 4 and 5? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, Mike, on Policy 3.3 it currently reads, the county shall acquire a sufficient amount of right -of -way to facilitate arterial and collector roads of no less than a cross - section of six traffic lanes. I would like to suggest we change it to the following: The county shall acquire a sufficient amount of right -of -way to facilitate arterial and collector roads appropriate to meet the needs of the LRTP. And the reason I want to put -- I'm suggesting making some reference change like that is because saying that the county's got to have nothing but six-lane road corridors throughout this county is discouraging that green initiative. We ought to be looking for just the opposite. We ought to be looking for less roads, smaller roads, alternate modes of mobility instead of trying to build everything with solid asphalt and concrete. So I would certainly like to leave it so that if it's appropriate and needed based on the LRTP, that's the direction we can go in, but I don't like to see it mandatory that all of them have to be six-lane roads. MR. CASALANGUIDA: Couldn't agree more. I think talking about a build -out analysis, that was important as well too. Because we are working on it. We have that data. The worst thing we can do to a development and to the county is to acquire once and then come back five or 10 years later and acquire a second time and then come back five or 10 years later and acquire a third time. So in your LRTP you've identified critical intersections, and then your build -out analysis has done the same. So maybe modifying it to say unless -- your last sentence I think covers you, though, exceptions of right -of -way may be considered when it can be demonstrated through traffic capacity analysis that the maximum number of lanes at a build -out be less than the standard. You know, I think you have that in there to cover you to say we shouldn't, if we can show at build -out we don't need that much. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, your worst case scenario is not the worst case scenario as I see it. I think the worst case scenario is taking out people's homes for a corridor you don't really need because we just didn't explore alternative methods to get to where we wanted to be. And that's why I'm suggesting we don't lock ourselves into these giant corridors. I think there are ways to get around this county, and we could set the example for the entire nation if we wanted to be proactive in doing that and help all the problems we're creating by demanding these wide corridors. So I don't mind leaving the build -out reference in there, I think that's a good thing. But how we get there can be a whole different program than what we have today. MR. CASALANGUIDA: And that's part of that MMP discussion we talked about. You know, I heard your discussion, I sent an e -mail, I didn't have the rest of the Planning Commission's e-mail, but I sent you an update as to what we've done with the MMP. That's the goal. You know, from a business standpoint we realize for the GMP, as a business person, there's no way if I'm the administrator, deputy administrator, I can fund a road program that meets the need. My other option is to look at demand. If I lower demand through the MMP, the Master Mobility PIan, then I'm lowering the actual construction requirement. That's our goal. As a community that always should be our goal. Balancing those two is a challenge. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And the other part of this policy, and I'm not sure if it's going to be best discussed in this policy or maybe Objective 4 on the next page, but it's on one of these two pages, I would think, and that says the way we currently do some of the -- and this, in Policy 3.3 refers to bicycle and pedestrian features. Those are good features. But I think the way we're doing some of them are really a detriment to the health, safety and welfare of the public instead of an advantage. I drive 951 multiple times every day, all the way from Marco to the north end. And that little bike lane where Page 19 of 89 August 25, 2010 CCPC /EAR families, kids, bikers are separated by traffic going 45 or 55, people texting and talking on their phones, weaving in and out of lanes, and you've got all those people separated by a four -inch wide stripe. If I rode my truck at the edge of that four -inch wide stripe, my rearview minors would not go over those people. And that is the wrong way to design roads for bicyclists and pedestrians. I mean, I -- so I don't know where that fits in this GMP, but we ought to be looking at that issue, because we seem to be buying right -of -way to put all these little strips along these fast roadways, which is hurting the public, not helping them. MR. CASALANGUIDA: Mr. Chairman, you've opened up a two - minute discussion, and you're going to have to allow me to go on this. I get my rear end kicked up and down this county for not providing those bike lanes by the Naples bike -ped organization. I can tell you that that is a discussion that should be had in the public because you're going to have 100 people in a room telling you that those bike lanes are required. Now, on 951 you have a greenway, which is separated by a canal. So you've got a safe alternative. But I can tell you, I get challenged every time I take a 30 percent design plan to the public meeting and they say where are the bike lanes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I'm not saying take them out. I'm thinking of a better way to plan for them, because to me it's real dangerous. Mike Bosi, he likes a very quiet preserve up near his home. To get there, he's got to go out on a mile traffic snarl where he's got one of these bike lanes that he's got to drive along on his bicycle and hope he doesn't get killed before he gets to where he's trying to go. We've got to find a better way to do it. MR. CASALANGUIDA: Well, and that's the second part of the discussion is the greenways we're building. We've invested heavily as an alternative these greenways. Because I wouldn't take my kids on a bike lane but I'll take them on a greenway that's on the other side of the canal. So 951, the corridor you drive has a greenway built two - thirds of the way now, all the way from Immokalee Road down through the phase that you talked about from Davis to 41, 10 to 12 -foot path, 50 feet away from the road, another side of the canal, excellent place to be able to commute, recreate and be able to commute. But these four -foot bike lanes, if you look at the cost that goes into them, they're very expensive. And the cost to benefit has always been an issue. But I will tell you that it is a definite fire box of discussion when that comes UP. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You wouldn't take your kids on them, but can you live with somebody else who's not as concerned about their child's safety from taking their kids on them? MR. CASALANGUIDA: Well, they're designed to FDOT standards. That doesn't mean they're safe -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I know, doesn't mean they're safe. MR. CASALANGUIDA: Where's Joe Bonness when you need him? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Not everybody rides bikes professionally. MR. CASALANGUIDA: I understand. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And you've got to make sure that if you're building the system it's going to fit everyone. And I'm very worried about the safety, because I drive by these people and I try to get over if nobody's alongside me. It's just concerning. MR. CASALANGUIDA: I'll get the two horses and the rope and you can pull me in two pieces because that's -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No, I think we can find a better way to do it. I'm not saying eliminate it, there is a better way to do it. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Mark, I have a -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Go ahead, Mr. Schiffer. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Isn't that what -- you know, in 3.3 where it's saying require a right -of -way large enough for six lanes. Where we get smart is we buy that six-lane right -of -way but we build smaller roads, thus we can pull the bike lanes off of the edge of the pavement. I mean, I ride on 41 north and it is a little freaky. But thank God it's there. If it wasn't there, imagine what it would be. MR. CASALANGUIDA: Sure. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But see, with focused planning we can do it better. That's all I'm trying to say. And Page 20 of 89 August 25, 2010 CCPC/EAR I don't want to lock us in to giant thoroughfares and miniature bike lanes. Honestly, we don't need to be doing that. MR. CASALANGUIDA: We've got a really good comprehensive greenway plan. I mean, we can share it with you -- not today, I'll have to bring it to you. But there is a master plan for greenways that connect rural county and suburban county. So our goal is to provide that corridor. It's safer. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ms. Caron? COMMISSIONER CARON: Yeah, and perhaps then again maybe the language just needs to be prioritized so that we really prioritize those greenways, which they haven't been prioritized in the past. We've just done the 951 MR. CASALANGUIDA: Immokalee. COMMISSIONER CARON: I mean, it's just beginning. Immokalee, where? MR. CASALANGUIDA: Sure. From I -75 all the way to Collier Boulevard there's a greenway on the north side of town. COMMISSIONER CARON: Oh, okay, on the other side. MR. CASALANGUIDA: And it continues east almost up to Twin Eagles, pretty close to it. And the goal is to take that out to the Waal areas as well, too. COMMISSIONER CARON: Because there's certainly nothing on the urban -- MR. CASALANGUIDA: No. And all of our designs east of 951 include a greenway alternative. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The last comment I got on these two pages is Policy 3.4. After the words Board of County Commissioners, I'd suggest a period. Because based upon a recommendation from the transportation administrator, that doesn't need to be there. It's really the BCC who takes his recommendation. So I don't think we need to elevate that recommendation to the level of the GMP. MR. CASALANGUIDA: Agreed. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's the last on those two pages. Before we go on to the next two, let's take a break. I'm sure Cherie', after being gone for two months probably could use a rest for her fingers. So we'll come back at 10:15 and resume. (A recess was taken.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, everybody, welcome back from break. We left off on Pages 4 and 5 of the Transportation Element. And before we go to Page 6, a member of the public had asked to speak on one of the issues so far. And before she does, I want to thank the records department for the coffee. We're all happy now. I had previously been fortunate to get a cup and now we're in good shape. So thank you. And Cherie', you're in a lot of trouble. Okay, Nicole? MS. RYAN: Good morning. For the record, Nicole Ryan here on behalf of The Conservancy of Southwest Florida. And my comment goes to Objective 3 in the subsequent policies. And Objective 3 in determination of the right -of -way and setting aside right -of -way where right -of -way should be, it's based on the county's five -year work program and/or the LRTP. And that brings up the question of this new plan, this new document that the county is in the process of preparing, and that's the Master Mobility Plan. That is supposed to be a unifying document, a single unifying planning document which will take into account the LRTP, which will look at the East of 951 Study, the East of 951 Bridge Study. So my question is, and it really goes to the entirety of the Transportation Element, but I thought this would be a good point to interject the question, what will this Master Mobility Plan do? And is it going to be a document that really is tied into the GMP as a guidance and required guidance document? And if so, should it be mentioned in here so that things such as right -of -way are tied not only to the five -year work plan and the LRTP but also the Master Mobility Plan? Or because it has not yet been approved, is it inappropriate to put it in here at this time? MR. BOSI: And that -- Mike Bosi. And that's my response. Until the conclusions are drawn and the memorandums of understandings that are anticipated from that Master Mobility Plan are in place, I believe it would be a little premature to introduce it with -- Page 21 of 89 August 25, 2010 CCPC/EAR into the Growth Management Plan in an official recognized document related to specific policies. Because we don't know what the conclusion of that process is at this time. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But if we were to introduce a mobility element that corresponded to the plan, assuming the plan is something that actually ends up working, and all these policies then melded into that and we had a master mobility element for the county of which this plan will be part of the basis, I think we'd be off on a really good start. And that's kind of why I had suggested that we look and consider as a conclusion to these meetings a suggestion to staff to introduce a mobility element to our Growth Management Plan as a benchmark for going future. And I think, Nicole, that would resolve that issue and it could bring in a lot of other issues that we're going to be discussing for the next two days. It might just be resolved by such an idea. MS. RYAN: I think that's a good idea. Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Chuck, did you have something you want to mention? MR. MOHLKE: Mr. Chairman, thank you. My name is Chuck Mohlke, I'm here just as an interested citizen. But this was too good an opportunity, Mr. Chairman, to make a couple of observations for the Planning Commission's consideration and staffs consideration. I don't know how to begin. I'm going to begin with a kind of a commonplace comment. Here we go again. We have been through the Evaluation and Appraisal Report process repeatedly since the late 1980's, if we can consider the formulation of the Growth Management Plan in the late 1980's is in effect as a surrogate for an Evaluation and Appraisal Report. We have a number of considerations that are transportation - related that in my view, you only have me saying this, do not integrate properly. Two major components of transportation that are now under consideration awaiting adoption in one instance and having just been adopted in another instance: The LRTP, the Long Range Transportation Plan, and the TDP, the Transit Development Plan, that are really in my humble view accounted for not at all in these documents. We are at the point where we are again prepared to do something like the version we're all familiar with in ordinance documents, incorporated by reference. What does that mean? Mr. Chairman, you had pointed out earlier this conundrum that we're all confronted with when looking at a subsequently adopted ordinance, a subsequently adopted series of regulations that do not require the super majority vote that often change materially some of the material that we're looking at now. We will have amended in the Comprehensive Plan a Transportation Element which may or may not account properly for documents not adopted by super majority, the LRTP in some instances, not major, but in some instances could be major, and the AUIR, the Annual Update and Inventory Report, and a whole host of other documents. And you have other influences that need to be accounted for, and your reference to 951 is very appropriate in this regard. Recently, thanks to the Federal Congress, we have the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act that has given Collier County some $39 million worth of investments. And if my calculations are convect, using the latest annual report, 31.7 million of those have gone into transportation. Are those integrated always into the LRTP, into the Transit Development Plan? No, they're not. You could contend, well, conceptually they are. But they're really not, Mr. Chairman. And having something like what you are proposing, a mobility element that accounts at a minimum for transportation, for the features of the Economic Element and for some of the largely subordinate enactments integrated sometimes reluctantly into the comprehensive plan, like the Golden Gate Area Master Plan, that can at least demonstrate an ability to do what one new feature of comprehensive planning in Collier County has done, and we should all applaud it, and that is the integration of an important independent governmental entity into the comprehensive planning process, namely the Collier County public school system, that in its facilities planning must account for the capital improvements of county government and the three municipalities, and must through a coordinated process develop a mechanism whereby its capital program is consistent with and not in conflict with the capital programs of four other important units of county government. And without going on at great length here, I just wanted to make the point in general terms that I think invites an opportunity to give serious consideration to what I heard you propose and what I heard the previous speaker endorse; namely, to find a mechanism within the plan that can account for the potential at least for the kinds of Page 22 of 89 August 25, 2010 CCPC/EAR conflicts that have begun to be addressed in this other newly adopted feature of the comprehensive plan, namely a school facilities plan. That seems conceptually to me to be an important new improvement. Because like it or not, Mr. Chairman and members of the Planning Commission, we are confronted with the fact that we have significant units of government activity in Collier County at the local, the regional, the state and the federal level that are in no manner harmonious with the plans of general purpose county government in many instances. Let me just give you two small examples of that that could, I think -- I've read this material that you have under consideration, and perhaps my ability to understand it is deeply flawed and I don't fully grasp what it is intended by some of these recurring policy statements that show no evidence of ever having been enacted effectively. They're in there, they sound wonderful. But just to give you -- because I'm taking too much of your time. Just to give you one simpleminded example. How to minimize transportation impacts. And that's a concept under Mr. Bosi's direction that was examined extensively during the Horizon Study, the East of 951 Study, the concept of co- location. Here we have independent constitutional officers, fire districts, regional, state and federal agencies, and a wide variety of other things that are vaguely coordinated with general purpose county government. The simple act of doing everything you can to insist that as we expand east of 951 we find a way to co- locate these government entities so that they are not all in separate locations within a mile or a mile and a half radius of a single central point, a major intersection, plans for a future roadway by the purchase of right -of -way, or at least the dedication of right -of -way. If we can incorporate concepts like that, Mr. Chairman, into the plan, I think we will all be the better for it. And your idea reinforced by that — remarks of the previous speaker, to take an element like a mobility plan and to use it as a mechanism to say hey, what are we doing here, when we have a new transit plan just adopted at the last meeting of the Board of County Commissioners, effective as of September 1 st, days from now, which has material impacts on us. It says in effect, if you read it carefully, that in order to meet the requirements based upon a best assessment of population and ridership, we should be spending $14 million in the year 2014 in order to expand the capital fleet of the transit system. Are we going to be able to do that? Highly unlikely. But we need to tell people that. We need to say here's what the capital investment is required in order to meet the needs of the future. And we're not doing that. Thank you for the opportunity to make these remarks. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you, Chuck, it's always a pleasure hearing from you. Thank you. Anybody else want to comment at this point before we go to the next pages? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The next pages will be Pages 6 and 7. Planning Commission, any members have any questions about those pages? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I do, Mark. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Go ahead, Mr. Schiffer. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And what my question is, we're adding a new Policy, 4.9. But isn't 4.9 essentially a summary of some of these other ones, Mike? And the concern I have is the other ones say shall provide. This one, you know, shall work to reduce and stuff. And maybe that comment about the greenhouse gas, would that be maybe better off in Objective 4 than as a policy? Because I think everything that you have as policy has been covered. And maybe that comment about greenhouse gas is better up in the objective. That's -- and what I'm fearful of is if you shall work to -- you know, some of these other things are in there and say shall be provided, and I don't want to reduce the strength of them in the other policies. MR. BOSI: We can most certainly take that comment and look to maybe modify it as you had suggested. It is, in terms of it's almost a restatement in terms of a lot of the mandates of what the policies are trying to do. And I think it was our attempt to satisfy those new requirements in a straightforward manner, in a direct manner trying to address energy efficiency and greenhouse gas. But I understand bringing it to the objective how that would actually better our position in terms of relationship to those issues. Page 23 of 89 August 25, 2010 CCPC /EAR COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay, good. And maybe just a point of question, Mark. How are we going to handle these things? We've all made suggestions and recommendations. What happens from this point? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mike will take the info we provide, and he and his staff, it's my understanding, will take a look at all this, reformat it, hopefully in response, and then prepare it in draft form for the adoption, in which we'll have another opportunity to comment finally on it. After that then it gets finalized and goes to the Board of County Commissioners. Is that a fair assessment, Mike? MR. BOSI: Absolutely. The policies that -- the additional policies or whatever modifications that you had to our individual assessments will be the reflection within the adoption notebooks. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. So as a workshop, we're just throwing ideas out. He takes it and then we'll vote later. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: We actually can't vote in a workshop, so we're just providing concept direction. MR. BOSI: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Midney? COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Yeah, I had a question on Policy 4.9. I see that there's a lot of emphasis on vehicle miles traveled and greenhouse gas emissions. Has anybody put any attention on the carbon that's stored in forests and wetlands and preventing that from being released? Does that have any role in that HB- 697? And could that relate to our planning process? MR. BOSI: Well, it most certainty does, because, I mean, if you look at, you know, 67 percent of our county is dedicated to conservation, federal or state protections, and those areas -- those areas have a positive effect in terms of carbon consumption. So there is an interrelationship between them. I'm not sure how we express those specifically within this policy, and maybe it's more of a recognition in the policy within the Future Land Use Element or the Conservation and Coastal Management Element to the recognition of those energy efficiency areas, or the conservation areas. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: And the other part of that is when we do have impacts to wetlands or impacts to land clearing, I know there's a lot of sanctions already, and, you know, things that prevent people from doing that or just minimize it, but has there been any thought to incorporating that into what we're doing for HB -697 in additional ways? Or is it just we're relying on the regulation that's already there? MR. BOSI: Well, in relationship to -- I mean, I think you're drawing the correlation between wetland mitigation impacts to mitigation for new developments and their impacts in terms of the carbon emissions. While I think we have -- in the urbanized areas we have a number of -- within the traffic congestion management areas, we have alternatives towards how we meet the demands that are going to be expressed by the individual developments and try to provide them with options for solution for their mitigation as to not to -- the construction of new vehicle or new lane miles, but addressing it in alternative modes with meeting contributions to the public transit system or contributions to the pedestrian or bike systems. Those type of things are being suggested within, you know, those specific areas, of the appropriate areas within. But we don't have anything on the large scale for every single project that comes by. We don't have a carbon emissions evaluation in terms of what's going to be the output of the individual development and then how do you mitigate for that. We haven't gotten to that level of sophistication yet. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, anybody else on Pages 6 and 7? Mike, I've got a -- oh, go ahead, Ms. Caron. COMMISSIONER CARON: On Policy 4.5, where it says to the greatest extent possible, is that really necessary language? Does that imply that if it weren't in there you wouldn't look to the greatest extent possible to find grants and -- MR. BOSI: If you remove it I think you don't take away the effectiveness of the policy. COMMISSIONER CARON: No. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, anything else? COMMISSIONER CARON: No, that was the only one. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mike, if we stop on Policy 4.1. This is one of those shall, and it refers to a Page 24 of 89 August 25, 2010 CCPC /EAR self-amending possible plan, and that plan is the Collier County Comprehensive Pathways Plan. I think we might want to say the county shall initiate and maintain a Collier County Comprehensive Pathways Plan. But I'm not sure you want to -- shall incorporate it, because it says right here shall periodically update the pathways plan as needed, which would then be amending the Growth Management Plan. If you could take a look at it under that context and if it needs to be appropriately changed, fine. If not, then we'll have to live with it. Policy 4.3 is inconsistent with 4.1 in regard of shall. Policy 4.3 just says it shall be consistent with. And 4.1 reads, shall incorporate. I'm not sure why we've got two policies that seem to say the same thing. We might want to check it and see how necessary that is. And under 4.4, now, that one I can understand, we are taking the county Comprehensive Pathways Plan through that, we're developing a five -year work program, and then we're adopting the five -year work program, okay. Is that the way this is supposed to flow? Is that actually what's happening here? The comprehensive plan is generated. From that plan we develop a five -year work program. And the five -year work program is adopted as our tool to go forward. MR. BOSI: The Comprehensive Pathways Plan is not — and maybe transportation could provide a little bit more input. But the Comprehensive Pathways Plan is not the basis for the Capital Improvement programming process of Collier County. In those -- because we don't have a level of service that's associated with pedestrian pathways. We aspire to be able to provide to the greatest ability the Comprehensive Pathways Plan. But I don't think that this -- the general purpose county government -- MR. CASALANGUIDA: Yes. You asked the question. The answer is yes. MR. BOSI: Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Because he's digging a hole and I didn't know if you're here to bail him out or not. MR. CASALANGUIDA: Real simple, yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Because we have a five -year pathways work program. It's got to be built upon something, and it would seem logical based on the way these policies are gelling up, it's based upon the Collier County Comprehensive Pathways Plan. MR. CASALANGUIDA: The answer is yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. COMMISSIONER CARON: You have another speaker. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes, as soon as I get done with my questions on 6 and 7, I'll grab them both. Thank you. Now, if you go to Policy 4.9 and you take the first line and then the second line up to the --just before the word safe, bring that down and insert it in 4.6 right before the word safe, you then don't need Policy 4.9. If you read it, it's an identical policy. Someone just took 4.6 and added a dozen words to the front of it and created a new policy. What do we need all those new policies for? Why don't we just combine them? And that's if it isn't a better idea then to go to the objective for the greenhouse gas emissions. But anyway, Policy 4.9 seemed to be more redundancy than anything else. And you can combine the policies as a worst case scenario and a better, maybe even put in the objective. Policy 4.7. This one relates back to the bike paths. The county shall incorporate bike lanes in roadway resurfacing projects as is physically possible and will not result in a safety or operational problem. How do you determine the increase in safety by putting those bike lanes next to cars traveling in a high speed lane right next to them? So how do you justify that? MR. CASALANGUIDA: Well, you're going to do what's called an RRR, triple R report, road rehabilitation report, where you look at reducing lanes widths, what it does to the safety of the motorist as well as the pedestrian by putting the bike lane on this. So that's what you're doing in that policy, is if you're going to widen the road or if you're going to resurface a road, can you add a couple of feet of shoulder width and put a bike lane on there? Can you take a 12 -foot travel lane and take it down to 10 and a half and incorporate the bike lane? So that you're looking at safety not only for the bicycle but you're looking at safety for the motorists as well too. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, who's looking at the safety relationship between the closeness now of those bikes that would normally be not that close? The additional exposure to the public in that regard. Page 25 of 89 August 25, 2010 CCPC /EAR And again, I'm not saying we shouldn't have the bike lanes, I just don't think we're putting them in the right place. MR. CASALANGUIDA: Your speaker here really should get into -- should make a comment. That's a good time for her to segue in. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Well, Mark, let me -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Brad wants to make a comment first. Then her. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: If you didn't have even a small bike lane, the bicyclist is in the car lane. So I mean, the biggest safety feature is you get them out of the car lane. MR. CASALANGUIDA: You've got another speaker too, Mr. Chairman. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And actually, we have an expert on this. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Good. MR. CASALANGUIDA: I'm glad he's taken the time to come down. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ms. Caron? COMMISSIONER CARON: Before the experts, would you please repeat what was the RRR report? MR. CASALANGUIDA: It's resurfacing and rehabilitation. Roadway resurfacing and rehabilitation. In other words, you're looking to make it ADA compliant. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. I just couldn't understand you. MR. CASALANGUIDA: Sure. The'W's roll away, you know Italians. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You know the only reason I brought the bike lanes up if just to see if Joe was watching. MR. CASALANGUIDA: Oh, he's watching. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, we'll go to public speakers on these two pages. Ma'am, if you want to -- whoever wants to go first. I saw two or three people heading up this way. MS. AVOLA: Good morning. Michele Avola, Naples Pathways Coalition. Just a few things to note so far on Objective 4. When you had suggested about the redundancy of 4.9 and was it better just adding a few words to the existing Policy 4.6 or moving it up to the objective, I guess where my suggestion would be is wherever it's going to be stronger. In reading through this whole thing, there's a lot of great verbiage in here, but great verbiage doesn't do anything if it really doesn't have teeth, if it doesn't get implemented. So I will trust that you're in a better position to know where it's going to have the greatest strength. But in having the recognition of a need to reduce the vehicle miles traveled and safely accommodate bicyclists and pedestrians, the recent policy statement by Secretary of Transportation Ray LaHood put cyclists and pedestrians on equal ground as motorized vehicles as a transportation mode. So we all, as a county, as a state and so forth need to look at motor vehicles and those using bikes or their feet to get where they need to go as equal. And under 4.5 where you had asked the question about do we need to have the words to the greatest extent possible, I would suggest perhaps putting an actual minimum, say minimum five percent of the transportation budget, so it's an actual goal, not just kind of a given that may or may not be considered. For 4.7 I would suggest adding to resurfacing, adding after that and maintenance projects as possible, and just striking the words that will not result in the safety or operational problem. Because again, that's just a given, and there are the studies done to make sure that we're not increasing a situation to make it more dangerous. But it is actually -- studies have been done to show that cyclists are safer in a bike lane than just trying to go along a narrow shoulder where there's broken glass, other debris or on a sidewalk where they're having to contend with dogs, people, cars coming in and out of entrances and not seeing a cyclist because they're moving at a faster rate than a pedestrian. So bike lanes have been proven across the country to increase safety both for the cyclist and then for the motor vehicle as well. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And Miss, I certainly agree with you that if I was on 951 in my diesel truck driving down that road and somebody on a bike was in front of me in the travel lane, he'd be a heck of a lot safer over in a bike lane. All I'm trying to say is, I don't think the bike lanes are as safe as they can be. I think we can design them to be more safe than they are. And I think when we design our road systems and we lay out the planning for mobility on a countywide basis, we shouldn't be designing bike lanes next to travel lanes, we should have them separated. There's ways to plan Page 26 of 89 August 25, 2010 CCPC/EAR to make that happen, to make it safer for the bicyclists. And then you'd encourage more people to use bikes. And I think that would be the ultimate. But I agree with you, it's safer than being in a travel lane. That wasn't my objection. But I don't think it's safe the way it's coming out right now. It helps, but not as much as it should. MS. AVOLA: Well, where there is room for a separated pathway, obviously that's going to be the best scenario. But where that just physically is not possible, where you can widen a shoulder, where you can safely accommodate a four- foot -wide bike lane, you're going to be doing a greater service than just hoping for the best and letting -- you know. There's a number of people that they just need to use their bike to get to work, to get where they're going. It's not necessarily that they're out just trying to get some exercise. It is a viable means of transportation that more and more people are relying on for exercise, due to financial situation, trying to make a positive impact on the environment as well. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I think the more we encourage a safer bike lane and one separated from the traffic, I think you'll see more people use it. Right now I ride a bike -- MS. AVOLA: You're preaching to the choir. I believe you, yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I ride a bike but I would never get out on that little narrow strip next to that travel lane. No way that's going to happen. I know, I've had friends that bicycle with Joe and they tell me they have a great time, and that's great. But that still isn't getting the majority of the public on bicycles and getting them out. Because I think a majority of the public might be reluctant to be next to those cars traveling along those highways at the speed they do. So that's my point. MS. AVOLA: I agree, separate pathways are better. And you'll hear me talk later about the river of grass greenway, which will be a proposed separated pathway from Naples to Miami that will be off the road parallel to 41. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Fantastic. Good. Thank you. Joe? MR. BONNESS: Yeah, Joe Bonness, Pathways advisory committee chairman. Totally agree that yeah, it would be great to have offset pathways and pathways that -- you know, separate bicycle/pedestrian corridors. It's something that we haven't had enough teeth in to be able to really get them developed. The ones that have been out there have taken us years to be able to get built, even once we do have them funded. And that's something that we've been working with to try and get that going. Anything that we can put more teeth into the plan to be able to get that going would be great. As far as bike lanes in traffic and that, there's a little bit of a misgiving and misperception from the -- you know, especially from the motor vehicle driver's standpoint as to the safety factor that goes on. They are palpably about the safest place for a bicycle to actually ride. The more you separate a bike from the traffic, the more risk you usually put them in. The turning movement of traffic and everything else tends to be able to turn into them much more often. Out of sight, out of mind and in danger is what happens. The more in sight that you're at, the better off you're at. There's a movement from certain parts of the country and from the mentality -- bicycle mentality, that bike lanes are not even needed if you treat bicycles as vehicles to begin with. You know, it is safe to drive a bicycle on a 45 mile an hour road if you're acting like you're a traffic -- regular vehicle traffic and taking the lane as you need to. But to go into statistics standpoint, in the year 2005 there was not a single bicycle fatality in a bike lane. Bikes were getting killed on shoulders, they were getting killed right and left on sidewalks and places where you think they are the absolute safest. But to able to promote bicycling and to get more people out there, to be able to separate them as much as possible and get those facilities in there is really a goal. And, you know, changing the mentality of the motor vehicle drivers to allow the bicyclist and not to be able to put them into a position where they think that they're being -- you know, where they're fighting for the same road and everything else, you know, that's going to take a lot of social changes to get there. But if we're going to try and promote the bicycle as a mode of transportation, I'm agreeing with you that we need to try and get them as separated as we possibly can and to be able to build those facilities. But keep the bike lanes in there on the multi -lane roads as much as possible. You know, that's one of the things I keep pushing transportation for is every time that they're in there doing overlay that they should be adding in shoulders and providing for pedestrian bicycle traffic every time that we are Page 27 of 89 August 25, 2010 CCPC /EAR doing that. If we followed what we had in our Land Development Code and into the Comprehensive Plan, almost every four -lane road or two -lane road that we have out there that's 45 miles an hour now would have a paved shoulder and have a bike lane alongside of it. But we have avoided that continuously as we've been going through, either from the standpoint of saying well, that's going to cost us too much or that's going to -- we have permitting that we're going to have to worry about. And we avoid it almost all the time. There's very few times where we actually -- when we are doing the overlays and resurfacing that we actually go through and put in the bike lane facility, as we have had written in the Comprehensive Plan for years. Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you, Joe. Anybody else have any comments? Ms. Payton? MS. PAYTON: Nancy Payton, Florida Wildlife Federation. I want to speak on Policy 4.9. I'm not quite sure what's happening to it. But it is -- it illustrates a shortcoming I see in some of the proposed policies, and that is that they are not measurable. They're aspirational but they're not measurable. Like shall work to reduce vehicle miles. Well, we want those vehicle miles reduced, and there ought to be some goals set in the policy that by such and such a time such and such a reduction will occur. As long as it's shall work, it's staff getting up at their desk in the morning and saying yeah, I should be working on that. And it goes on for another year and another year and yeah, I should be working on that and I'm true to the policy. That's not what House Bill 697 meant. It is county's got to take action. And this policy doesn't achieve that. It's aspirational, like I want to clean out my garage, I should clean out my garage. But chances are that's not going to happen. So it's the same thing, it's a meaningless policy. And I urge you to keep that in mind when you look at some of these other policies, that they're nice, but do they mean anything? And we don't need to clutter up our Growth Management Plan with aspirations. We want a plan and something that can be implemented and has measurable means to assure we're achieving that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I think that goes back to the whole idea that -- Mike, when we talk about the generality of this language that Nancy's pointing out, shall work to reduce, if instead the county is a -- shall initiate and maintain and then go into an active document that we'd have to be forced to complete, that may be a better way to approach the VMT's and greenhouse gas issue. Instead of shall work to reduce, why don't we just initiate and maintain a program and figure out some methodology, whether it's through a study, whether it's through an action in transportation, but some measurable quantity, and then we would have something to measure against. And the time frame becomes a problem because of the budget right now. And I have to empathize with staffs reluctance to put time frames in on some issues right now until we know where our monies are going to be in the future in this county. But at least with every EAR or sooner we'd have a standard in which to have to compare to. Right now, as Nancy's saying, there isn't a standard to compare to. Next seven years from now, we can say, yeah, that's a good policy, leave it there, we shall work towards that. But what do we have to say we've done anything? MR. BOSI: Let me introduce the concept that as these transportation planners have been sitting at their desk, they have initiated a Master Mobility Plan that's specifically designed to try to bring in these specific instances into more specificity and to bring real measurable reductions within those vehicle miles traveled. I guess the question would be what is the appropriate term for measurement and how much of a financial commitment does this county want to make and place upon attaining results within that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But identifying your work product then as the outcome of the Master Mobility Plan. Maybe you need a reference to Master Mobility Plan as a reaction to the VMT and greenhouse gas emission standards as the way we're going to get there, and then why your development of that plan becomes the mechanism in which it gives a benchmark, let's say, that we're moving forward. MR. BOSI: I thought I heard the Planning Commission make the suggestion and yourself make the suggestion a number of times that create, potentially discuss, contemplate a policy that's going to recognize the Master Mobility Plan and the Master Mobility Plan contributing to the development of an overall Mobility Element within Page 28 of 89 August 25, 2010 CCPC/EAR the Growth Management Plan. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. MR. BOSI: Well, that's already been noted. We've already -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: We're in similar -- I think that may be then the response to Nancy's question. If that's the line of thinking staffs moving towards, then that's good. MS. PAYTON: That's good. I just don't want the county to repeat what they did in 1996, and that was they did away with their measurable goals. And that challenge still hasn't been resolved. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, at least we have a Watershed Management Plan, right? Oh, we don't. MS. PAYTON: See? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Understand. Thank you. Nicole? MS. RYAN: Nicole Ryan, Conservancy of Southwest Florida. And I certainly like the direction that the discussion is going for creating measurable benchmarks for reducing vehicle miles traveled, greenhouse gases. And while I think this is an important concept to introduce under the non - motorized objective and policies, it has not been repeated in the motorized portions of the Transportation Element, And I think that that needs to be drawn in somehow. We need to reduce vehicle miles traveled through things such as better land use planning, better connectivity of the current transportation network. So I wanted to make sure that it wasn't lost in the mix and only discussed and introduced in the non - motorized and pedestrian mobility objective. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. MS. RYAN: Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, let's move on to Pages 8 and 9. Questions from the Planning Commission? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody have any comments? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, Pages 10 and 11. Mr. Midney? COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: I have a question on 6.5 where it says I -75 Everglades Interchange. Is that something that we want to put into our Growth Management Plan? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, that's a good point. Because Mr. Bosi and I had a discussion about that same thing too. MR. BOSI: That is an existing policy. Those were projects that have been carried out. The transportation's review of this policy has recognized that those projects have been carried out, and they are suggesting that future grade separated interpasses be designated as replacement projects for Policy 6.5. And I think maybe Mr. Casalanguida can explore or explain the motivation behind the replacement of the current policies in 6.5 with the recognition of the grade separated interpasses that the LRTP has identified as needed within various locations throughout the transportation system. MR. CASALANGUIDA: We always go through the 2030 -2035 LRTP. Now we're going through the Master Mobility Plan and the build -out analysis. Certain key intersections and locations always seem to come up. Now, when you're going for federal funding or you're going for grants, having them in your GMP as identified key locations definitely puts a bigger spotlight on those locations as well, too. And I think we've noted a couple of them that are predominant, and recommend taking Policy 6.5 and adding those in replacement of the Golden Gate Parkway, which was completed. And I know they're controversial, but they've gotten a lot of support from both public involvement, from traffic analysis, so they're justified many different ways. Now, notwithstanding there's going to be environmental issues on one of them, and maybe that's a statement to put in, notwithstanding any environmental concerns that need to be addressed as part of that. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Yeah, I'm just concerned that you're putting something that's controversial and it's not really settled as part of the GMP. MR. CASALANGUIDA: I think a lot things in the GMP are controversial and not really set. And that's part Page 29 of 89 August 25, 2010 CCPC/EAR of it. You're not going to make everybody happy on these items. Again, I said notwithstanding environmental concerns that haven't been flushed out. So if we need to qualify that statement, I'm okay with that, because that's fair and that's what we've been talking about with some of the agencies. I'm sure there's someone who wants to speak to that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, before -- Nick, first of all, we also reference the LRTP and the MPO in other language. So to then take certain segments of their plans and highlight them even further in this policy, the specificity that I thought we were trying to get away from in the GMP, especially with some of this that has not been aired in the public. Public is not in agreement with everything that you've got written here, especially with the 1 -75 Everglades Interchange. You know that by if you just read the paper recently. You have not vetted this in the public as it should have been. Why would we even want to go this far with this specificity at this time? The Orangetree people haven't been talked to about the Randall and Immokalee overpass that might go there and look down on their homes. It isn't fair to the community to put this in the GMP, because like you said, it becomes stronger. That's just the opposite effect we should have until we go out to the public. MR. CASALANGUII)A: I would argue, Commissioner, that it has been vetted many times. I think the Randall - Immokalee one is one that was -- THE COURT REPORTER: Can you both please slow down. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, blame records, I had coffee. MR. CASALANGUII)A: You just recently adopted a transmission of a GMP amendment that specifically talked about a grade separated overpass as part of the adoption process. Both of these -- all three of these interchanges are in the LRTP that's going through the public vetting process. They're not new to the LRTP, they were in the last LRTP. So they've been vetted many, many times to the public. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I'm not in agreement with you that this needs to be in the GMP. I think if you have it as an element through the LRTP or MPO and it goes through other processes like that, putting this in the GMP really hurts the public's ability to have an impact on it, because it's already here. I mean, that's where I'm coming from. And I'm not sure what the concept is from the rest of the board. Mr. Midney, Ms. Caron seem to agree. Melissa, Brad, do you have any thoughts on it? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I'm kind of agreeing with Nick that, I mean, it is something that is out there is already. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Karen? COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: I know that it is out there already and I know it's been to the public. I mean, if you've been to -- followed any of the MPO meetings -- THE COURT REPORTER: I'm sorry, Karen, I can't hear you. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Pm sorry. No, I know that these things have been out to the public. I mean, with the MPO there's meetings, citizens advisory, technical committee, MPO meetings televised. I mean, these things have been -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I'm more concerned about having meetings with the neighborhoods that they impact. That would be the Golden Gate Area Estate Civic Association, the Golden Gate Homeowners Association, Belle Meade groups, people that are going to be impacted by this. This interchange was originally discussed to go out to service the Big Cypress area, which is going to be well past -- in fact, the maps show it well past Everglades Boulevard. Now you're moving it into the community and the community is not aware of it. And I'm sorry, but when they got aware of it, they voiced an objection to it, from the quotes I read in the newspaper. It wasn't 100 percent in favor, Nick, so -- MR. CASALANGUIDA: Sir, for the record, it was our largest attended public meeting, almost 300 people, and 97 percent were in favor of this interchange. We had it on Everglades Boulevard. So let's be clear. We advertised it, people attended. And they wanted to string me up because I was taking too much time studying it. And that was the response I got from the public meeting we had on Everglades Boulevard. So it was a pretty large public meeting and public involvement on this interchange. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Murray? Page 30 of 89 August 25, 2010 CCPC/EAR COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I happen to agree with Mr. Casalanguida. COMMISSIONER AHERN: Not having it in here, how does that affect any funding you may be able to get or any grants? MR. CASALANGUIDA: It prioritizes it through the Comp. Plan, so when you look at it you can say as part of a grant application it's top of the shelf in terms of need, of vetting. So that's how it helps. And also, when you come in with -- when other projects come in, it's been noted as these are critical intersections. 951 and 41 has gone through PD &E and is going through our PD &E update, vetted as grade separated overpass. Matter of fact, our DCA and TIGER grant applications all note that. So these aren't the ones that we've kind of just taken off willy -nilly, they've been really gone through quite a bit of process and highlighted interchanges. COMMISSIONER AHERN: Mark, I would agree to leave them at least for the funding side of it, that it would be in there. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Ms. Caron? COMMISSIONER CARON: What happens, though, if before the five years are up your priorities change? I mean, I'm just -- I don't think that specific projects should be -- I think you should relate back to the long -range plan where you can change your priorities as they may or may not be needed. MR. CASALANGUIDA: These have been standing priorities for quite a bit of time -- COMMISSIONER CARON: I mean, I can understand you're already underway with 41 and 951. But again, that wouldn't change whether that was in here or not in here. Because as you know, it's already happening and it wasn't in this plan to begin with. So it doesn't prevent any of these things from happening. MR. CASALANGUIDA: Sure. COMMISSIONER CARON: I think that it's just the wrong place to be designating them. MR. CASALANGUIDA: For track record and history, the ones that were there on Policy 6.5 have both been constructed. So it goes to tell you that by putting those in there, the emphasis on both the county, state and federal level, you've really said this is what we're focusing on. So from a track record perspective, 6.5, both of those interchanges have been built. So to continue on is what we're trying to do, is to say, look, we've had them in as a GMP and we've built them. The three new that we're proposing have been on the radar for five, 10 years, depending on which ones they are, and they've been number one priorities for quite some time and they should be continued. Hopefully based on the success of the prior policy we can continue on to do that. So it's helped by having that policy in there when you're applying for something to say this is in our Growth Management Plan as a critical location for funding analysis and need. And again, notwithstanding that this statement should come in that these interchanges should be -- you know, should have environmental impact analysis done as well, too. Because I'm trying to be fair with the folks I'm working with -- COMMISSIONER CARON: No, I understand. But all I'm saying to you, Nick, is that U.S. 41 and 951 was not culled out, but it's already happening now before it's even been culled out. So things can begin to happen and will happen based on priorities, not whether or not you happened to prioritize them on September 15th of 2010 versus, you know, six months later. MR. CASALANGUIDA: 951 and 41 isn't happening now. It's just only happening at grade. We're going through the study. There's no money to do the grade separated yet. We're doing the footprint for the grade separated right now. COMMISSIONER CARON: This isn't giving you money either, so -- for any of these things. MR. CASALANGUIDA: I'm applying for TIGER grant, TIGER grant two's, for example. And to say that I have a policy specifically in my GMP that says this is a critical interchange for the county, that and you reference that policy in the Growth Management Plan, you know, it helps in that grant application. Calls attention to it when you're working with developers and they say, well, I don't want to work with you on this intersection. Well, look, we've identified it as a key interchange, key location. And there's only -- when you look at the county as a whole, there's one other location I can think of, like we -- a little controversial based on the 951 extension, that 95 1 -Immokalee intersection, because we've already purchased the right -of -way and kind of planned for it there. That's why we didn't include that in there. But these are really three critical areas that I think have been well vetted. I understand the concern about Page 31 of 89 August 25, 2010 CCPC /EAR identifying, but our track record shows we've done well with identifying, securing funding and prioritizing them. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I think the consensus of this panel is four in favor and three opposed. So it will -- I mean, you guys just go forward with that consensus. So I'll still -- the rest of us can handle it the way we need to. COMMISSIONER CARON: Do we have consensus though to add notwithstanding any environmental issues as far as — CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I think he volunteered that, so I'm assuming staffs going to -- MR. CASALANGUIDA: I'm happy to add that, yes -- COMMISSIONER CARON: I just didn't want that to get lost. MR. CASALANGUIDA: That's a concern. CHAIltMAN STRAIN: And we still got comments from the Planning Commission on Pages 10 and 11. Anybody else have any other comments? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, on Page 10, Policy 6.2. Right now the way that policy reads, it's shall consider the applicable roadway plans of the various other municipalities and agencies. And you want to change that to coordinate with. Aren't we better off from a standpoint of negotiating with these other agencies and cities as to how they do their internal roadway alignments to leave it consider so we're not tied to do just what they tell us to do? Because coordinate with would seem stronger, it would put more of an emphasis on us to have to do how we align versus let us argue with them a little bit and maybe bring more to the table on our behalf if we leave the word consider in. So I would suggest not making the revision. Is that -- what does staff feel about that? Any problem? MR. BOSI: No. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. That's it. Any speakers on Pages 10 and 11? MS. RYAN: Nicole Ryan, here on behalf The Conservancy of Southwest Florida. And I'd like to comment on Policy 6.5 with the addition of specific roadway projects. The Conservancy doesn't believe that the GUY is the appropriate place to list out certain projects as prioritization for getting them completed and in the pipeline. And as far as the I -75 Everglades Boulevard Interchange, we're absolutely opposed to that project being culled out, prioritized and put into the GMP as somehow being consistent with the GMP in its entirety. In all fairness, if it's in the GMP as a transportation priority when the county's going to make a grant application, while they may say it's consistent with the Transportation Element, they really should in all fairness say it's inconsistent with the Conservation and Coastal Management Element and the listed species and wildlife protection policies contained therein. So we see the addition of this as putting in place a road project that we know the agencies are concerned about, that we know have consistency issues with other areas of the GMP. Another thing that both The Conservancy, Florida Wildlife and others are doing is with the long -range transportation plan update, we're hopeful that the MPO is going to take a look at perhaps removing, certainly red flagging, some of those transportation projects that are not environmentally compatible. We would like to see the MPO create an environmentally feasible map, remove some of these problematic projects. If the greatest thing happened that did end up happening, you would have then a project in your transportation element that was no longer in the long -range transportation plan, and that would create inconsistencies. So we don't see that it needs to be prioritized out and legitimacy added to a project that quite frankly is very controversial, very problematic. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. Okay, any other questions? Nancy? MS. PAYTON: Nancy Payton, Florida Wildlife Federation. This also brings up the issue about these plans that are supposed to be happening, the Master Mobility Plan, and seems as though the legitimacy and the justification for this interchange would be included in that major study. But what's happening is there's an effort to get it in the Comp. Plan to have it, I think, drive the study and drive decisions, and that's not what should be happening. Page 32 of 89 August 25, 2010 CCPC /EAR Also, on Policy 7.6, which is the next page over, talks about the use of the efficient decision -- efficient transportation decision - making process. And this project is in dispute resolution through that process, a long way away from resolving that dispute resolution. So it seems totally inappropriate and inconsistent to have a policy that's already prioritizing an extremely controversial plan -- interchange. So based on that -- and it goes to the eight major issues again for us in terms of transportation and Golden Gate Master Plan. This has a significant impact that some people have not yet understood and others have to the integrity of the Golden Gate area. It is a big changer out there. And actually, this has been talked about, because I can go back in my files many years long before there was a rural land stewardship and there was a Big Cypress. And there has been a push to have it there. But the implications are not well known to many people, and need to be discussed. The last time this was discussed in a public forum was in, as I recall, July a year ago, and it was put on as a presentation. The public did not have the opportunity to comment on it. I asked to have it elsewhere and was told no, it was staying on presentation. And as you know, Commissioners don't take comments during presentations. So there has been an effort I think to somewhat push this project through without a full public debate. And thank you for bringing it up today. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you, Nancy. We'll have to save our argument for another day. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: One quick thing on 11. And Mike, it's Objective 7. I read that objective, and obviously what it's saying is, you know, in the past you came up with standards, which I assume you've done already, for ingress and egress to adjoining properties, right? And then down below you kind of want to make that where these standards have to be met during the Site Development Plan process. That's no longer -- I mean, you're giving them strength in your revision; is that correct? MR. BOSI: That's my understanding. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. The other question is that the policies after that are rather major compared to — I mean, when I read your objective, I kind of think of two shopping centers side by side. But when I read your policy, you know, you have corridors, transportation corridors and a whole bunch of stuff. So when I read the objective, am I minimizing the power of that, or what's -- MR. BOSI: No, to me those individual policies help define what that safe and efficient ingress and egress are and what the parameters can be established for those. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. And at what scale of project is this intended for, all scales, I guess, or -- COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I would think. MR. BOSI: Yes. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Because it just starts out to me sounding like connecting parking lights and winds up connecting communities. But I guess that's the intent. MR. BOSI: I believe it does go from the micro to the macro in terms of scale. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, we're done Pages 10 and 11. Let's move to 12 and 13. Any questions from the Planning Commission on Pages 12 and 13? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mike, on Policy 7.4, on the middle of the third line it says, starts the sentence, it says such plans shall take into account the recommendations of the community character plan. Why don't we use the word may there instead of shall? The only reason is, is that community character plan is not always consistent with the local desires. I mean, just think about it. It's just a suggestion. On Page 13, Policy 7.6, and that's similar to the comment, and I had circled the same thing that Nancy had previously made. We're putting the cart before the horse. My note says the overpasses and things should be done after this process, which is what I'm reiterating. I agree with her. In addition, during the design of transportation projects, there are numerous design and special meetings to take into account the socio -cultural elements of the community, including character issues such as aesthetics, avoiding or mitigating for environmental impacts, noise and community disruption issues. Page 33 of 89 August 25, 2010 CCPC/EAR I like the language. I'm not sure -- and you're going to keep the text in there. I think that certainly will be an argument as to why the corridor plan that is proposed in other elements of the Transportation Element is not meeting that criteria. But neither here nor there. And the last thing, Objective 8, how is the word necessary determined in that last sentence where it says necessary road facilities? Just, I'm -- how do you determine which are necessary and which aren't? How do you determine the priority? MR. BOSI: I believe it's a volume of road capacity compared to -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: It's a level of service standard? MR. CASALANGUIDA: Right. That's correct, sir. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I just wanted to make sure it wasn't referring to another plan that wasn't mentioned. Anybody else on 12 and 13? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: If not, 14 and 15? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, Pages 16 and 17? MS. AVOLA: Before we move on. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Oh, I'm sorry, I didn't see you standing -- I was reading my notes. MS. AVOLA: I'm sorry. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You're short. MS. AVOLA: Michele Avola, Naples Pathways Coalition. For Objective 8, we would like to see the word road replaced with transportation facilities. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You're on Page 13? MS. AVOLA: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes. MS. AVOLA: Objective 8. So timely construction of necessary transportation facilities is how it would end. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Is that any problem from staffs perspective? Now, just -- I have another little thing, and I think these word changes are good and a good cleanup, and we've been making them a lot here so far. I'm not sure the intent of the EAR was all this level of detail. Is this going to be a problem? And I'm not objecting to hers in general, I think it's a good one. But I just got to thinking we've been making those as we go along, and a lot of little word changes. Is that going to be a problem in an EAR process, or is that more something that should be regulated to a staff small -scale amendment? MR. BOSI: I don't believe that it is out of context with what the state statutes require. I mean, the state statute requires that each element and objective be analyzed for its effectiveness. And if a word change makes a policy more effective that fiuthers an element, how couldn't that rational nexus between the motivation for the change in the specific statute reference and requirement be coordinated? I don't see how it couldn't. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: We're going to continue on like we are unless there was a problem, but I want to make sure we're on the right track. Nick? MR. CASALANGUIDA: Chair, Michele's comment's well noted. We don't have a concurrency management system for anything other than roads right now. So we've talked about eventually having one for transit. So if I put other facilities I don't have a concurrency management system for anything other than roadways right now. I understand where you're going, I'm with you. But just by changing it to all transportation facilities, I don't have one. So, you know, I kind of need to maintain it at roads, unless you're asking me to put in a pedestrian concurrency or something else. So I don't recommend making that change, because I don't have a way to manage it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Understand. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I agree. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody's else? We're on Page 16 and 17 now. Any questions on those pages? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I have a -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Go ahead. Page 34 of 89 August 25, 2010 CCPC/EAR COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: -- little 16 question. And it's just a point of information. What's a speed table, Mike? It's up at the top of the page, top left. You have speed humps and a speed table. I can guess, but -- MR. BOSI: I believe the speed tables are the more long -- MR. CASALANGUIDA: Yeah, they're -- typically your neighborhood traffic management doesn't use those humps anymore, they use a table, where you actually go up, and it's five -feet long, goes down, based on speed of the roadway. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay, got it. Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody else on Pages 16 and 17? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: On Page 17, Policy 11.2, it refers to the Collier County Airport Authority as determining the most cost effective and efficient means of facility planning. Isn't it the Board of County Commissioners that does that? Or how is that authority handled? MR. CASALANGUIDA: Well, good point. Because the Airport Authority is not an advisory board to the board -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right, that's what I thought, it got changed around. So wouldn't you really want to take them out and really put Collier County Board of County Commissioners? MR. CASALANGUIDA: Yes, sir, we would. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Policy 11.1. Michael, that's another one of those self - amending, and how -- we might want to say the county shall initiate and maintain the Immokalee regional -- something like that. But you might want to make sure that it's not self - amending the way it's written. Because those master plans can be changed by a vote of the board and inconsistent -- and don't necessarily fall into the GMP then. So -- Pages -- Ms. Caron? COMMISSIONER CARON: Would it be helpful if the date of those plans were in there? Would that -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: In the beginning that's what I had suggested. If we're going to use a reference, date it so it's locked in. If then — that stops it from being self - amending if the self - amending issue is a problem. And I think that's one of the -- there's a lot of it -- like I said, there's three dozen examples in this overall set of elements. That's just some of them we're popping into. COMMISSIONER CARON: One that you had done earlier was more of a change of term as opposed to a date. And I thought the term worked better in that particular instance, whereas dates -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Might work better now, yeah, I think so. Anyway, I know staffs going to be looking at that. Pages 18 and 19? COMMISSIONER CARON: I do. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Go ahead, Ms. Caron. COMMISSIONER CARON: I guess that's where under Objective 12 where we had talked earlier, I think it was Nicole Ryan had mentioned that this is where the vehicle miles and greenhouse gases should be included in this as well. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody else on 18 and 19? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Policy 11.3, in July there was a Board of County Commissioners meeting. And the meeting focused mostly on the Jackson Labs issue, because that was the hot topic of that meeting. But in the middle they broke the meeting up because Sammy Hamilton, the Mayor of Everglades City, showed up to discuss the Everglades City Airport. Now, I wasn't paying too much attention to his issue, because I was listening in the background while I was doing something else. But I thought he was arguing that they wanted the county to resume taking care of the Everglades air park. And the reason I'm bringing it up is 11.3 works in the opposite direction. But I can't remember if my understanding of his presentation was right or not or was just the opposite. Do you know, Nick? COMMISSIONER CARON: It was just the opposite. MR. CASALANGUIDA: I know. He was asking the board to give him the air park. COMMISSIONER CARON: Give him the airport back -- Page 35 of 89 August 25, 2010 CCPC/EAR CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, then that even — then why on Policy 11.3 -- well, see, I couldn't figure out why he was asking that if we have it as a policy to do that. Why haven't we done it? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Well, I don't think we had the policy to do that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, 11.3 is the policy. I mean, it's supposed to be -- we're supposed to have transferred it to him. And if this has been here since the last EAR or however long, why haven't we done that, if that's what's supposed to be done? Because that's why I couldn't figure out -- that's why I thought his presentation must have been trying to do something different than this policy, otherwise why is he in here arguing for it. We should have done it a long time ago. MR. CASALANGUIDA: I think the issue was the public airport. I'm not sure. But I don't -- I think they wanted to take over ownership and I don't know if they could maintain it without -- with funds. Because obviously they're having issues in getting -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, by the time we get to the adoption, would you guys look at that — MR. CASALANGUIDA: Yeah. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- and make sure this is written in a manner that's consistent with whatever Everglades City is trying to do? MR. CASALANGUIDA: Sure. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I'm assuming the board is in favor of working to what Everglades City wants. But that just -- with that there, I was a little surprised recalling his presentation. Okay, Pages -- well, last page is Page 20. Anybody have anything on Page 20? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And by the way, Policy 12.8 is why this mobility element becomes easier to do. I remember bringing this discussion up a long time ago to Randy, and the response was that by introducing a new element like a mass transit element it would fall under a required level of service that would require then things like funding and impact fees and all that. But because of this change in Florida Statutes, the mobility element may not need to fall under the concurrency requirements, and we can go forward and get it initiated. And if we want to ever bring it there, I'm sure we could. But at least it would give us the ability to start putting it together. Chuck, did you have something you want to -- MR. MOHLKE: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Chuck Mohlke. Just a general comment on the duration of the EAR process. We may want to take greater consideration than I think we have in the fact that you're on a seven -year cycle. We can't yet anticipate the one thing that drives transportation planning more than anything else, and that's the census. We recognize that we have done, at least in my view, a remarkably workmanlike job in Collier County in terms of estimating the impacts of future population increases. But nevertheless, there are -- and the point of my remarks is that there are a variety of other jurisdictions over which we have no control, at the regional and at the state and at the federal level that are driving the transportation process. And what I'd like to suggest is if we're fortunate enough to have further consideration of a mobility element for the Growth Management Plan, that we account for two, I believe, inevitabilities. Inevitability number one is that at the state level we're going to be more and more and more driven by a passion for regional planning, particularly as it relates to transportation, particularly as it relates to health and safety issues. Because in all these instances they are not respecters of arbitrary boundaries drawn by men and women in the spirit of defining jurisdictions and trying to govern them in some sensible way. When that happens, I would hope that there is somewhere -- and I don't see it, but perhaps I am not reading it carefully enough -- an opportunity to plan for these contingencies. Under a former governor there was a considerable effort made to regionalize the Metropolitan Planning Organization phenomenon in Southwest Florida so that we would jointly with our neighboring counties be planning in a manner that was far more centralized and controlled the dollars derived from transportation fees and exactions at every level to try and unify transportation planning, to get away from those vexing issues that are always before us, namely, who's responsible for this trip? Who generated this trip? Where is the destination? How do we account for Page 36 of 89 August 25, 2010 CCPC/EAR that in our separate countywide Metropolitan Planning Organization efforts to develop a transportation network convenient not just to our jurisdiction, but to a larger environment that we work in? And I'm hopeful that if the efforts of the Planning Commission are successful to encourage the development of a mobility feature for comprehensive planning that we begin to account for this first inevitability. That there will be an effort to try and centralize a lot of these things. Because the dollar efficiencies are enormous if you can get rid of duplication and a variety of other things. And the next inevitability is that as we grow here and we begin to flesh out the opportunities that are available already on the books for having community development districts become municipalities and having other features of some of the long neglected statutes that we have available to guide us in this regard, like Chapter 380, the beginning of the development of regional impact process, the reason that we have an area of critical state concern, the variety of all of these things are going to have inevitably some impact. They're either going to be withdrawn from the statute, which will require a reestimating of the way in which we plan for transportation needs over time, and we have no way of addressing the potential of these things happening in our existing transportation element and a variety of other, of our land use and other elements of the plan which right now will have to be adjusted in some fashion. And if we're looking at a seven -year horizon before we have another EAR process underway, I would hope that some of these things are at least talked about in the plan, or preferably in a mobility plan that can say here's the regulatory environment we're under, here's the funding environment that we're under. They're driven by state and federal statutes or enactments. Every single one of the issues that you've talked about in such great, almost loving detail here is subject to review by the Florida Department of Transportation's District 1 office to determine whether or not it's consistent with established policies that govern the way in which federal and state agencies approve, regulate, constrain, expand the way we do business here. And I don't read anything like that in this element. And if we could have something that at least says there are contingencies that are eventually going to have to be dealt with in this plan, how do we do that? What mechanism exists other than going through the long and tedious process of amending the plan, particularly if it has to be a private initiative. You know, we don't -- we went through the last process in which some petitions were delayed five years for reasons that were completely understandable, well documented and so on. But it's not a way to address a brand new set of circumstances imposed upon us either at the state, the regional or the federal level. And I think somewhere in this there needs to be a reference to that. Thank you, sir. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. Appreciate it, Chuck. Are there any other comments? Ma'am? MS. REVAY: I just have a really quick one, actually. Stacy Revay, Collier County Health Department, Smart Growth Coalition chair. The Smart Growth Coalition has been working pretty diligently on creating language for specific policies and objectives for the Transportation Element and the Future Land Use element. So I have those today, or if you'd rather, I can e-mail them to everyone. Also, I just have a couple of things to give you so that you can look at these. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: If you have anything that isn't copied, you probably need to give it to staff. During the lunch break they can make copies for us. MS. REVAY: Or I can e -mail it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah, either way, it would be better. And the other item that you have, if you want to e-mail that, I suggest you e-mail it to Mike Bosi, who's in charge of comprehensive planning. He can distribute it back to us and that would be a little simpler. Everybody gets the same thing then. MS. REVAY: Okay, great. And some of the things that Michele had shared also, those are some of the recommendations that we had made. But as I'm stating, they're simply recommendations. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: It would be good to have them. That way when we get to the adoption hearing then Page 37 of 89 August 25, 2010 CCPC/EAR staff will have time to chew on them a little bit and so will we. MS. REVAY: Okay, great. Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. ** *Okay, the next most popular segment of our discussion was the FLUE, the Future Land Use Element. And we're going to take a break. I guess we'll take a break for lunch about a little before 12:00 and come back at 1:00. So let's just go into the FLUE right now and get as much of it done as we can start to. And Mike, I don't think we need any introduction, so we'll just go right into the text, if that's okay with you. MR. BOSI: Well, David Weeks -- each one of the staff members within the comprehensive planning team was assigned the coordination for the individual elements. And Mr. Weeks raised his hand and said he wanted to tackle the Future Land Use Element, so -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, he's not a member of the public, so -- David, it's good to see you again. MR. WEEKS: Hello. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I don't know what they'd do if you as a history weren't around this county, because you've got everything as concise as a historian could possibly have it. MR. WEEKS: Don't make me blush. For the record, David Weeks of the Comprehensive Planning staff. And Mr. Chairman, I would like to make a few introductory remarks, if you'll permit me. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No. Go ahead, sir. MR. WEEKS: And I'll be pretty brief. One has been touched on quite a bit during discussion of the transportation element, and that has to do with the House Bill 697, which is -- which has now been incorporated into Florida Statutes. It does place emphasis on the future land use plan to discourage urban sprawl, for the FLUE to be based on energy efficient land use patterns and greenhouse gas reduction strategies. And as Mike had stated as part of his introductory comments and overall view of the GMP, we believe it's been successful. Specific to the FLUE, I do believe it's mostly satisfying these statutory requirements already. The Future Land Use Element allows and encourages mixed use development in various districts, subdistricts and overlays. It allows higher density development through application of the density rating system. It encourages project interconnections generally. And then specifically it encourages various transportation demand strategies within the two transportation concurrency management areas, such as providing project interconnections, providing transit shelters and providing bicycle and pedestrian facilities. Regarding the summary of the recommended changes to the Future Land Use Element, I would characterize all of the recommended changes to the goals, objectives and policies section as being very minor in nature, more of in the guise of housecleaning. The substantive changes are to the future land use designation description section, the various districts, subdistricts, overlays, etcetera. I think that's enough. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Are you going to be the one responding to our comments then? MR. WEEKS: To the best of my ability, yes, sir. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Actually, at least my reading of it, you've done a pretty good j ob in the way it was changed, so we'll see where we have to go through it. Let's take the fast few pages up and through Page 1 of the actual assessment. Does anybody have any questions on those pages? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Pages 2 and 3? Ms. Caron? COMMISSIONER CARON: Yeah, I just want you to go over this -- I'm sorry, on Policy 1.4 where you talk about the creation of a district, is that relating back to 1.2, the Rural Fringe Mixed Use District, the Rural — MR. WEEKS: No, it is not. Page 38 of 89 August 25, 2010 CCPC /EAR COMMISSIONER CARON: Okay, I didn't think so. So I need you to explain to me. MR. WEEKS: Certainly. There's four broad land use designations on the Future Land Use Map. And go back to Policy 1. 1, that's for the urban designation. Policy 1.2 is for the agricultural rural designation. Policy 1.3 is for the Estates designation. And then Policy 1.4 is for the conservation designation. So Policy 1.4 is only pertaining to the conservation designation. And the existing policy says that we shall, mandates that we create a district underneath that designation. We do not presently have one, a district, nor any subdistricts, and we have not since the plan was adopted in 1989. That seems from the staff perspective unnecessary. COMMISSIONER CARON: Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, if it's unnecessary, then why are you recommending to -- should be retained? MR. WEEKS: Unnecessary to require the designation of a district. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. But retain the policy as you've stated just in case it's needed in the future. MR. WEEKS: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Any other questions on Page 2 and 3? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: How about 4 and 5? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, 6 and 7? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So the audience knows too, while we're thumbing through this book, a lot of these policies are not changing and therefore they may not generate a lot of comment. So if we don't seem to care, it's not that we don't care, we're just -- there's not a lot to comment on right now. So, 8 and 9? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ten and 11? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Of course we also know if we do care and we argue, we've got David to confront, and he's a little more formidable than Nick. So, 12 and 13? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Fourteen and 15? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Sixteen and 17? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Eighteen and 19? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: David picked the right group. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah, my notes all keep saying okay next to everything. So I have -- 20 and 21? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Twenty -two and 23? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Twenty -four and 25? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Twenty -six and 27? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Twenty -eight and 29? MR. WEEKS: Mr. Chairman, I have something. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Go ahead, David. You're going to criticize your own recommendations, huh? MR. WEEKS: I am. On Page 28 in the second paragraph, starting on the third line, this is regarding changes to the traffic congestion area boundary. Staff is recommending that that is a density reduction factor. That is, in applying the density rating system, if a property falls within the traffic congestion area, it is subject to a one dwelling unit per acre Page 39 of 89 August 25, 2010 CCPC /EAR density reduction. Staff is recommending that that boundary be deleted and instead we shift that reduction factor seaward over to the coastal high hazard area. Now, within that paragraph, starting on the third line near the right end -- right side, it starts with, that a correlating change be made to the Future Land Use Element. And it goes on to say to take the density bands, the circles on the Future Land Use Map, there are -- in some cases there are only partial circles. The recommendation here is to complete the circle. Well, after doing a detailed analysis, I realize that there are zero properties that will be impacted by such a change. Therefore, it's meaningless to make the change, so I would suggest that we not in fact complete the circle of those density bands. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. I don't think anybody has any objections. Then we'll go on to 30 and 31? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thirty -two and 33? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thirty-four and 35? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thirty -six and 37? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And then Page 38 wraps it up. Are there any questions from the Planning Commission on the FLUE as a whole? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I just have one. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Schiffer? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Dave, when you look at the analysis you did up front about the use of land and everything, we're using -- essentially it's what, 4.1 units per citizen or something? Two and a half people per acre? Isn't that about right, Mike? I mean, there was an analysis of what the -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: 2.39 persons per household; is that -- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: No, what I -- there's a study of land use and you came up with .41, I think it was, acres per citizen, which essentially is one unit per acre. So, I mean, are we sprawling across the countryside here, or why is that so high? It could be the Estates as people are sitting on five acres. But what are we doing other than -- you know, to prevent sprawl? Obviously the transportation is going to come in and start looking for efficiency. That'll prevent it. The Health Department has picked up the cause to try to save our fat guts. And I'm one that should have rode a bike to this meeting, but -- so that will help. But what are we doing in planning to stop sprawl or stop that .41 per acre? MR. WEEKS: First, I'm not familiar with that figure, but that does sound like to me that it must be incorporating certainly more than the urbanized area. I don't have a specific figure, but I would guess that the coastal urban area probably has a gross density of somewhere between two- and -a -half maybe and three- and -a -half units per acre gross. But specific to your question about sprawl, first of all, I would say that we have a defined urbanized area, so all development -- excuse me, most development is encouraged and only allowed at higher densities within that defined area. It's not the entire county, it's just specific portions of it. Secondly, we have the provisions for the -- most notably the RLSA, the Rural Land Stewardship Area, which again another massive area, in that case just shy of 200,000 acres. But where the development can occur, it is mandated to occur in a compact form. So that I would argue that you would not likely have sprawl, though it's certainly still possible. I don't think we can outright prevent sprawl -- I don't know if you call it urban sprawl, but sprawl in the RLSA. Because as you may recall, it does allow the landowner to develop that one unit per five acres. It's a voluntary program. So if you choose not to participate in the stewardship program, you could still do that very low density one unit per five acre development. We're hopeful, of course, that with the incentives of that program that that Page 40 of 89 August 25, 2010 CCPC /EAR will not occur. But to me it's the provision for the compact development in the RLSA, because that's the single largest area for future development to occur in the county. And then the coastal urban area, the fact that it is a confined geographic area. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I think the thing that scared me is in that study that I was reading, again, it's not an element, but you were describing, you know, can -- is there enough land to fit the population. And you're using that .41 as the denominator to come to the conclusion, yeah, we've got plenty of land. But I hope the intent is not to smear everybody at that density across the countryside. I mean, we really do want to start doing things that are encouraging -- you know, the public in their comments were much more concerned about this, it seems, because a lot of comments are in there that they wanted to require mixed uses, not just permit it. But we don't have anything that requires it at all, do we? MR. WEEKS: No. Even in the urbanized area there's no mandate, there's no minimum density. Now, we have the density rating system with which an eligibility of in most cases four units per acre. But a person that has property, for example that's zoned agriculture allows a density of one unit per five acres. If they so choose, they could develop their property at that low density. MR. BOSI: But to the point of your question, Brad, I believe that we encourage -- I mean, one of the things that we allow for -- you know, especially in the mixed use activity centers we encourage those centers to develop with the mixture of uses. The marketplace hasn't responded to those type of allowances, but I'm not sure if we want to mandate a mixture of uses within those activity centers. I think there are opportunities for infill developments to take advantages of density provisions that will allow for a more -- of a more denser in the appropriate locations. So I think the Future Land Use Element does promote and provide allowances to encouragement for infill development, for urbanized development within the appropriate locations to achieve a higher density than what maybe the current average would be. And I think what we're trying to do is identify areas where maybe we need to -- we could potentially strengthen those encouragements. But we wouldn't want to get into -- we haven't crossed that line where we think that we need to mandate. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And hopefully the market encourages that development. One other thing, a different topic somewhat, is that in that study of housing types, there really is no breakdown as to what is in mixed use. You know how, for example, you have multi - family, you have stuff. It would be nice if you could categorize maybe mixed use developments and show what commercial, what office, what multi - family is within that. I mean, in other words, essentially establish freestanding multi - family is different from mixed use multi - family, freestanding commercial mercantile is different than, you know, mixed use mercantile, so that we could start to see if we are actually growing in the right direction. Thank you. MR. WEEKS: Excuse me, you're referring to mixed use development as in a single development that has a residential and a commercial component or -- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Yes. What you're saying, like a PUD could -- is essentially a suburban mixed use. But, you know, somehow start to define an urban, or maybe that's a third category, suburban mixed use and we start to track to see how we're developing. Because then we could see if we are sprawling or we are, you know, essentially smart growing. Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, I think it's getting close to lunchtime, and we want to get down there before everybody else does. So why don't we break for lunch, come back at 1:00 and we'll resume with any further comments on the FLUE and then go into one of the other elements when we get back, probably the Golden Gate Area Master Plan, if -- maybe that one or the recreation. We'll see when we get back. We'll be back at 1:00. Okay? (A luncheon recess was taken.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, everybody, thank you for coming back from our lunch. We'll resume our meeting where we left off. First we'll go over the agenda for the rest of today, or at least as far as we get. We need to finish up any discussion on the FLUE when we resume. We also will then go into the Golden Page 41 of 89 August 25, 2010 CCPC/EAR Gate Area Master Plan. After that we'll do the Recreation and Open Space Element, then the Housing Element. Those are the three that most of the public was here for. After those we'll get to the Immokalee Area Master Plan, which is really not much of a discussion. Mr. Midney has an issue, so we'll get that out of the way while he's here today. And then after those we'll go into the other three that there were members of the public here for, which is the Economic Element, the Public Schools Facilities Element and the Drainage Sub - element. Not necessarily in that order, but that's how we'll get into them in the afternoon. Mike, does that work? MR. BOSI: Yes, sir, thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Then the remaining ones after that, I'll just try to handle based on staffs presence. Okay, when we went to lunch we had finished the review by the Planning Commission of the FLUE and questions from the Commissioners on the overall package. I wanted to make sure that if any member of the public had any general comment they would like to make on the FLUE now is the time to do it. Nicole, and then Tim. MS. RYAN: For the record, Nicole Ryan, Conservancy of Southwest Florida. And I wanted to direct your discussion back to what had been mentioned earlier, which is a review of the Rural Fringe Mixed Use District, along with a coordinated review of the Golden Gate Area Master Plan, and getting those reviews into perhaps a policy or some kind of framework so that we know that prior to -- hopefully prior to the next EAR, those discussions, those reviews will take place. I personally like to have a policy attached to things like that so that we have at least some assurance that staff will have to address it at some point. So perhaps there should be a policy in the FLUE and in the Golden Gate Area Master Plan sections or elements that state that such reviews will take place and that the two reviews will coordinate at some point. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mike, what do you -- what's staffs thoughts on that? MR. BOSI: Staff both -- you know, recognize that both the Golden Gate Area Master Plan and Rural Fringe Mixed Use districts are ripe for a public planning process. Whether it's the discretion or the desire of the Planning Commission to express that within a policy or have that stated within the EAR, whatever comfort level that you would have with it we'll defer to. It's something that's being suggested right now, and I think it's just that that would be a formalization of what's being suggested to actually create a policy that would say, you know, to the extent that there would be — both those planning efforts would be coordinated before the EAR but also they would be coordinated with each other in terms of potential for joint meetings or however the setup may move forward. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, and I think that's important. We've seen enough, I guess, changes in the Golden Gate Area Master Plan to warrant a relook as soon as it's convenient for both financially feasible and within a time frame. I think before the next EAR is a good target. That means it could happen any time in the next number of years. That might be a way to approach it. So unless the Planning Commission has an objection, I sure don't — COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I don't either. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- and I think it would be a good thing to do for both communities. Okay, we'll probably get into more detailed discussion in the Golden Gate Area Master Plan. Why don't we finish with any kind of ftuther public comment on the FLUE. Tim? MR. NANCE: Yes, sir, Mr. Chairman, Commissioners, my name is Tim Nance. I'm active in the Golden Gate Estates community. And I was unable to attend your session earlier today. And I just want to make some comments on something that the Planning Commission has already addressed and already taken a vote on. It may be out of order but I wanted to address it today because I feel like -- that the Planning Commission has acted on misinformation that they received from staff. And I think what I'm going to say is going to be fairly controversial but I want to address it and just give you my input on that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Most certainly address it, Tim. We're here -- this is an information seeking workshop. We're not -- we actually didn't take any formal action. We can't at a workshop. So what has occurred Page 42 of 89 August 25, 2010 CCPC/EAR through the elements we've already reviewed is we just would by nod provide staff with some consensus of direction. MR. NANCE: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So that's where we're at. Nothing's written in stone as of today's meeting, nor could it be. MR. NANCE: All right. Well, I'm here today to address this topic. And quite frankly, I am as upset about this situation as I've ever been with anything that I've been involved with in the county. And I serve as a volunteer in many capacities in the county. I serve with Ms. Homiak on the Citizens Advisory Committee to the MPO. I'm the current chairman of that committee. And I believe you discussed earlier today issues regarding the proposed interchange on I -75 in the eastern part of the county. And what I wanted to address was a public meeting that occurred regarding planning for that interchange that was billed as vetting with the public, which I feel was in fact, members of the Commission, one of the worst examples of manipulation that I've experienced since I've lived in Collier County. There was a meeting that was held to discuss -- it was advertised to be discussed as a discussion on the location for a possible interchange on I -75 in the eastern part of the county. The fact that an interchange is needed or wanted is in my estimation very uncontroversial. It has very wide support with people in Golden Gate Estates, it certainly has wide support by people in the RLSA, and the need for that in the future I think is uncontroversial. However, this meeting was billed as a discussion over where that intersection should be located. And there was a study area that was advertised by staff, and it basically was an area that was centered on Everglades Boulevard. And it extended considerably east and some -- and for a little distance west. And this meeting was called to discuss this study area and the interchange. I attended that meeting. When I got to the meeting, I was completely amazed at what was being presented. There were graphics that were present that outlined the study area and showed the areas where the interchange might exist. But there was in that room that evening not a single piece of data or graphics to open the discussion on where the intersection should be. For approximately a year- and -a -half to two years prior to that, at meetings at the Golden Gate Estates Area Civic Association and in other discussions with transportation staff and the County Commissioner, particularly Commissioner Coletta whose District 5 I live in, the discussion was that the interchange in the eastern part of the county would be best served if it was aligned with transportation plans for the community of Big Cypress. This was openly discussed and mentioned repeatedly. And some of the justification for that was that a location at Everglades Boulevard would put a tremendous burden on not only Golden Gate Estates and that community as a corridor through that community, but it would put a tremendous burden on the people that own properties and live on Everglades Boulevard because it would require the eminent domain of something like somewhere between four and 600 properties to develop a corridor for the size necessary. In addition, it was also discussed that such a road that would certainly become a four or six -lane corridor would then be such a transportation corridor that would in the main serve communities to be built in the future in the eastern part of the county, would be a road that would have somewhere between four and 600 driveways in the area. This was talked about for months and months and months. When I arrived at this meeting, the meeting was presented with a couple little graphics describing the study area and then went on to present three different interchange designs for Golden Gate Boulevard. There was no discussion of the public on the advantages or disadvantages of any location. Up to that point there had been discussion of possible location at Desoto Boulevard, possible location at Everglades Boulevard and possible location in a corridor to be aligned with the future town of Big Cypress. The meeting was presented to everybody as which of the following interchanges on Everglades Boulevard, which design would you prefer. The room was full of dozens of residents of far eastern Golden Gate Estates who have been very anxious to get an access to I -75 for years, not only as a transportation to and from the eastern part of the county, but as an emergency evacuation issue. So the room was full of people that were excited about the opportunity to have an interchange. But everybody then met with dozens of staff members to discuss which of the following three interchange designs they thought was the best. That's how the evening was spent. People voted on it, they filled out comment cards, they wanted so on and so forth. I was absolutely -- to be honest with you, I was freaked out by this. And I talked to Mr. Casalanguida Page 43 of 89 August 25, 2010 CCPC/EAR directly and I said, this meeting was advertised as a discussion over where this -- you know, the advantages and disadvantages of different locations where this might be -- where the interchange itself might be best positioned. And he said Tim, he says, we've got to do this, we've got to have this meeting because we've got to do this interchange justification report and we've got to get some data out there and we 've got a chance at funding. Don't worry about where it's going to be, we're going to have plenty of discussion in the future to talk about where the alignment should actually be. Don't worry about it, I'll get back with you, go away. Well, like a fool I said, okay. I had the same discussion with him in his office in transportation, you know, during my journeys to and from CAC meetings. I said, listen, I don't know what you thought that meeting was, but that's not a good meeting. So if I'm a little upset, I apologize to you. But if you have been presented information that this location has been vetted before the public, it is misinformation. If you'd like to put in your minutes that I'm calling Mr. Casalanguida a liar, you may do so. It's not true. And if you've made a decision on that, it's unfortunate. And I urge the committee to investigate what information was presented at that meeting and come to your own conclusion. I apologize for that. But, you know, as somebody that serves as a volunteer in the community, I believe that citizen input into our planning is very, very important. I think some of our best ideas come from citizens, and I'm most upset. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Tim, I understand you're upset. And your reasoning behind your statements as far as how it was vetted was a concern that I expressed here. The consensus of this board was to go forward with the language that was in the -- that was presented by staff. We have another opportunity to discuss that. I do not think that -- let me correct the record. I don't think in any uncertain terms Mr. Casalanguida ever was intentionally lying to anybody. I think there may be a misunderstanding as to what occurred based on the differences of opinion of the people that attended the meeting. So I certainly refute that statement for the record. I don't think that's -- MR. NANCE: And I'm sorry Mr. Casalanguida isn't here, because I would certainly like to discuss it with him. It's most upsetting. And I think it was a very, very patronizing meeting regarding staffs interaction with the public. I think it's absolutely awful, shameful. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I understand your frustration, and in some ways I share it by living out in the same area that you do. We can only take this up at another day, at another time. But your statements for the record regarding the way the meeting was handled and managed, I think those are good statements to understand, and I think this board won't forget them when you come in for our EAR process -- MR. NANCE: Well, please excuse my passion. I'm very, very upset about this issue. And I apologize to the Commission, but I wanted to bring that to your attention. I really don't feel like we need to go forward with misinformation. And I thank you for your time. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, thank you, Tim. Anybody else would like to address issues of the FLUE and this -- before go into Golden Gate Area Master Plan? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: ** *Okay. With that we'll go into the Golden Gate Area Master Plan. And I guess, Corby, before we get into the master plan, something that may save a lot of time, in my review of the master plan for Golden Gate that's in here today, there were some suggested changes. Some of them are grammatical, which is rightfully so. Any grammatical changes that could clean up, that's fine. Some are substantial. Some are changing the intentions of the Golden Gate Area Master Plan committee that I was chairman of for two years. I m very familiar with those. I've actually gone in and pulled minutes and documents to show that my assumptions were correct, this is inconsistent with what we had voted on at the time. But I don't really see the need to get into all that based on some other issues I've heard here today. And I've heard that the staff is now of the opinion that the area of the Golden Gate Area Master Plan is ripe for a restudy. And that if the restudy is going to occur and you're going to withdraw the changes that are substantial until the restudy occurs, then I can avoid going through a lot of my paragraph by paragraph dissertation. But I want to make sure the Planning Commission is in agreement as well as staff that that's where you're going with this thing, so when we get the adoption there's no surprises. MR. BOSI: Staff is of agreement with the Chair, and hopefully with the majority of the Planning Page 44 of 89 August 25, 2010 CCPC/EAR Commission. We would not want to suggest substantive changes to the Golden Gate Area Master Plan because of the lack of the public involvement, the lack of the — the public process to provide for that. The only changes that we would like to see during the EAR process would be the clean -up, housecleaning items, and leave those substantive issues for that public vetting process that will be provided for within the restudy. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Now, as we go through this document, should I point out to you some of the ones I consider substantive, or do you — are you just going to rewrite this and bring it back to us on adoption with the grammatical changes that are non - invasive, let's say, or non - inconsistent with our previous master plan? MR. BOSI: I would say that going through at least on just an identification, not with a substantive discussion, but at least an identification in terms of your purview of what you would consider as substantive and what would you consider just for the clean-up would prevent some miscommunication or disagreement at the adoption process. Because I think we're both on the same page in terms of how we want to go about and make substantive adjustments to the master plan. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Does that work for the rest of the Planning Commission? Okay. Corby, did you want to lead off on any kind of opening comments? MR. SCHMIDT: A few, thank you. For the record, Corby Schmidt, Comprehensive Planner with the Comprehensive Planning section. And the Golden Gate Area Master Plan has seven goals. And I won't read them all. But it is meant to be an all- inclusive document to address all the needs of the Golden Gate -- the greater Golden Gate area. I also have gone through the document and highlighted those areas where some of those substantive issues may be removed. So if I come across them before you do or as you do, I'll also note that. Otherwise, that's it for remarks, and -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Well, let's move right into the document. Let's take the first three pages, Pages 1, 2 and 3. Any comments from the Planning Commission on the first three pages? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And again, just so you all know, if we keep the comments to the grammatical, we're not going to get the substantial issues. If there are any here, hopefully they'll be referred back to the restudy committee. Ms. Caron, then Mr. Murray. COMMISSIONER CARON: It's stated here on Page 1 that the Golden Gate Area Master Plan is an optional element in our Growth Management Plan. And fast of all, I don't think it's an optional element. And if it is an optional element, then what is it doing in the Growth Management Plan? MR. BOSI: The Future Land Use Element is more than adequate to be able to provide for the regulatory fabric in the policies containing any individual subdistrict contained within, such as the Rural Fringe Mixed Use District or the Rural Lands Stewardship Area. Somewhere in the past course of history within this county it was deemed that the unique needs of the Golden Gate Estates would be better served by a separate standalone master plan. Therefore, it is optional, but it's something that this county has deemed as appropriate. COMMISSIONER CARON: So you consider the RLSA as well to be an optional element? MR. BOSI: No, the RLSA is a component of the Future Land Use Element. The Golden Gate -- the regulations -- everything contained in the Golden Gate Area Master Plan can be housed within the Future Land Use Element. That would be something that wouldn't be in discourse with the Future Land Use Element. But we have segmented, we have said a sector planning through the master planning process for Golden Gate Estates is appropriate. So it is optional, it could be contained in the Future Land Use Element, but we think it has a better purpose of serving the needs and the unique needs of the Estates by having it as a separate master plan. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Just for clarification, this is for the Estates and the city, Golden Gate City. And we also have an optional element in the form of the Immokalee Area Master Plan as well. MR. BOSI: Yes, sir. Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Murray? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Yeah, my question is really more protocol. There are a couple of places in Page 45 of 89 August 25, 2010 CCPC /EAR here, a few places where it says not relevant and should be deleted. So my question would be to you, actually, Mr. Chairman. Should we construe that our silence represents an agreement with that? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I mean, I think in as we set up with Mike, any grammatical changes silence would be agreement. Anything substantial I don't think they should incorporate, whether we catch it or not. But I think you're probably referring to like Policy 1.1.5. and 1.1.6. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: That's correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And those two should not be removed without going back to the restudy committee. Those aren't grammatical. Very good point, yeah, thank you. Those are substantial. Golden Gate has had nothing but trouble with conditional uses. We formed the master plan committee on response to the overwhelming number of conditional uses cropping up everywhere in the Estates. And so we established criteria for those and a voting process, and that's why that's in here. So -- Pages 4 and 5? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The Policy 1.2.2 certainly should go back to the restudy committee, Mike. Like I say, I may not catch them all, but the ones I found most relevant, I'll just bring out to you. Pages 6 and 7? MS. PAYTON: I have a -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Go ahead, Nancy. Pm song. Tim and Jim, if you guys have any issues, we're kind of informal here, we're not going to cut your legs off if you go beyond three minutes either, so -- MS. PAYTON: Nancy Payton, Florida Wildlife Federation. And I wanted to comment on Objective 1.3 on Page 5 which talks about Golden Gate and Goals 6 and 7 of the CCME. But if you look at Goal 7 of the CCME and most of its policies, they either aren't relevant to Golden Gate Estates or they exclude single - family residences. So Goal 7 really is not applicable or should not be put forward as a mechanism that's protecting wildlife habitat in the Estates. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Staff, when you get time, take a look at that. If that rings true, then if it's not needed, it's not needed. Thank you. MS. PAYTON: But it's an issue that needs to be addressed and hopefully that will finally be addressed through the revisiting of the Golden Gate Area Master Plan, which we thought should have been on the list of major issues. And that water resources really should be natural resources, not just water centric. And it goes to issues relating to the interchange as well of impacts. There is no conservation planning really overall in the Estates. Not yet. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. Pages 6 and 7? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: 1. 1.4 is again I think something you want to move back to the restudy committee. I notice the grammaticals on Page 7, they seem fine. They're -- I don't have a disagreement with those. Page 8 and 9, anybody? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Page 10 and 11? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Policy 4. 1.1 ought to go back, and 4.1.2. And 4.1.3,1 know what you're trying to do there, and I understand it, but I think it ought to be explained to the committee. Because the Commissioner in the city, the City Commissioner was the one that initiated some of these through the committee. I think you ought to get consensus back through the public process to remove the county as the entity in those. I'm not disagreeing with you or dare agreeing, I'm just simply thinking that's another one that ought to go back. Page 12 and 13? Certainly Objective 5.1 and all the references to the community character plan need to go Page 46 of 89 August 25, 2010 CCPC/EAR back to the committee. We had a very strong position on that. And that needs to go back and be rehashed by the restudy committee. Pages 14 and 15, same thing. Same issues with Policies 5.2.1, 5.2.2, 5.2.3, Objective 5.3. Sixteen and 17? Your reference to the VMT and GHT, I think those are good but I think the committee ought to weigh those in how they would work in Golden Gate Estates. I don't think there's anything downside to that so -- and that's under Goal 6, Objective 6.1. Yes, sir, Mr. Murray? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: How do we -- if this is intended to be — VMT and GHG are intended to be universal, as I understand it based on House Bill 697, you're not suggesting -- I realize you're not suggesting they be removed per se, but you're looking for consideration. What would that do to us if we're trying to comport with the law? If we change one area, will that still sustain? MR. BOSI: The Golden Gate Estates, as in a master plan as an optional element, there's not a mandate or requirement from the DCA that 697 has to be addressed within this element within this year. So I don't think that if we defer this question and allow for the public input process to formulate whatever amendments we may want to suggest related to the goal or the policies or the objective places us in any noncompliance status in terms of the Department of Community Affairs. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: You're making the prognostication that DCA will, if given a variable in one case against what you're intending to do, which is unified, it will probably go along with it; is that what you're suggesting? MR. BOSI: Pm suggesting that we're going to cull out to the Department of Community Affairs that we're going to go through a public planning process in the concepts of energy efficiency, and all of the policies and objectives and goals related to the Golden Gate Area Master Plan will be examined against those policies as well as the direction and the intent of the master plan. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I guess what I'm concerned about is the process. Because what you end up with if you don't get full support, you don't get universality, and then it starts coming apart, which might be a good thing, I don't know. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The policies we're talking about in the other provisions of the elements in the new potential element for the mobility, all that will have an impact on the county as a whole, including all optional elements and municipalities within the county, whether it's Immokalee, Golden Gate or the coastal area. So that alone will provide a lot of emphasis to House Bill 697 and the reaction to the VMT and the CGG (sic), whatever, greenhouse gas emissions, yeah. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Whatever it is. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah. So I think it's all going to get caught up in the same overall plan for the county and how we're going to handle this. All of that was discussed in the 2155 study that was part of this document. Although that study we haven't got into yet, we will here eventually, not all areas of the county though were affected by the recommendations of the study equally. So I think we need to be very selective in where we state that study as part of each element. But I think it would be better if it was part of the overall process, not trying to state it in each element. And I'll get into that in more detail. Because there's only five recommendations in that study. You can't apply them across the county, because they don't work. They only work in certain points where they're applicable. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: And you know, just for clarification, I read this as a restatement in those areas that you wanted it to be focused as a reinforcement of the totality or the universality that seemingly was wanted. But if it's true that it can be picked apart, then that's fine. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I think Objective 6.1, Policy 6.1.1, 6.1.2, are all issues that a restudy committee would benefit from that discussion. Pages 18 and 19, we have the discussion of the House Bill 697 again, we just finished that. Policy 6.3.1. and 6.3.2. would be restudy issues, and 6.2.4. And again, I'm not saying your recommendations are wrong or they wouldn't be accepted. I just think that as a courtesy to the community it would be a good thing to go back and run it by them. Page 47 of 89 August 25, 2010 CCPC /EAR Pages 20 and 21 ? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Most of it was just as -is. Pages 22 and 23? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I think 7.3.1., the changes there, the committee would be beneficial as a sounding board for those. Page 24 and 25? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Twenty -four is interesting, because up on top -- and this is where you've introduced for discussion today the first two paragraphs reflecting greenhouse gas emissions in the energy audit. And you've taken the same two paragraphs are on the top of Page 24 referencing House Bill 697, and you've included those in most every element, at the end of almost every element in this document. Then I found out it was only the ones that Corby touched. Because transportation, which you would think would be the most logical, didn't have it. And I thought well, that's odd. This is the biggest impact would be on transportation, and this suggestion wasn't in the transportation one, but all the other ones that don't really pertain to it in the most direct way have it. And so each one of these I circled, the policy provision that's being proposed. It says, the county will strive to meet the recommendations of the energy audit and greenhouse gas inventory for Collier County government facilities and operations prepared by 2055, LLC and adopted by the Board of County Commissioners. Well, I read the study, then I reread the study, then I reread the study. And I looked real hard to see what in the world is Corby referring to. And the best I could do, Corby, was on Page 6 of the study, Roman VI, there are five summary recommendations. And each time that I find this reference throughout all these elements, I keep saying the recommendations, and Pm assuming the recommendations must be pursuant to that element, otherwise why are we sticking it there? And I can't find how this Golden Gate Area Master Plan necessarily needs to be reflected or is reflected in these five recommendations. You know, move forward with the landfill gas to energy project. That's got nothing to do with Golden Gate. Okay. Continue work on county building retrofits. Well, that's brilliant, but nothing to do with Golden Gate. Expand street lighting replacements of high energy - efficient bulbs. I don't know how much we paid for this study, but these recommendations, I mean, I doubt if we could have gotten there without paying for the study. Explore the potential alternative fuel vehicles and promote commuter services programming. Now, putting them in the FLUE or the transportation, maybe you'd find more relevance there. Putting them in every optional or other element of the plan just for redundancy's sake, I'm not sure it was the right thing to do. So I'm asking staff to reconsider that and put it more appropriately where it belongs. I don't really think the study is that useful, you know. But since it was adopted, we'll live with it. MR. SCHMIDT: A few comments on that, Mr. Chairman? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Sure. MR. SCHMIDT: One of the reasons that you see some variety in the elements and why the statements appear differently in the FLUE or some of the public facilities sub - elements from some of the other portions of the GMP, because different staff members approached their review differently. And we allowed ourselves to give you the full spectrum of where that study may take the county and where House Bill 697 will take the county and where considerations in the future will take us. We didn't want to hold anything back. Now, when it comes to the document you're talking about, the energy audit and greenhouse gas inventory, not so much just the major recommendations were really meant to be conveyed but some of the smaller ideas throughout the document as to how to make advances or small changes. But you're correct, not all of them are useful in not all areas of the county, and the staff will look at that further. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. I think it would be a good idea to not put the redundancy throughout the document if we don't need it. The document is bulky enough. Before we go to -- anybody else on -- up to Page 25? (No response.) Page 48 of 89 August 25, 2010 CCPC /EAR CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's the end of it. And the last page is 26. (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Jim, did you want — MR. FLANIGAN: Jim Flanigan, Golden Gate Estates. Yeah, I saw this policy and suggested policy, and Pm really concerned with policies referencing other legislation and other references and standards that what might be not applicable here may somehow turn into a disaster down the road. And if there are certain aspects of this policy and these kinds of things, that they be spelled out as to what the intent of it is. Because at some point in time that kind of thing's going to get lost down the road. I'm just trying to get my hands around the whole Growth Management Plan itself. That to me needs a little bit of vision. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, you know, that's a good point. Corby, if you go through this and reassess how these House Bill 697 provisions should apply, and you use that study, well, instead of referencing the study because it's maybe limited in the number of things that really apply if they any do to certain elements, why don't you just pull the ones that do out and restate them? Because it's adopted by the BCC, so therefore we've got to do it anyway, so why don't we just state what they are? MR. SCHMIDT: I believe that will be the result of the next step in those proposed amendments yet to come. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Great, thank you. Okay, Nancy? MS. PAYTON: Nancy Payton, Florida Wildlife. It's a general comment about the Golden Gate Area Master Plan and references to Southern Golden Gate Estates, which, looking forward, Southern Golden Gate Estates doesn't exist anymore, it's Picayune Strand State Forest. And therefore I'm going to put on the table for consideration that Southern Golden Gate Estates be severed from the Golden Gate Area Master Plan, because there really isn't that relevance anymore, there are not any people living there. And on the Future Land Use Map, it really ought to be in green, just like Big Cypress and Facahatchee and Rookery Bay and others. It is conservation land, and our Future Land Use Element Map -- Future Land Use Map should reflect that. And there isn't any infrastructure planning to do in Picayune Strand State Forest, the restoration area, formerly Southern Golden Gate Estates. So it's served its time and it really ought to be severed from the Golden Gate Area Master Plan. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And when I had mentioned earlier in my discussion that there was a series of changes recommended on Page 7, those are in fact what staff is basically saying is they're going to -- they're suggesting deletion of all but one of the policies. And I'm not sure why Policy 2.1.2. is being left in when it applies to only Southern Golden Gate Estates. But other than that, it looks like it is going to be deleted. Is that where you're going, Mike? MR. BOSI: That's the assessment that was arrived upon. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But I think your -- MS. PAYTON: But they're going to be deleted from -- well, there's still references to it in the master plan. And I'm suggesting that the references be eliminated -- MR. BOSI: Even the reference there that states that water and sewers should not be extended into them? You'd like that just taken away? MS. PAYTON: I don't think that's even necessary to state it one way or another. It's not going to happen. So why should we put something in our Growth Management Plan that isn't going to happen? I mean, it's long and laborious as is. We should be fine tuning it and culling out this heavy wood that's in there. So the recommendation stands for consideration that all references to Southern Golden Gate Estates are out of the Golden Gate Area Master Plan. And Southern Golden Gate Estates now is Picayune Strand State Forest and should be reflected as conservation land, green on our Future Land Use Element. There's reference to coordinating with the Corps, but the Corps is not the owner of that property. They are only heading up the restoration effort in terms of building those huge pump stations. It's the State of Florida that actually owns the property, with some guidance from Fish and Wildlife Service. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I think staff can look at that — Page 49 of 89 August 25, 2010 CCPC/EAR MS. PAYTON: But I can work with staff. But I wanted to bring up the point that it no longer needs to be or should be in the master plan. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I think what staff will do is look at the ramifications of the removal and see if there's any problems along the way and let us know by the time we get back to adoption. And if there isn't, then I don't know why it would -- MS. PAYTON: See, I'm a little concerned about references to infrastructure, because that includes roads. And part of the 1 -75 interchange had major impacts to some significant land in the restoration project. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Good point. Thank you. MS. PAYTON: Not that I'm suspicious, but I just -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Tim, did you have something you wanted to add? MR. NANCE: Yes. Tim Nance, Golden Gate Estates, Commission members. I wanted to make some general comments about it. Certainly I believe the people in Golden Gate Estates support a thorough restudy of the Golden Gate Master Plan. I want to make just a few comments about the Collier County Growth Management Plan as a whole, because I believe that Collier County and several other counties in Florida are a little bit unique in that they're really dichotomies. And I think our Growth Management Plan should reflect that a little better in the end than it does today. By dichotomy, I say we have areas that have very intense urban development and we have other areas that are indeed rural. Collier County being a classic example of very intense development on the coast, and then we have our community of Immokalee and agricultural interests in the east. Pahn Beach County is pretty much a mirror image of the same. They've got very intense development on the Atlantic coast and they have the communities of Belle Glade and other communities in the west. I believe that our Growth Management Plan needs to have a section that addresses Waal and rural residential issues, specifically. And I believe that the Golden Gate Master Plan should be a very -- of course would be a very critical part of that, because that's the part that's probably the best example that we have. But I think that our Growth Management Plan runs into conflicts. And we see it all the time when we have conditional use applications and plan amendments come into the Golden Gate Master Plan where urban concepts and standards and issues are applied by people trying to get plan amendments and so on and so forth. And they just really don't apply when you get into a rural residential, which is what Golden Gate Estates is, and other rural areas to the east. And it constantly creates a conflict because there is no dedicated effort by our Growth Management Plan to embrace rural issues that need to be addressed. Rural things do have value to our county. They have value to our community and they can have much more value to our economy than they're given credit for. Agribusiness has really been thrown under the bus in Collier County. We have a situation where in my estimation -- not to get off on a tangent, but I will since I got a soap box for a moment -- high -tech agriculture has been ignored as an economic driver in Collier County. What a shame. What a shame. Maybe now that were on the brink of disaster somebody will look at that again. But we certainly should have. We should be on the cutting edge of some of those things. But I believe, getting back to our Growth Management Plan, if we will look at that with a view that those things have value and they can create good things for our county, including economic things, social things, community value, that our planning will be more relevant and we'll have less conflict in it. That's pretty much everything I'd like to say. I will certainly reserve discussion of individual issues to a restudy which I look forward to. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you, Tim. And county is taking on new initiatives in agriculture. We got -- we're going to be growing mice. That's probably -- MR. NANCE: What? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's a fairly new initiative. MR. NANCE: Well, you know, I worked with a pretty high -tech agricultural company for most of my professional career, and I know that there's a lot of things that are possible. Because we certainly are not going to stop eating. We're going to have to have a food supply for our nation. And I hope we don't decide that we're going to outsource all of that as well to other areas of the world. It would be certainly a loss to our country I think as a nation and certainly to Collier County. Page 50 of 89 August 25, 2010 CCPC/EAR But I hope that rural standards will get a fair shake and that they have a place somehow in our plan, rather than as an afterthought, as an attachment or as an amendment or as an exception in the main body of our growth plan. And if you look, all of those rural concerns that might have always somehow end up being an exception or, you know, somewhere. I think it's more deserving, and it would be better planning if we get that out in the open and define what it is that we expect out of rural development in Collier. How can it benefit us? I mean, you know, if you look at the Estates, what benefits does the Estates have? The Estates -- everybody discusses the Estates and they always preface their remarks with well, we know it never should have been built or we know it's not properly planned or we know it's a mess but this is what I want to do. And what a shame, when we know that the Estates is 80 square miles right in the middle of our county. If the Estates is sick, Collier County's going to be sick, ladies and gentlemen. If we don't have a good growth plan, it touches all the other areas of the county. It's going to be a cancer right in the middle of our county. It's our watershed. It's an area where -- it's a donor part of the county. The people that live there donate more tax monies than they get back. They're not demanding goods and services, they're asking for less goods and services. They're asking for minimal roads, less lighting, less goods and services. And with incentives, and you notice I said incentives, not ordinance and tax and government intervention, with incentives they will take care of our watershed for us for free. We have a great opportunity to do environmental things with incentives, not with ordinance and county dollars. I really don't advocate that government regulation and management is required for the best of all worlds. You know, let the rural things contribute what they can. Let's decide what we expect out of our rural areas and what we hope for and try to make that happen and not just shift it off on the edge and make it an exception or an afterthought. Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Point well made. Thank you, Tim. Anybody else have any comments on the Golden Gate Area Master Plan before we move on? Mike? MR. BOSI: Yeah, just one issue that was raised. It was related to the removal of the South Golden Gate Estates from the Golden Gate Area Master Plan and the redesignation as conservation. One of the things that we would have to do as staff is to confirm there is no private ownership within that area. Because with a change from the Estates to conservation, there could be issues related to a Bert Hams potential claims. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. And Mike, I think that's why it was more something for you to research and bring back at this point to know. Anybody else? Jim? MR. FLANIGAN: Jim Flanigan, actually representing the Golden Gate Estates Area Civic Association. Mike Ramsey could not be here today, he had training elsewhere. And we'd like to just read a letter for the record and deal with an issue of surface water management. Mr. Chairman, members of the Planning Commission, I'm a member of the board of directors of the Golden Gate Estates Area Civic Association. Pm here today representing the Civic Association. Within the past year, the Estates Civic Association has been examining issues related to surface water management and infrastructure in Golden Gate Estates area, east of County Road 951 and have come to these conclusions: That surface water management needs in Golden Gate Estates is inadequate. That the continuing build -out of the Estates continues to add to the impervious surface area and exacerbating surface water management problem of the Estates. Existing and potential surrounding developments add increased impervious surfaces which increase water dumped into the Estates, further exacerbating the surface water management problems. The Southwest Florida Management District -- the South Florida Water Management District has acknowledged the canal drainage system in the Estates is only designed for a 10 -year storm event, and current development has passed its threshold. State agencies have acknowledged that they cannot help with the Estates' surface water management issues. Page 51 of 89 August 25, 2010 CCPC/EAR Current wetland mitigation policy and procedures practiced by the South Florida Water Management District continues to mitigate for wetland impacts outside of the Estates' functional watershed and basin. The proposed floodplain management ordinance will increase the amount of impervious surface in the Estates, generating more stormwater drainage. Because of these reasons, the Golden Gate Estates Area Civic Association is requesting that in the EAR process that the EAC recommend that the following changes be implemented to protect the health, safety and welfare of the residents of Golden Gate Estates by the Collier County government: That any roads constructed in the Estates causing wetland impacts have to be mitigated for in the Estates. That Collier County Transportation be given direction to pursue seeking mitigation from South Florida Water Management District by purchasing and preserving wetlands in the Estates area. That Collier County watershed studies give attention to the fact that the state agencies are mitigating for wetland impacts in the Estates in Lee County, and increasing the probability of flooding and property loss. That Collier County give direction that property and dysfunctional wetland systems in the Estates be acquired and earmarked for surface water management for the Estates. That property acquired for surface water management in the Estates be considered part of the green preserve area in the Growth Management Plan. That property acquired for surface water management in the Estates be utilized for recreation for Collier County residents. That the lands of the RFMUD east of County Road 951 and north of I -75 be considered an integral part of the Estates area, include in the upcoming Golden Gate area Estates restudy -- Golden Gate Area Master Plan restudy. That the Estates area east of County Road 951 be considered a rural type area to maintain lower residential densities, traffic and infrastructure needs. That an incentive be provided to owners of 1.14 to 2.73 -acre lots to encourage combining them, resulting in lower residential densities. And that incentives be provided to the owners of lots in dysfunctional wetland areas in the Estates to facilitate providing them as mitigation for wetland impacts or for surface water management. Thank you for this opportunity to speak, and on behalf of Mike Ramsey, vice president of the Golden Gate Area — Estates Area Civic Association. The Civic Association is available to provide further input as necessary. And I'll submit this for -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes, if you could give it to Mike. And Mike, one thing I would suggest is that almost every item that he discussed, items that the restudy committee would be taking up and implementing and through discussion of that group. So while I don't know if it's an EAR process, I think it's handled by the recommendation of reforming the restudy committee to study those issues. MR. BOSI: We would make the suggested changes or try to attempt to make those suggestions during the EAR process, but the policy that we'll suggest that the restudy be undertaken before the next year would be the appropriate place to address these issues. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I think that would be the fairest way to handle it, yeah. Okay, anybody else on Golden Gate Area Master Plan? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: If not, we will move on to the Recreation and Open Space Element. Mike Bosi, that's yours. Okay, Mike, did you -- I saw you look in the audience. Were you looking for support? MR. BOSI: I wanted to know if maybe Senator Barry's here, but we can most certainly take it solo. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: It's not a lot of writing for this one, so if you have any opening comments, or we just go right into it? MR. BOSI: No, other than, you know take it as we've been going today with individual page by page. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Well, let's move to the fast couple, three pages, Pages 1, 2 and 3. Anybody from the Planning Commission have any questions or comments of the Recreational and Open Space element, Pages 1,2 and 3? (No response.) Page 52 of 89 August 25, 2010 CCPC /EAR CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mike, Page 2, your policy achievement analysis talking about the fact there's no longer a level of service associated with the AUIR for this, and do you want to delete those references from the element? What -- can you tell us how that fits in then with the AUIR or the impact fees? Because we still are going to be paying impact fees. Generally they're done to bring us to a level of service standard. So if there isn't a level of service standard, how does all this work now? MR. BOSI: Well, related to the AUIR, probably maybe you don't -- it's not fresh in your mind but 2007, 2008 and 2009 recreational facility values were not anything that you were reviewing. They were not in the AUIR. They have not been in the AUIR since the change suggested -- or since the 2007 suggestion from the Board of County Commissioners. So the past two AUIR's that you've reviewed have not contained them. The past two CIE's that have been transmitted to the Department of Community Affairs has not addressed recreational facilities value. We had addressed that removal with them based upon the 2008 CIE submission, explaining the actions of the Board of County Commissioners to remove the facilities value. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, but the last AUIR, I thought there was a discussion about the fact that they left the cost per acre consistent even though the value per acre — MR. BOSI: Oh, the cost per acre is different than the recreational facilities value. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. So when you said there's a removal of the level of service from the AUIR, you mean by recreational facilities you don't mean the parks, the land for the parks, you mean the vertical construction for the parks; is that -- MR. BOSI: The way -- the standard that we used to have that is currently expressed in our GMP says we will spend $270 per capita on recreational equipment. The DCA -- the Board of County Commissioners in 2007 found that there really wasn't a lot of value that was provided by that standard. The Department of Community Affairs by the acceptance of our CIE accepted that rationale. The impact fees are a combination of your land values with the improvements that are to those lands as well. That compromises (sic) the full scope of the impact fees. So it's captured. The value of our improvements are captured. And those are the standards that were we charge newcomers to construct new facilities to. But the 270 acres -- or $270 per capita was something that as a county staff and as the Board of County Commissioners was in agreement, that we weren't gaining a lot of value for it. Within our AUIR's we have the model guidelines for our inventory of our hard courts, of our softball fields, of all the equipments in all the recreation facilities, but that is non -- that is noninclusive of what we submit with our CIE. And that is just for the individual review of the advisory boards and the Board of County Commissioners. CHAMMAN STRAIN: Okay. So the verbiage between and recreational facilities and Parks and Rec, I now understand the separation. That's fine, thank you. Pages 4 and 5. Anybody have any comments on Pages 4 and 5? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, how about 6 and 7? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mike, on Page 7, Policy 1.5.1, you were suggesting an amendment to that policy. Current policy, it says should be amended to include open space commitments as well as recreational facilities to inventory. The only thing I'd suggest is that we somehow categorize the open space commitment as usable for recreational purposes. As you know, open space can be anything from a body of water to a parking lot in some cases, and I want to make sure that if we're tying this to a recreational element, it's tied to that. Does that work? MR. BOSI: Understood, yes, sir. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Everybody okay? Pages 8 and 9? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mike, on 2.1.2, I think I mentioned this to you, under policy achievement analysis, the second line towards the end, it says recommend policies related to the neighborhood park system be met at the Page 53 of 89 August 25, 2010 CCPC /EAR LDC level. I think my question was, well, how do you tie -- you've got to tie everything in the LDC to the GMP. How does it tie? MR. BOSI: Well, this policy -- this policy that we're making the modification to, we're also recommending to relocate to Objective 3, not to delete like we had deleted the other neighborhood park provisions and policies. And that policy being expressed that we are going to allow on an individual case -by -case basis developments that are going to come before the Planning Commission, the Board of County Commissioners to determine whether those recreation -- those neighborhood park recreational facilities that are traditionally associated with a gated community, a swimming pool, whether it be tennis courts or those other amenities, those will be provided by a per case -by -case basis based upon the conditions and the size of the property. And we believe the relocation of this to the revised Objective 3 would allow for that type of a case -by -case review of those PUD's and of those requests that come before the Planning Commission and also the Board. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Thank you. Pages 9 -- or 10 and 11, the balance of the recreational open space. Anybody have any overall questions from that element? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mike, the top of Page 10. MR. BOSI: Yes, sir? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Objective achievement analysis. The county's going to be able to complete the parks master plan by 2010. There is a public process going on for that vetting process so the public is involved? MR. BOSI: We are in -- we're still at the very onset of the development of the parks master plan and have actually sat in on a conversation with Bang Williams and Steve Tindale and Steve Tindale's assistant from Tindale- Oliver who is performing the master plan. And he had presented the schedule and Barry had raised an objection to the schedule that was presented based upon the lack of public meetings for the development of the master plan process. And because of that, because of that, there was direction provided that Barry and Tindale and Oliver were going to have to take a step back and review the allocated steps and they were going to have to provide for more public opportunities for participation within that planning process. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, if you ever needed a reason for delay, that's a good one. Okay, well, that takes us to the end of the recreational open space. Are there any comments from any members of the public or anyone else on that item? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: If not, we will move on to the Housing Element, which is Michele Mosca. MS. MOSCA: Good afternoon. Michele Mosca, for the record, Comprehensive Planning staff. And unfortunately I'm without Frank Ramsey at the moment, so I think I'm going to have to do the best that I can until he does in fact arrive. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, that's okay, we'll just go on to the other ones before we get into this one. MS. MOSCA: Okay, great. Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's not a problem. And the other ones, let's -- I'm dying to hear what Mr. Midney's got to say about the Immokalee Area Master Plan. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: I'm going to put something on the overhead. There you go. Yes, I realize that the Immokalee Area Master Plan has only recently been done. But part of it is -- and I can't read the numbers real good, it says 5.1.3. During the next evaluation and appraisal report, EAR cycle, and at least during each subsequent EAR cycle, Collier County shall identify and map lands within the Immokalee urban area owned by a public entity where such lands were acquired for the purposes of conservation as provided for in the Collier County future land use conservation designation. The county shall then consider whether such lands should be designated conservation on the FLUM. And my question is, since we're not going to have another EAR for seven years, why not put this in now, Page 54 of 89 August 25, 2010 CCPC /EAR even though it may not have been approved by Tallahassee? MR. BOSI: Well, I guess I m somewhat at a loss for words, because right now the Immokalee Area Master Plan has not been adopted yet. We 've only transmitted that document to the Department of Community Affairs. Within the next two weeks to three weeks we expect to get our ORC Report back. We'll make the provisions to address those comments and those recommendations contained within, and then we'll take the Immokalee Area Master Plan back before the EAC, the CCPC and the Board of County Commissioners for final adoption. This policy in this handout, is this from the currently transmitted Immokalee Area Master Plan? COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: I think so. It's kind of confusing with all the stuff, you know, the highlighting and underlining and all that. But I think this is the most recent copy that I got. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mike, instead of applying it to the EAR which we're into right now, if this hasn't come back for adoption yet, when it does why don't we just incorporate the issues identified in this policy in the adoption process and be done with it instead of the EAR process, then you're done till the next EAR? MR. BOSI: That would be my recommendation. The only potential negative drawback would be if that's a change that's suggested at adoption that DCA did not see at the transmittal, but I can't imagine that they would have a problem with what is being requested of this -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: We've done that before, though. As long as it's not extravagant or substantial, DCA doesn't mind those individual tweaks. If this is something that's already written in here and it proves to be non - controversial, I don't know why we couldn't do that and accomplish the goal that Paul's looking for, instead of going to the EAR though, they'll go right to the adoption of the Immokalee Area Master Plan. MR. BOSI: I was going to suggest that the adoption hearings for the Immokalee Area Master Plan would be the appropriate place to have this, at least to have the discussion. And then you can weigh in from the opinion of the entire Planning Commission and the public as to whether they deem it as appropriate. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Well, I don't quite understand, why was it put in there in the first place that it would be in the EAR? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: When did it start? The Immokalee Area Master Plan process started so many years ago, we weren't approaching the EAR like it ended up getting there. Mike, I think that's probably why. This took five years in the making to get that Immokalee Master Plan through the process. MR. BOSI: What I see is it's almost -- it's a discussion of the component of the Immokalee Area Master Plan that right now has been transmitted. We have another opportunity. It's not final, we're going to have another opportunity to make a final recommendation on that proposal, on that proposed master plan. And I think as the Chairman had said, the adoption hearings would be the appropriate place where we could -- and I will coordinate with Ms. Valera, the staff coordinator for comprehensive planning specifically on this Policy 5. 1, the new 5.1.4, the conservation designation, and highlight that to her so it's a specific centerpiece of discussion as were going forward. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Yeah, because it doesn't seem like it's going to be controversial or that Tallahassee will have any problem with it. MR. BOSI: No. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: When is the adoption -- when do you feel the adoption for the Immokalee Area Master Plan is going to come forward? MR. BOSI: We have a tentative schedule. I do not have the schedule in front of me. I believe December was the month that we had allocated for the Planning Commission, because it was late January, early February before it was going to go to the Board of County Commissioners. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, but then you also earlier today, I think you said that the EAR will be in here for adoption in December too; is that correct? MR. BOSI: If you see in the EAR, it says, listen, all the substantive review of the Immokalee Area Master Plan is being contained within the Immokalee Area Master Plan that is right now in transit, in review by the Department of Community Affairs. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Well, what I would like to suggest that staff do, before the next EAR review, which is the adoption, that you find out to what extent this policy needs to be changed or modified in the Immokalee Page 55 of 89 August 25, 2010 CCPC/EAR adoption. And if it's too restrictive or too comprehensive to do in that adoption, because DCA already reviewed it on transmittal, then why then don't we put it into the adoption of the EAR so that you get it one way or the other? MR. BOSI: Either /or. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So that will cover all the bases. Okay? So when we come up for discussion of the EAR, that looks like it's going to be fast, let's make sure, Paul, that this is part of that early discussion so we know it got covered. As long as we know it's covered and it can be done in the adoption of the Immokalee Area Master Plan, you don't have to worry about the EAR process. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Sounds good. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So we're done with the Immokalee. Anybody else got any issues on the Immokalee Area Master Plan segment? Which really hasn't any changes, it's a reference to the transmittal that's ongoing. (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Well, we've got the Economic Element, the Public Schools Facilities Element and the Drainage sub - element. Is anybody here for any of those three? Well, Michele is, but she's waiting. She's got to sit around waiting. Nancy, is there is anything you're here to prioritize for? MS. PAYTON: (Shakes head.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Well, then we can move into anything we want. Mike? MR. BOSI: December 2nd is the -- right now we have the consent agenda for the -- December 2nd we have the Immokalee Area Master Plan for the CCPC as their consent agenda. So maybe it is November that we're going to be hearing it. But regardless -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's great, because that means it's done before the EAR gets finished, and if we have a mix -up on that we can always fall into the EAR, so Paul gets his issue covered either way. Good. ** *Well, since we have all this opportunity to be flexible, I'm dying to hear what Michele is going to say about the Public School Facility Element. MS. MOSCA: For the record, Michele Mosca, Comprehensive Planning staff. I really don't have a lot of comments about the Public School Facility Element. It was recently adopted in October of 2008. And the implementing school concurrency Land Development Code amendments were adopted in 2009. And as most of you are aware, there hasn't been a lot of development within the community, so we really haven't tested the concurrency system. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And there are eight pages to this element. And since it is so controversial and there are so many changes, does anybody have any questions on any of the eight pages? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Michele, you're batting 100 here today. MS. MOSCA: Thank you very much. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody from the audience? No? Okay. Let's move on to -- well, we've got the Housing Element, which you're waiting for Mr. Ramsey. ** *And then we can go into the Economic Element, which is Mike Bosi's. How does that sound? It's Tab EE, by the way, for everybody. Mike, any opening comments? MR. BOSI: None other than this was also -- there was -- some of the major contribution was with the Economic Development Council provided a number of policies and objectives and perspectives in terms of how they're -- they believe that we can strengthen the Economic Element of the GMP. And this is one of those optional elements that we've discussed before that's not required, but during the last EAR we had said that this was an element that we wanted to develop. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I have a question. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Murray? Page 56 of 89 August 25, 2010 CCPC/EAR COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Earlier, quite early in the process here, reading this thing, I noted that hospitals were included in part of government, other government in a rather long list that you have. Why were hospitals considered other government, when I don't think any of them are in fact government? MR. BOSI: I would —the reasoning behind that, I could assume, would be that you can't just --I couldn't just go, even if I had five million dollars, I couldn't just go start a hospital. There has to be -- there has to be a clearance provided through the state to be able to initiate the development of an individual hospital. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I'm fully familiar with that, yes. MR. BOSI: So other -- that restriction -- COMMISSIONER MURRAY: That doesn't make it governmental, though. It doesn't make it a government enterprise. I thought that there was another category that might be more applicable. MR. BOSI: There may be -- it may fit much better into a different category. I don't deny that. Because I understand it's not a public institution. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: What it does, and I don't think it would do it for too many people, because not too many people would wade through this stuff, but it gives the impression that the government has these hospitals when in fact it does not. And it broadens, it appears to be a lot more capital investment than in reality exists. Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, let's move into the elements. There's only -- there's not too many pages of this, 11. Let's go to Pages 1, 2, and 3. Anybody have any questions? Mr. Midney? COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: On Page 3, 1.7, part of the analysis says that the board has passed a resolution to ban off -shore drilling within 25 miles of any Gulf Coast shoreline. That seems too close to me. Is there any -- what is the restriction now? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Ten miles, I think it is. MR. BOSI: Well, the local restriction that's expressed in policy is done by lat. and longitude. As I've had a discussion, I don't believe that we as a local government really have any regulatory control over that placement. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I think we ought to send the Sheriffs Department out to those oil rigs and get them removed. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Well, why did we put in this reference to 25 miles then? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Oh, did I ask that question? Well, I'll let Mike answer for you. MR. BOSI: I don't have a response for that. I would not -- I couldn't even hazard to guess. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: What's warm and fuzzy and feels good. That's what it's for. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: The county has no jurisdiction anyway, whether we like it or not like it. MR. BOSI: No, it's -- like a lot of the aspects within this Economic Element, they are trying to be descriptive in terms of the sense of place that we're trying to maintain and create. A lot of these areas are, as described probably appropriately by the Chair as warm and fuzzy. But they are supposed to at least provide the overarching vision for the place that we want to foster. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Well, if we're talking about overarching vision then, I would prefer that there be a greater number of miles. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I was -- I think the same thing, I think 2,025.5 miles is good. I mean, why not? If we can pick 25, why don't we pick the whole entire Gulf? Pretty interesting the way we have policies that don't really have a lot of impact. Mr. Schiffer? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Wouldn't the only thing good, Mike, of this be that if the Commission ever tried to make a policy to support a drilling thing, let's assume somebody's not balanced anymore, that they would be violating the GMP locally. So in other words you could never get the support of the Collier Commission within this territory. MR. BOSI: That, and if there was changes within the federal legislation that dictates the placement of oil wells that placed it, you know, an allowance to be able to be developed here, we could at least, if there was -- we could at least start the process of objection based upon this policy. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Well, the Commission would be violating the GMP if they ever supported something. Page 57 of 89 August 25, 2010 CCPC /EAR But what is those latitude, longitudes? Does that make any sense to you? Have you ever looked at that to see what that meant? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Yeah, makes sense. MR. BOSI: I didn't plot to it to know exactly how that is in relationship to 25 miles. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Well, the coastline varies, and if you follow the coastline and go out 25 miles, your latitude and longitude changes. So it's a -- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: It looks like they put a defined line north, south, east, west. You know, the saddest thing is in these interviews with people on the beach during the leakage is to look out on the horizon and see these pieces of crap sitting out there. So it would be -- you know, anything that would ever in the slightest way help that is a good thing. But it would be nice to just out of curiosity -- I guess we can all go look at Google and figure that out. So I definitely think leave it in. I would check and see, when you put 25 miles, was that because you felt that was further or lesser? MR. BOSI: No, that was a resolution the Board of County Commissioners passed. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Is that fiuther or lesser than these latitude and longitude -- MR. BOSI: I think in certain -- because of the coastline issue, in certain instances it's less, in certain instances it's more, but it's approximately on average I believe about the same. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: The only suggestion I have, make sure it's the greater. MR. BOSI: We'll look at it, and if 25 miles is a higher percentage of being more restrictive, then maybe we will suggest that the proposed change should be from a lat. longitude to just a straight 25 miles to the coastline. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I thought I had remembered that 25 miles is where the federal government begins to issue permits and leases and so forth. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: So there's no federal government ban right now -- or what is the federal government ban in terms of closeness to the shore? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I don't know. There were two moratoria that were put in place, and I think both of them are down. I'm not sure. MR. BOSI: That, I'm not sure what the current legislation is. I know it's more than 25 miles. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: I thought it was something like 190 miles. I just -- COMMISSIONER MURRAY: No, there's deep water and then there's -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Murray? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: --shallow water. MR. BOSI: I could research that for adoption. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: If it is -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I don't think we're going to be changing that policy. I mean, it's a tangent, but I mean, for information, you might want to find out just for the heck of it. I think the state's already got laws, too. But back on the element, Pages 1, 2 and 3, does anybody have any further questions on any of the policies besides that one? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mike, on the top of Page 2, the second line from the bottom of the first paragraph it starts, the county. It says, the county in the most advantageous position. I would suggest that most be changed to the word "an", that the county in an advantageous position to retain and expend these and other similar related businesses. The most has a connotation I'm not sure we know how that's ever met. Policy 1.3, Collier County will support a health care system that addresses the needs of both business and the work force. How have we done that? I mean, can I come to the county and get health insurance? MR. BOSI: As an employee you can. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, does Obama Care kick in here, we've got our own plan for that or -- do you know? MR. BOSI: I think there's a schedule for the health reform law regulations that were recently passed that will eventually provide for those opportunities. Page 58 of 89 August 25, 2010 CCPC /EAR How -- as expressed within this policy? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah, I'm just curious — MR. BOSI: I don't know if this is a measurable -- I really don't think this is a measurable policy. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. I mean, it's a nice thought. I just wonder if we did anything. I can't think of it. MR. BOSI: Not that I could pinpoint and provide an example that what strategy is to provide, you know, a health care system that distinguishes between business and work force. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. I'm just curious. Pages 4 and 5, does anybody have any questions on pages -- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I do, Mark. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Go ahead, Mr. Schiffer. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And it's 3.1, and it's referencing the Economic Development Council. It's saying that we do have a financial commitment, which we do. But what if that commitment was removed? They're not part of our government, right? So do we want to put them in the GMT? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Remember, Mike, we took them out of all the references in the Immokalee Area Master Plan. I'm not sure why we would want them in this element any different than we would in the Immokalee Area one. MR. BOSI: We'll be consistent with the Planning Commission wishes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anything else, Brad? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: No, that's it, thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Paul? COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: On 2.5, they mention all the natural amenities of the county but they leave out Lake Trafford. I think that should be in there. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, actually, the text down below, is that -- MR. BOSI: That's the just the -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's just reference, yeah. MR. BOSI: That's my failing. I forgot to -- COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: All right. MR. BOSI: I'm sorry. COMMISSIONER CARON: Mike's bad. MR. BOSI: Afraid of alligators. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, the policy Objective 3, it says the county will support programs which are designed to promote and encourage recruitment of new industry as well as the expansion -- Objective three, Collier County will support programs which are designed to promote and encourage and goes on from there. Do we need to make sure we can support their programs where financially feasible? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Whose programs? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, for anybody's programs, new and existing industries. Programs to support new and existing industries. Is that necessary in an optional element? MR. BOSI: Well, as an optional element, unless it specifies a specific dollar amount that has to be spent, I don't think we're obligated. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I'm not trying to complicate it, so that's fine. Okay, Pages 6 and 7? Mr. Schiffer? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: One quick question on that, looking at that. You want to move that to be Objective 1? And why is that? MR. BOSI: That was suggested by the EDC because that -- you know, the attraction of new industries to relocate to Collier County and also the growth and emergence of new businesses within our own community are the primary goals of the EDC. And they thought that it was better reflected as the first objective of the policy and then having it as the third. They thought as the primary goal, as the primary mission of the EDC that they wanted that front and center. Page 59 of 89 August 25, 2010 CCPC /EAR COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And this is the Economic Element. So do you agree reading Objective 1 that -- and first of all, do the objectives really rank it? If I'm Objective 3, am I less important than Objective 1? MR. BOSI: I don't believe that that's the structure of how the GMT is supposed to work, but perception sometimes is reality. And the fast thing that you read is an objective that states the primary mission of what economic development is, and that's, you know, attracting businesses and growing new businesses. I think they just thought that that made better logical sense to describe one of the foremost goals or objectives of the element itself. COMMISSIONER CARON: I think that's why you have a goal. That sets the tone. And that's already set. don't think you need to change the order, there's no real purpose behind it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody else have anything? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Yeah, change the order I think would be a good idea. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Well, then before we go too far, let's get a consensus on it so staff can have firm direction. The issue is whether or not we should change the order of the objectives. Melissa, do you have -- COMMISSIONER AHERN: I'm fine leaving it as it is. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Brad? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: One thing I'm thinking is that if you look at Objective 3, you could add some of that into Objective 1. Objective 1 is defining our -- and we've heard this a billion times lately, the three- legged stool, the three legs. Three is trying to get a fourth leg in there. So maybe could you rework Objective 1, which is my proposal, that you rework Objective 1 to include not just the retention and expansion but the attraction of business opportunities, which is essentially Objective 3, part of three. MR. BOSI: So it would be elimination of three, bring three into one and all those policies under three -- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Don't eliminate three, just add to one that you're not just the retention and expansion, you'd also like the attraction of it in Objective 1. Do you think that makes a mistake then with Objection (sic) 3? Because one is kind of a general -- MR. BOSI: One talks — the Objective 1 is fostering a sense of place. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And protecting our natural, cultural and social resources. MR. BOSI: And I see that as a separate objective than also attracting and developing and growing new businesses. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Keep with the flow, keep Objective 1 first and leave three where it is. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Paul? COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Oh. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Pm trying to give staff some direction. There's a disagreement between Ms. Caron and Mr. Murray over which way to go. I want to make sure staff has direction that's a consensus. So do you have a -- COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: I don't have any really strong opinion. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Donna, I know you want to leave it as is. I don't see any reason to change it. Karen? COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: I don't see any reason. But on the bottom of Page 1 it says to do that, I mean, as a suggestion. MR. BOSI: It's just a suggestion by staff. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: I don't see any reason to move it, really. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Well, you got your consensus, so -- Pages 6 and 7, any questions on those two pages? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I think Policy 3.3 is the same point that Brad already made. Yes, sir, Mr. Midney? COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: 3.8, what does the word traditional mean? Are they talking about farming? MR. BOSI: I think the traditional economic base are the three- legged stool that was referred to, and also -- COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Can you just specify what the three legs are? MR. BOSI: Agriculture, tourism and development. Page 60 of 89 August 25, 2010 CCPC /EAR CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Three - legged stool — MR. BOSI: One leg is a little off kilter now. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: I mean, if you want to say that, I think it would be better just to say it. Traditional is very vague to me. MR. BOSI: Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So what are you trying to say they should say, three - legged stool economic base? COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Well, I mean, I don't even know if you need to, because they already talk in other sections about tourism and about, you know, development. And then in 3.16 they talk about produce, which is, I guess is another word for farming. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I think the way you may want to look at this, is the word traditional causing us not to meet the ability or the intent of our Growth Management Plan in this policy, in this optional element? If it is, then this is what the EAR is for, is to change those things. But if we're meeting it, is it doing any harm? COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: It doesn't do any harm, but it also doesn't tell me what it means. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, but I think the implementation document is supposed to do that, if it's implemented, and that would be the LDC. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Why don't we just delete the word traditional? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I m trying to avoid a lot of small changes, if we can. Mike, do you care one way -- MR. BOSI: I don't know if there's a material change on any of the suggestions. I think we can move forward with a suggestion that says the location of new companies that build upon the traditional economic base of tourism, agricultural, agro - industry, as well as development. And just state those. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: I like that better. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Or my other suggestion, use the word existing economic base. Because the intent of that is to do that. That way if you miss one thing -- in other words, the intent of this 3.8 is to build on what you have already. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mike, come back with something. MR. BOSI: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Eight and nine, any questions on Pages 8 and 9? COMMISSIONER AHERN: Mark, I had a question on Page 7. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes. COMMISSIONER AHERN: What are we defining as existing water ports? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: What page are you on? COMMISSIONER AHERN: 3.10. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Oh, 3. 10, okay. MR. BOSI: They would have to be reserved for marinas. We really don't have deep ports. We don't have shipping ports, those would have to be the -- COMMISSIONER AHERN: That was my confusion. MR. BOSI: And maybe this could be an area where the clarification could benefit as well. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I think I found it in here only twice in the whole book. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: What was the resolution, Mike? MR. BOSI: I think the solution would be to drop the term ports. COMMISSIONER AHERN: Yeah. MR. BOSI: And maybe replace it with waterfront development. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Well, I'm not so sure you want to go into that territory. If you go into any -- I can't think of the bloody word now, where you go into the -- like Marco Island or Doctors Pass or other passes, there are places there where you can refuel, you can get service done that constitute a port. It may not be for large shipping but they constitute a port. MR. BOSI: How about existing marine development? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Well, marine development's another story. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ms. Caron? Page 61 of 89 August 25, 2010 CCPC/EAR COMMISSIONER CARON: I think you might want to think about that one. I can see lots of ramifications of broadening the scope too much and/or changing. I think we need to find out what the meaning was supposed to be. MR. BOSI: I think the meaning -- I believe it's to retain boating access to the public -- COMMISSIONER MURRAY: So do I. MR. BOSI: And those marinas and those existing access points that we currently exist (sic), and it's a protection of those. And I think the term port, because port has a connotation of something maybe a little bit -- of more of a shipping and commerce. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: That's our limitation, not the word's limitation. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So Mike, do you feel you have any direction on this? MR. BOSI: I've got to look at it and try to find a way that we're going to — were going to maintain the protection and the promotion of our existing waterfront properties, but we don't want to be so general towards where we would promote the conversion of those to an alternative use. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, okay, you figure it out, we'll go with the flow. And with that, I think it's time for Cherie' to rest her fingers for 15 minutes. We'll come back at 2:45. (Recess.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, everybody, welcome back from break. Before we go in to continue with the Economic Element, I ought to lay out what we're going to do the rest of the afternoon so everybody's not waiting around who is interested in some of these elements. We have to do the CCME on Friday. I would think with the Drainage Sub - element and the Natural Groundwater Water Aquifer Recharge Sub - element, that those could be done on Friday as well. They all kind of are somewhat similar. So with that in mind, seeing those three off till Friday, if anybody's interested, that's the day to be here. That leaves us with a couple hours this afternoon to finish up. I'm going to suggest that we go either to 5:00 or to the following four elements, and when we finish those, whatever one occurs first we'll finish for the day. Right now we're on the Economic Element, we're going to finish that shortly. Dan Rodriguez is here, the Solid Waste element we could go into next. That one's going to be lengthy, probably. After that we have the Capital Improvement Element. We also have the Housing Element. We'll probably do the Housing Element after Solid Waste. Michele, is your cohort here? Okay, good. So that would be those four. Capital Improvement Element would be last. So today I'd like us to get through those four. Whatever we don't get through, we'll move till Friday. If we finish them early, we'll head out early. Is that okay with everybody? But no later than 5:00. Does that work? Okay, so with that in mind, let's move -- let's finish up the Economic Element. We left off on Pages 6 and 7. Anybody have any further questions on 6 and 7? If not, we'll move to 8 and 9. (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And Mike, on the bottom of Page 8 you have Policy 3.1.5 which is a housing issue related to Immokalee. Is this the right thing to have in this element or should it be in the Immokalee Master Plan Element? MR. BOSI: There is a loose rational nexus for the inclusion within the Economic Element, but I have to agree that it probably is more appropriate for the Immokalee Area Master Plan because it deals with an issue only subject to that jurisdiction. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Yeah, I would agree with that. MR. BOSI: And we will suggest the relocation of this to the Immokalee Area Master Plan for the EAR -based amendments. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. That's Pages 8, 9. Brad? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Just a thought on that. You might want to put it in the Housing Element coming up, because there is some discussion of, I believe, if I remember reading it right, the farm worker. So maybe it belongs in there. We'll decide next -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Then we get to the housing and we'll see how it might fit there -- Page 62 of 89 August 25, 2010 CCPC/EAR MR. BOSI: Either the housing or -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Either way, it doesn't seem to make a lot of sense here. I don't think anybody'd look for it here. MR. BOSI: And if you removed from the Economic Element and displaced either to the Housing Element or more appropriately the Immokalee Area Master Plan. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Pages 10 and 11, last two pages. (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The last Policy, 6. 1, I'm not sure why it needs to be changed. We keep doing things to provide more flexibility and incentives, but that's basically what the periodic review of the land regulations would allow in Policy 6.1. We're on Page 11, Donna. To be more aggressive and say amend as necessary to remove barriers and provide flexibility and incentives, that can be taken a lot of different ways to the extreme, and I'm not sure we need to open that door when we have a door open pretty good on Policy 6.1. MR. BOSI: Leave as presented? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody have any issues? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Are there any other issues with any of the Pages 1 through 11 of the Economic Element from the Planning Commission? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Are there any members of the public or staff that have any further comment? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: ** *Okay, now if you thought the transportation element would take a while, the next one certainly will. Let's go to Solid Waste. Dan, you'd like to rewrite the book. Do you have any introductory comments or statements you want to get into before we -- MR. RODRIGUEZ: Sure. Just for the record, Dan Rodriguez your Solid Waste Management Department director. Just to start off, thank you, Planning Commissioners, for the opportunity to come before you and to explain the importance of the Growth Management Plan as it relates to the Solid Waste Sub - element. The Growth Management Plan is an integral part of our integrated solid waste strategy. It's basically the nexus of a board decision directing us to move forward with recycling, waste reduction and protecting natural resources. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's it? Okay. Let's take the first three pages. Does anybody have any questions on the first three pages of the Solid Waste Element? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, on the top of Page 3, Mike, Policy 1.2, that's another self - amending issue you probably need to look at when you review all of them. Policy 1.4, the language that wanted to be added I think causes a heavier burden to be put on the public at times when they may not want to go to that effort versus the policy if it's left alone. It talks about public awareness and participation in solid waste collection issues by addressing such issues in duly noticed public meetings. If we wanted to expand that by saying and other appropriate media, but we get into stronger language when we suggest that it's not -- we don't suggest, such issues and duly noticed public meetings and by advertising, recycling, reuse, collection, and disposable strategies and tips by such media as local newspapers, fliers, magnets and TV and radio commercials. I would hate to see us in a box where we have to do all those when we can just be more generic and say we're going to use other forms of media. Does anybody -- is that problematic? MR. RODRIGUEZ: Actually, I think what the additional language does for us is it takes what the Board of County Commissioners directed us to do, and that's get the public involved, get them aware of the need and demand Page 63 of 89 August 25, 2010 CCPC/EAR to preserve valuable landfill area space. As you know, they're not making any more landfills in the State of Florida. Three have been rejected in the last year- and -a -half in the state of Florida. And it's important for us to get the marketing message out there. We need to recycle more. We're still burying over 215,000 tons of waste in our landfill a year. Of that we estimate probably 60 percent of that is still recyclable materials coming from commercial businesses and even some of our residents that don't take part in the yellow top recycling. So what this does is it provides direction for staff, team members, get out in the media, have a marketing program, educate the public, whether it's in our schools, whether it's businesses. With any new project or program, make that sure you provide the public with the needed information to understand why we have such a demand. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Could I make a suggestion? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Go ahead, Mr. Murray. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Why -- and I appreciate what you want to say, but again, you're making the level of specificity considerable here. And tips by such media or marketing programs, or even you can delete media as far as I'm concerned. I think you might be doing yourself a disservice by getting down to the level of magnets. And I appreciate that. If you have a marketing program, I don't think DCA's going to be concerned with that It's a budgetary matter and it's programmatic within the context of this, right? So I would not go to that level of specificity. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Schiffer, then Ms. Caron. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I agree, I think you should just stop at the end of strategy, strike everything else. You actually forgot the Internet, so -- that would probably be the best one. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ms. Caron? COMMISSIONER CARON: No, I was going to make that same suggestion. I think you're limiting and leaving out. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. I think the consensus is leave it more generic, not to be so specific. Pages -- COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: I have a question. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Go ahead, Mr. Midney, I'm sorry. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Are the levels of services for recycling universal throughout the county or does it vary depending on where you live? MR. RODRIGUEZ: They're universal countywide. What varies is the single stream or separation. For instance, the City of Naples, they have a different means and methods for recyclables. They're still separating their recyclable goods. But they are moving to single stream this October. But for the majority of Collier County, it's the same level of service. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Okay, thanks. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody else? If not, we'll go to Pages 4 and 5. Any questions from the Planning Commission on Pages 4 and 5? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I do. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Go ahead, Mr. Schiffer. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Policy 2.4. This is the year you're -- has everything been done that's in that list, so should we remove it? Or are you -- seven years ago we said by this year you're to achieve that. MR. RODRIGUEZ: Sure. And actually what we've done in the last 10 years, many of you are probably aware, 10 years ago we had less than three years of landfill air space remaining. We currently have until 2039 of air space remaining, and that's because 10 years ago, our population was 100,000 less than it was today but our tonnage being disposed of in the landfill was twice as much, over 400,000 tons. So we've reduced that by 50 percent, even with the population growing by 100,000. So we were able to extend that. So, yes, we've completed it as far as finding additional capacity for the landfill. We're going, with the county manager and my administrator approval we'll go to the Board in October to gain permission to instruct Waste Management to raise the elevation of the landfill, gaining additional air space. So we'll be doing that in October. And then we continue on a daily, monthly, weekly basis to look at conversion technologies, to look at other opportunities to do more with our waste stream, whether it's recycling or diverting or finding a best value solution so that we're just not burying that material into our landfills. Which also includes capital improvement projects of Page 64 of 89 August 25, 2010 CCPC/EAR building infrastructure, whether it's recycling centers or a new transfer station. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: What's our elevation now? MR. RODRIGUEZ: Currently at 108 feet. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: So you're going to double it. So the suggestion, Mike, is to add this new phrase at the bottom for Policy 2.4? MR. BOSI: Yes. And we will have to adjust the fiscal year, obviously, because of the amendments -- that this will be running through an amendment in either 2011 or 2012. So well have to adjust the fiscal year to the appropriate year as well. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Any other questions on Pages 4 and 5. Melissa? MS. AHERN: On Policy 2.8, I would agree, maybe not be so specific as to, I think you're referring to the twice per year targeting residents' households but allowing small business to participate. MR. RODRIGUEZ: Yeah, if I may, I think in the context in which that was written, there was a need and demand to remove more hazardous waste, or provide an opportunity for the taxpayers to bring their hazardous waste household chemicals to recycling centers in the landfill. There was a tremendous problem with illegal dumping of oil, paint, things like that. And this kind of just outlined a level of service, you know, at a minimum, let's do five days. We can revert back whenever we have a new project program. We always revert back to the Growth Management Plan and said we're in compliance with the Growth Management Plan to have this level of service. As you know, with trying times, economic times, wanting to cut budgets, restrict service levels, it was important for us to include that in there at that time. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Any other questions on four and five? Ms. Caron. COMMISSIONER CARON: Not a question, but I just wanted to make sure that everybody slows down. Melissa, I know that Cherie' could not even hear you, never mind -- thanks. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Dan, how long of a contract do we have with Waste Management? MR. RODRIGUEZ: The disposal contract for the landfill as life of cycle. So as long as the landfill has remaining capacity we will be married or partnered with Waste Management at that site. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So they've got a monopoly on waste disposal in Collier County. MR. RODRIGUEZ: What we have is a best value contract that provides liability to a third party, Waste Management. That's over 270 acres of waste that has been buried for the last 25 years. They've assumed responsibility for that waste. They manage the leachate collection systems that pull the chemicals that come from that out of the system. They also manage the liner that underlies the bells (phonetic). They're responsible for FDEP compliance as well as federal and EPA compliance. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, but they -- we've sown it up with them for the life of the landfill. Now, the life of the landfill by their contract, Exhibit B is 108 feet. We double the height, we double at least the life of the landfill. So now instead of having a contract with them for a life of 108 feet, we have a life of 200 feet. Is that really what we intended when we gave them a forever contract? I mean, did we know -- because I read the minutes of the meeting in which you got the 108 feet, and it was controversial getting to 108 feet, and now you're asking for 200 feet, but I haven't seen the public meetings to go with it. MR. RODRIGUEZ: That's correct. We fast get Board direction. And that's what we plan to do. We have Board direction from the Growth Management Plan as well as the integrated solid waste management strategy. So what we do is we then go back to the Board with a plan, we'll do that in October, to move forward with that. And as part of that permit application is the duly public noticed meetings, NIMs meetings, neighborhood information meetings that waste management and county staff will provide. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Prior to this element, the other elements were discussing things and everybody that we've approached about vetting the public and the public process, I believe they have already done that in order to get here today. You want us to approve it first and then do that afterwards. I think that would be contradicting possibly the process. I think the public ought to weigh in on the 200 feet before it's entered into the Growth Management Plan for Page 65 of 89 August 25, 2010 CCPC/EAR sure. That was the whole process that this Board initiated back in'04 when we started notifying communities of changes to the Growth Management Plan that would affect them. So I'm real concerned that the 200 feet hasn't been vetted properly to be on the table for change in the EAR. MR. RODRIGUEZ: Well, actually, the expansion of the landfill vertically has been part of the Growth Management Plan probably the last 10 years. So we've been directed by the Board for at least the last 10 years. And then back in 2006, December 5th, the Board also directed us to pursue vertical expansion of the landfill. But as part of that process, 200 feet would be the maximum. Once we do our due diligence with Waste Management they may come back and say, you know what, 165 feet or 175 feet may be the maximum height. But again, there's a lot of work that needs to be done as part of application process with FDEP, which includes public notice. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I'm going to unfortunately disagree with this particular item, because public notice should come before it goes into the Growth Management Plan. And that's a provision that we've always prided ourselves on. I'm not changing on that point. MR. BOSI: One of the points that I wanted to make is the amendments for these, that would be the amendment process for when this would be adopted into the Growth Management Plan would be 2012. I'm not sure what the schedule in terms of your public vetting is. MS. RODRIGUEZ: Within the -- we're going to the Board in October, as I've stated with county management approval and division administrator approval, and then to execute this as soon as possible. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Why don't just come in 2012 with it after it's been through the public process? Why put it in the EAR? MR. BOSI: We thought this was an opportunity that, I guess, the public process would have been completed. And the decision of that public process would have been able to influence whether we adopt or we do not adopt the amendments that we were proposing at this time. But if that — if the direction from the Planning Commission is to remove it and wait for the conclusion of the public process, we'll duly note that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, the point is, I mean, I live in the Estates. This is in the Estates. And I can tell you that it would be interesting to have the civic associations be given a presentation, let them weigh in on it, have public notice provided with the surrounding neighboring property owners within so many feet so that everybody that's going to have to look out their window and see 200 feet, which is twice the 108 now, they've got an idea of what to expect and they've got an opportunity to express their concerns. MR. RODRIGUEZ: Absolutely. And as part of our good neighbor policy that we administer in the Solid Waste Management Department, not only with controlling odors at the landfill, there's also operational needs. I've met with different presentations, but what we were trying to do is just to clarify the second piece, to increase the maximum permissible elevation, we tried to get a little more specific to that, but -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Schiffer was next, then Mr. Murray. Brad, you ready? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Yeah. Which policy is it that you said the GMP requires you to look for vertical expansion? MR. RODRIGUEZ: Policy 2.4 on Page 4, the second line. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay, you can move on. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Murray? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Yeah, relative to what we were just discussing, is it your practice in your evaluation of whether to raise the height vertically or not, to determine a cost relationship to that as against moving the material elsewhere or any other alternative? That was good music. COMMISSIONER CARON: I turned it on at lunch and forgot to turn it off. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I guess what I'm driving at is that we're trying to find out whether or not in your due diligence -- I'm not so much concerned with the marrying forever of the contract, as long as you've evaluated that their alternatives and those costs exceed what we might be paying or would be paying. MR. RODRIGUEZ: Absolutely. As one of the guiding principles, one of the four guiding principles that we use on any of our objectives or capital projects is best value. And certainly the landfill, we own the landfill, 270 acres. As I stated earlier, they're not building any new landfills, that's a limited resource. Page 66 of 89 August 25, 2010 CCPC/EAR And for us to go vertical at the landfill is a best value in this business case there for it, because there is limited capital infrastructure needed to go vertical. You already have the existing facilities, you have the existing leachate collection, gas collection systems, your scale house is in place. So basically you're just putting your waste higher on the existing infrastructure. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I can see the plausibility of it. I'm not questioning any part of it. I guess what I'm trying to find out is that, okay, you have all that, it has a value, but does that value equal, exceed or is less than what it would be to, say, put it in trucks and ship it someplace else? In other words, did you not do any kind of evaluation to determine if there are alternatives to lifting the height? MR. RODRIGUEZ: Sure, absolutely. And as part of our benchmarks for our annual budget, we look at other alternatives to waste disposal outside of Collier County. Shipping it to lake Okeechobee at the Waste Management site there, that would cost about $65 a ton. Currently we're paying about $25 a ton to dispose it in our landfill. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Okay, that's the kind of question I'm trying to get at -- MR. RODRIGUEZ: You could also take it to, potentially to Charlotte County. But again, you're limited on sustainability. They may have a contract with you for a year or five, but as soon as that's up, where do you dispose it from there? So the best option is to maximize our existing infrastructure. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Well, one more piece of the follow -up on that, because I noted here that you talk about alternative methodologies that you're going to pursue, emerging conversion technologies, that is flame or superheat or whatever. That would be if somehow or another the 108 feet were kept at a max, you'd be faced with some kind of activity that would in, anticipation of how many years, you said 2039. Sooner than that you would have to have alternatives. So would you be exploring the conversion technologies just to keep abreast of things, or would you be exploring them with the understanding that you intended to use those and then that relates back to having the 200 -foot or not landfill? The mix is important in this, because there's a certain cost to all of this. And if you're going in this direction, part of you can't be going in that direction. So -- MR. RODRIGUEZ: Well, it's actually, going vertical at the landfill is one piece, as I stated earlier, of the comprehensive integrated solid waste management strategy. Not only are we looking at final disposal, where else can we bury it at our landfill, but the much bigger picture, the much broader picture is recycling and diversion. What else can we do with it before it even gets to the scale and goes to the hill. And that's where the yellow top recycling -- this year we're rolling out single stream recycling for commercial businesses, a yellow top dumpster, a lot of initiatives that will pull that waste stream from the landfill. And what we plan is to extend the life of the landfill even finther. One of the reasons you want to get this started now, not only are we directed by the Board, it's in the Growth Management Plan, it's in our strategy, FDEP's restrictions on landfills every year continue to get stricter and stricter. If there's an opportunity for us to have this asset, it maximizes it today. Whether we use it tomorrow or not, at least the residents, taxpayers of Collier County have that as a potential disposal option. And that's best value. Because what we don't want to do is, in many counties, many communities in the State of Florida, and we've benchmarked many of them, they"re paying much, much higher rates for the disposal. Our collection assessment here annual is about $172 a year for twice a week pick -up, high level recycling on demand. Many communities are paying above $350, $400 for disposal. And it's not sustainable. It's a year -to -year contract with either a waste energy facility or a landfill that is quickly running out of space. Collier County is you unique in that the Board of County Commissioners over the past 10 years has worked hard to made recycling and diversion a priority. So yes, we are looking at those avenues. If there's new technology that will allow us to do it better, faster, cheaper, and protecting our natural resources, we're on it. We'll do it, we'll bring it to you. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Thank you. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Mark? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Go ahead. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I'd agree with you. Mike, were you were thinking of putting the 200 feet in Page 67 of 89 August 25, 2010 CCPC/EAR the GMP? Because that would kind of violate the Policy 2.7, which requires the public to be involved in all decisions. So we wouldn't want this EAR to be a backdoor way of doing that. MR. BOSI: Well, I mean, the suggestion is being offered today in a public meeting. The statement by Mr. Rodriguez was the requirement for the permitting process requires extensive public outreach. It sounds like there will be opportunities for the public to weigh in on it. The impression that I get though is the Planning Commission believes that maybe it's premature to suggest this policy at this time and would rather stay with the current existing policy that says to the maximum elevation permissible. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: For example, where in this Solid Waste Element do we have the limitation it should be at 108 feet? So why do we need 200? If you can do it to 108 without saying because of the language that's already here, you can do it to 200 or 500. It's based on your best presentation. So I'm not -- I don't like what's being attempted to be gained here. I think it doesn't need to be. MR. RODRIGUEZ: If I may, what we look at the Growth Management is a tool. And that tool can be as sharp or as blunt as you need it to be. And for us, when we go to the Board of County Commissioners we have direct specific information on their direction, on the strategy, solid waste initiatives. And that's all that we were trying to do is to clarify that. I don't know of any landfills that are greater than 200 feet. That's what FDEP has as the maximum elevation. Whether our county landfill could go to 200 feet, that is yet to be determined as part of the permit process. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Do you have some minutes from a Board of County Commissioners' meeting that shows this 200 feet was discussed with them and they recommended going to 200 feet? Because the last minutes that I saw that were some of the documents I had as back -up showed 108 feet. And actually, one Commissioner suggested that should be the maximum. So since then things may have changed. I'm not disagreeing. And since then it may be fine to go to 200 feet. But if your premise is it was directed by the Board of County Commissioners, I'd like to see the minutes of the meeting that specified 200 feet. MR. RODRIGUEZ: And I could look up those minutes from the integrated solid waste management strategy, because I think in our presentation we provided the potential for the landfill, I believe, at 200 feet. But certainly it's to the maximum elevation that meets the needs of the community, as well as maintaining a good neighbor policy. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I think the language that Brad is indicating, the language that's there now gives you that latitude. So I don't know why we need to get into — just like we don't get into heights for development standards in the GMP, because that's done in the LDC, or you have other ordinances that deal with your solid waste, you have contracts that have the limits in them. MR. RODRIGUEZ: And if you look at the value that that height brings, and that was my only reason for updating this, if you were to raise the elevation of the landfill, you've going to increase the life probably about 15 years, not double, because of the slope to rise, you know, it's a much smaller area. But most importantly, the value of that air space is probably in the neighborhood of $350 million, so -- and that would be the reason that we put this in there, is to be specific. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anything else, Brad? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: No, no. I mean, he's got four options. Maybe that's the last one we use. But I don't think putting the heights in is good because that then we'll be quoting the GNP with the heights. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Page 4, the top of the page is a continuation or language you're suggesting add to Policy 2.1. The policy currently reads, the county shall continue to monitor groundwater as required by the regulatory permit conditions for the operation of the landfill and in compliance with state and federal rules and regulations. Well, that says it all. You can't supercede by anything you do state and federal regulations. Your contract with Waste Management can't be any less than state and federal regulations. I'm not sure why we need to add the language that would limit us in reference to what you're trying to add. You want to add and pursuant to Section 2.7 of the landfill operations agreement with Waste Management, Inc. of Florida. Well, that's already an agreement with the county. The county's already bound by the requirements of the Page 68 of 89 August 25, 2010 CCPC/EAR 2.1. Why would we want to add a reference to another outside agreement that could be, that is amended on a regular basis anyway? I'm not sure why we need that, Dan. MR. RODRIGUEZ: Sure. And again, it's just more clarification, to be more specific in the event, the long term event we do have any contractual issues with Waste Management. It just gives us additional leverage. It's noted in the Growth Management Plan and it just adds more body to it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: If the state and federal laws change, does that mean Waste Management doesn't have to abide by them? MR. RODRIGUEZ: No. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: They do, wouldn't they? MR. RODRIGUEZ: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah. So I would think we would want to Ieave it as it is and not add that language, because that only hurts us. It hurts us in negotiations, it hurts us with them. I would think that your language in your contract would be broad enough that they have to abide by all state and federal regulations. MR. RODRIGUEZ: And it does state that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Well, then I don't think we need to be more specific in this document. In fact, the premise of the GMT is supposed to be non - specificity. And your whole element, and we'll get into the 22 items you're trying to add, bring in specificity way beyond I think what we intended, or what the whole GMP process is supposed to be. Moving to on to Policy 2.2. It says the county shall continue to maintain leachate and gas management systems at county landfills in order to comply with permit conditions. Again, it refers to the Waste Management contract pursuant to Section 2.9. You don't need to, it's already there. Why do you need -- and how we do that is up to the county's off -GMP documents, documents that can be changed outside of the GMP, that if you bring them into the GMP they become self amending. And I'm not sure we even need to go there, because you're covered already in Policy 2.2. MR. RODRIGUEZ: Sure. Again, it's for clarification. In the event we want to do a contract amendment with Waste Management like we did with the gas to energy facility that's under construction now at the landfill, we want to enhance that product or -- part of the executive summaries that go before the Board for their recommendation and direction are we in compliance with the Growth Management? It adds weight to the program and the project that we're trying to execute. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, as long as the county through the contract is maintaining leachate and gas management systems at our landfill in compliance with permit conditions, you're in line with the GMP. So I just really think -- and Mike, and your department when we've talked, this whole idea of too much specificity has been a ringing issue for this Planning Commission to have to deal with in the GMP now for a decade. And for that reason, I'm suggesting we not make those additions to the policies. I think it's going to hurt you more than help you. Bob? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Just one added point on the -- I didn't know that you had done the gas thing where you're going to take the gas out and you're going to finally get that and be used that for energy conversion? Now the greenhouse gases -- the methane is a greenhouse gas -- that's -- will that be attributed to this activity that's conversion? That conversion will constitute utilization of the greenhouse gases. But is that a basis for, you know, thinking process in any way? MR. RODRIGUEZ: It is actually the audit that the county had done, the green audit. They reviewed our contract as well as the equipment specification, things like that, to look at the impact and the improvement to not contributing to greenhouse gases. So, yes. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I have to agree that with the level of specificity it does become -- you're subjected to a lot of these questions, which we think are valid. I wonder if these aren't really more appropriate for the amendment cycle itself. You have the answers that satisfy my understanding of things, but I do agree that it does bring it into question. And particularly about the 200 feet thing. The 108 feet is, I assume the basis for that was a permit. That's what they gave you regardless of what you asked for, correct? Page 69 of 89 August 25, 2010 CCPC/EAR MR. RODRIGUEZ: (Nods.) COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Okay. And you're seeking 200 but you expect less. Okay. I do agree that it's like it is being snuck in from the point of view somebody six months or a year from now, they're going to say I never knew about that. And I understand where you want to go. I think you need to go through the amendment process and not be -- not bring it to the level of specificity here. But then do your job, and in the amendment process you will get to a better level of specificity. That would be my recommendation. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Brad? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Yeah, I think removing these things, too. The way they're worded, essentially I think what you're saying is that your contract does meet this obligation pursuant to the contract. So why it's in the GMP, I don't know. The concern might be is somebody might interpret the ones you're not referencing have a different status. So to me it's kind of redundant, because what you're saying is here's a policy, and pursuant to the contract these guys honor that policy. And I don't think that's necessary. Is there -- am I missing something? MR. RODRIGUEZ: No. And again, as I mentioned earlier, what we're trying to do is, those items in the contract that have the biggest value or the largest impact or liability associated with running a landfill, just to bring those up to a higher level of compliance through the Growth Management Plan. And then also we use that as a tool that has Board direction that -- you know, we're in compliance with your contract with Waste Management and this is the reason that we want to either expand or develop a new program in association with that specific item. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Is it to your advantage some day to turn around and say, well, wait a minute, that section, we have to do that because that's in the Growth Management Plan? Is that what you're looking for? MR. RODRIGUEZ: Yes. That's part of the reason that we do that, to get the clear nexus to a Board direction. Not only do we have the contract, we also have it outlined in the Growth management plan as recycling -- you know, recycling's mentioned throughout the Growth Management Plan as well as the integrated solid waste management strategy as well as ordinances, so -- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Just maybe the word pursuant is the word that -- because you're saying per that clause in the contract, which we're not even privy to. But anyway, enough. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, let's go on to Pages 6 and 7. Go ahead, Ms. Caron. COMMISSIONER CARON: Yeah, on Policy 2.5, in the narrative it says that there's a difference between this policy and the one in the CIE. Which one is correct? MR. SCHMIDT: I could answer that. The correct position or the location of the levels of service standards is in the CIE. We're also able to place them in the sub - elements. And if there are discrepancies between the two, the required location in the CIE is the document referred to when we prepare the schedule of capital improvements for the next five years. And I would suggest that we would refer to the level of service inside the same document and also make the amendment to the sub - element to make the correction. COMMISSIONER CARON: Corby -- that was a real Corby. The sentence says that it may just be unnecessary duplicate. But it goes on to say except that the two policies are not the same. If they are supposed to be telling you the same thing, which is describing the LOS, why would they be different? I'm just reading what you wrote. Or maybe not you, specifically. MR. SCHMIDT: The differences are there over time because they're not amended at the same pace those inside the CIE have been. And not each one was studied. But there are some discrepancies between them or among them. COMMISSIONER CARON: Okay. So I guess part of the issue then is to get down to the issue of do we think it's redundant -- does this board think that it should be in both places or should it only be in one or the other? Page 70 of 89 August 25, 2010 CCPC/EAR MR. SCHMIDT: Yeah. And staff realized that we left it as an open question for you to consider that way. COMMISSIONER CARON: I don't want to go beyond without considering it. MR. SCHMIDT: Would you prefer to see it in both locations and with some heads -up that staff always updates both locations when there's updates made? Or would we prefer to keep it in one place with a simple reference to it at its one location? And it's more your preference than it is staffs. MR. BOSI: Well, here's another thing -- COMMISSIONER CARON: I just wanted to get to your question. MR. BOSI: Here's another thing that further probably will shape the decision on this, is the CIE is amended on an annual basis through the CIE amendment process. Amending the Solid Waste Sub - element is not a easy and straightforward. So when we contain the levels of service with our Solid Waste Element as well as our CIE, changes to those levels of service standards in our CIE can be -- those adjustments can be made relative easily through the CIE amendment process. Changing the levels of service as expressed in the Solid Waste Sub - element takes more time and a more elongated process through the traditional transmittal and adoption hearing process, instead of just the adoption process that the CIE is. COMMISSIONER CARON: But within the Solid Waste Sub - element, you could just refer to the CIE -- MR. BOSI: Yes. COMMISSIONER CARON: — for those changes. MR. BOSI: Yes, we could. That's probably the best solution. COMMISSIONER CARON: I think we need to give staff some direction on which way we want to go on that issue. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Based on Mike's comment, the CIE can be changed yearly, and it needs to, based on our AUIR and the other elements. Why would we want it anywhere but the CIE? MR. BOSI: And we can -- Policy 2.5 should reference back to the level of service standards as contained in the CIE. COMMISSIONER CARON: It definitely should reference that. Definitely. MR. BOSI: Understand, yes. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Good catch. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Murray? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: No, I just said good catch. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, Pages 6 and 7? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I have some, Mark. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I do, too, Brad. There's 22. Mind if I just make a quick statement? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: You can go. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: There's 22 suggested changes here. By far the majority are all redundant, or also provided in other policies in a more flexible language. Much of it is items that are either addressed in ordinances or other instruments the county can change at a much easier way than changing the Growth Management Plan. Basically, there are four policies here that might be helpful to be added, but -- 214, 218, 225, and 230. The rest of them, Dan, I just don't get it. I don't know why we're just not working with the policies we have to get some of these. But Brad, I'll -- that's kind of what I wanted to lead off by just -- I don't know where you were going to go with it but -- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Well, if you want to kill it all, that makes my life easier. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I don't want to spend the next three or four hours going over policy by policy about why --just like we just did the first couple. This element should never have taken this long even as far as it has. It's not that complicated. You had a very flexible GNP element, and your restrictions on it are only going to hurt you, not help you. MR. RODRIGUEZ: Well, actually, let's take for example 2.2.4, the county shall evaluate options for beneficially recycle plastic agriculture film. As you know, Collier County is a very large agricultural county. It's a big industry here. We get a lot of agriculture film in our waste stream. It's probably in the neighborhood of 10 to 15,000 Page 71 of 89 August 25, 2010 CCPC /EAR tons. That plastic comes to the transfer site in Immokalee or it comes to our landfill. Has to be disposed of What we tried to do here is to elevate some of those specific pieces of the waste stream that involve a greater part of the community so that we have clear direction that we need to pursue those and basically find alternative disposal means and methods for them, whether it's recycling it or doing that -- and granted, you're right, you're saying well, we already have a recycling ordinance that says to do a lot of that, to do that. One of the reasons you have a very successful integrated solid waste management strategy is because it's very specific. The Board has given clear direction. We look at very specific items. And if we can tie back to the Growth Management Plan any new program, project, whether it's through a private industry or third party, bring that to the Board, it just makes the process easier, it provides clear direction that it's a goal and objective we need to address. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But see, you could tie any -- the majority of, except for those four, you could tie all the rest back to an existing policy saying it's justified under, say, Policy 1.3, the county shall continue to evaluate economic transfer and disposal systems, including the use of full service recycling centers. Why couldn't you include ag. field plastic under that? But what I'm -- your idea of putting in the specificity to help promote your issues I think is good, but that should be more discretionary for the Board of Commissioners to be able to do by ordinance and policy, not tie everybody's hands by the GMP. And that's the problem we keep running into when we put the real specific items in the GMP. We actually end up five years from now wishing we hadn't done it, because, oh, my God, we can't change it even though this new technology's come along, we're tied to what we did in the GMP. So I think the bulk of these are hurting you, not helping you. And I know you will probably have a different opinion. And Mr. Murray, before you -- but Brad actually started this and I interrupted him. So I apologize, Brad. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Actually, I have just in this Policy 2.5, the bottom of six, first of all, I think this is the first place you use C and D, which means construction and demolition. You do define it in 2.2.5. So I kind of think define it up there first, or not -- I assume C &D means that; is that right? MR. RODRIGUEZ: Correct, construction and demolition material. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Right. So in other words, it is defined later not earlier. So the fast time you use it you should define it. But the thing that scares me here is, here you're going to study coming up with a plan that has to be submitted prior to a building being constructed, renovated or demo'd. And that's all we need is more plans prior. So what is the -- what's the intent of that policy? MR. RODRIGUEZ: Again, getting back to the waste stream. The county generates probably about 750,000 tons a year. Of that a good portion of it, probably 30 percent, maybe more, is construction demolition material. And in Collier County, a lot of our C &D material gets landfilled in C &D landfills. That's your wood, your plastic, your brick, things like that. And again, this provides more specific direction to recycle more of that waste stream, not only at the government level, because we do take in C &D at some of our sites, but at the private level as well, the commercial industry. And that was the reason for including that language. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Right, but isn't that happening now? I mean, I go to construction sites all the time. I don't see people not handling debris. And here's the concern, is that, what if you came up with a system that required us to have a permit submission -- I mean, what is this waste management plan that has to be submitted prior to? And essentially what we do now is hire private people to take the waste away. So is there a problem this is fixing? MR. RODRIGUEZ: Absolutely, there's a problem. As I stated earlier, the majority of your C &D is getting landfilled. Recently this past year, Florida state passed a law requiring a 75 percent recycling rate by 2020. And again, your private industry, you say well, they just take it away. It doesn't just go away, it goes somewhere, it gets landfilled. So what we need to do is update not only our ordinances, policies, Growth Management Plan to specifically address C &D material in the county so that those businesses that take it away are recycling it, they're not just burying it. And that's how the county can come into compliance with the new Florida state law. But most importantly, ensure that it doesn't get landfilled or put in our waste stream. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. So what do you envision happening? I'm going to build a 10 -story Page 72 of 89 August 25, 2010 CCPC/EAR building, what do I have to do before I get a permit? MR. RODRIGUEZ: What I envision happening is similar to what's happening in Lee County today. They 've had a C &D ordinance and policy that provides a mandatory 50 percent recycling of all C &D at any construction site. So you would contract with a contractor in Collier County and he would have to take that material to a facility that would recycle that. And we currently have two large facilities in Collier County, Waste Services, Inc. industrial park as well as Waste Management that have processes, method to recycle. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: So what's he going to do with it -- and remember, I can't get my permit, because you say, prior to beginning of construction. So what do I have to show to you that he's now going to what that he wasn't doing before? MR. RODRIGUEZ: Sure. What he's going to do is provide, as part of the application process for his permit, there will be a half -a -page document that shows that he's going to contract with a C &D hauler that qualifies and recycles 50 percent of that material. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And what's happening now is they're just driving up to the landfill with it and throwing it in the landfill, not trying to recycle the material. Is that what you're trying to -- MR. RODRIGUEZ: The majority of it — that's correct, yes. Whether it's the landfill or someone else's landfill outside of the county. Because that does count against us. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: So I have to prove before I start building that I've contracted with somebody who promises that he will meet the recycling requirements for C &D. MR. RODRIGUEZ: Yes, you'll contract with somebody that is certified by FDEP, as all C &D haulers, disposal sites are, that they recycle 50 percent of that material. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. And the problem you're having now is people are just throwing it on the pile. MR. RODRIGUEZ: That's correct. What you have is people, they're demolishing their homes, there's metals, there's woods, there's plastic, brick, put it all in one big dumpster container, it gets shipped out of the county, get buried in a landfill. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: You said shipped out of the county? MR. RODRIGUEZ: That's correct. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: So we're solving some landfill -- I mean, the reason you're saying shipped out of the county is you wouldn't accept it at your landfill or -- MR. RODRIGUEZ: We do not accept C &D material at the landfill. But we do accept it at our transfer site, which is co- located at the landfill. Then we have to pay the transportation costs to ship all that material out of the county to a private C &D landfill. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: You have to pay, Collier County? MR. RODRIGUEZ: That's correct. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: So this is a Collier County problem, not -- MR. RODRIGUEZ: No, some contractors contract with Waste Services, they have their own landfill, C &D landfill. You have the government side, then you also have commercial businesses that manage C &D. You have the option to bring it to the landfill or you have the option to call a private hauler that will come and pick it up and take it to their landfill. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And the benefit of that, since we're not taking it -- it has nothing to do with our landfill, the benefit is that we feel better -- MR. RODRIGUEZ: It's still waste -- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: -- that we're recycling construction debris. MR. RODRIGUEZ: Well, it's still our waste and it counts against us according to the new rules and regulations by FDEP. If we don't recycle that material and we're burying it, it cuts down on the diversion and recycling rate. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: So we're getting a bad score somewhere because we don't have this? MR. RODRIGUEZ: You're getting a bad score, and also it's not best value. If it has value, the metal, you're using virgin materials when you could recycle it. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Thank you, Mark. I'm done. But anyway, remember, move up the description of what C &D is. Page 73 of 89 August 25, 2010 CCPC/EAR CHAIRMAN STRAIN: In your -- when you came up with these ideas, when you'd had your meeting with the stakeholders involving this C &D issue, what did they feel about having their plans reviewed and the process you've now telling us about? Like CBIA, I'm sure you must have had a long conversation with them about all these ideas. What did they have to say about them -- or DSAC, or groups like that? MR. RODRIGUEZ: We're in the process this fiscal 2011 to bring that to the Board for review and approval as an update to our recycling ordinance. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: See, here we go again, you want to put all this stuff in the GMP first and then bring then before the public afterwards. And I'm not going to change my intentions here. These are not needed in this GMP. They have not gone through the public vetting process. The stakeholders who would have to pay for it have not been properly vetted. This is not right. So I'm not going to waste my time with 22 of them, because as far as I'm concerned, I already stated the only four that seem to be new, I don't know what the Board wants to do -- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I agree with you, Mark. You know, a long time ago with private industry we would have GMP amendments that really weren't publicly vetted, especially in the neighborhoods. And we made a strong stand on that. What's the difference between this and that? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: There isn't. In fact, the stand this Board made resulted in finally for the first time in Collier County mandatory public notification of GMP amendments. And now for our own shop we're not seeming we have to do that, and I can't buy into that. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: In other words, the GMP shouldn't have a back door. COMMISSIONER CARON: And don't ruin some good things by not following the process. Process has been working, that we do the public process first and go from there. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Dan, I think if you put these into an ordinance through the BCC, an ordinance that the BCC can amend as science gets better and as you find better ways, they can amend it on the fly. To put it in the GMP, it's going to tie your hands and everybody's hands for anything for a long ways in the future. Mr. Murray? COMMISSIONER MURRAY. Okay. You're tasking. That's what I see this is. I wrote down each time, a given. These are a given. So you're tasking in the GMP, which is not acceptable. So what the gentleman has been saying, what the other gentleman has been saying, I'm echoing. You really cannot do this, and especially now that we realize you haven't done your process with the public. It does look terribly back door. I understand your desires, I see that as an attempt at efficiency, but it doesn't work. Sorry about that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I think that gets us through Page 8, basically, and 9 and 10 are the wrap -up. Does anybody have any final comments on the solid waste? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And I think, Corby, on Page 10 when you talk about this greenhouse gas inventory and that issue, there are relevant recommendations now in that 2055 document. I would suggest that if you're going to format them into here that they be stated. And then we know what you're talking about instead of trying to dig up some difficult defined document in the future. MR. SCHMIDT: Understood. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Any other comments on the solid waste? Anybody from the audience? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Dan, thank you, appreciate it. MR. RODRIGUEZ: Thank you, appreciate it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Let's take a 10- minute break, we'll come back at 3:50 and we'll finish up for an hour and 10 minutes. (A recess was taken.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, welcome back from the break. We're going to spend the next hour and 10 minutes trying to get as far through this as we possibly can. Page 74 of 89 August 25, 2010 CCPC /EAR Next element up is the Housing Element. And Michele? MS. MOSCA: Yes, good afternoon. Again, for the record, Michele Mosca, Comprehensive Planning staff. And I won't go into a lot of detail. We could probably just go into the objectives and policies unless you want me to provide an overview. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No, I think we can probably just dive right into it. So that will get us to Pages 1, 2 and 3. Anybody have any questions on Pages 1, 2 and 3? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Michele, on Page 2 we talk about Objective 1 in which we have 1,000 units required per year averaged over a five -year period and then we're suggesting reducing that to 850 units. I'm just wondering, when we do this, we put a burden on anybody coming forward who wants to work under this program. They have a 15 -year restriction, they have to do a lot of things to meet the criteria. Yet the sales in that category of housing right now, and for what some of the economic reports are indicating for this area, could be stagnant for quite some time because there is so much affordable. Why would anybody want to go into a restrictive community that is under our guidelines with a restriction on the sale price and all the things you can do when they can go right down the street and buy a house at that price or lower, because so much is so cheap right now? So what are we gaining by demanding that we still produce this kind of housing in times like this? Are we actually tying someone's hands where we are hurting the economy, thus not making this a viable thing to do? I'm just wondering, I don't see the point in demanding we continue this in all aspects of all economies. I'm wondering how much flexibility we have. MS. MOSCA: I'm just trying to figure out the best way to address that. We are required to address the affordable housing needs of the very low, low and moderate income households. And we have -- (Electronic feedback.) COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Try again. MS. MOSCA: We are required to address the very low, low and moderate income needs of the area residents. Whether or not we look at it from a being restrictive or market rate, we have to have a full and complete inventory to determine where those needs are presently. So I don't know if this necessarily ties our hands. We didn't meet the objective, which isn't to say is a good thing for the 1,000 units. And we have since come down on those units. And we actually are in the process, it's a Board - directed affordable housing exercise to look at the affordable housing units within the county. So we are presently trying to establish an inventory so that we are in fact trying to meet those projections for affordable housing. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, but is this the objective we would use — say a project's coming forward, are they -- say it's 500 units. Would they be required then, based on this objective to have a percentage of them affordable? MS. MOSCA: I would say no. That's not how I read the objective. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, so it's only if they want the additional density. MS. MOSCA: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: It's just that I know we have a lot of projects out there. We had this come to us on one on Estey Avenue where they said, wait a minute, we're required to put the affordable housing in to get the density, we already have been approved. We put the density in, we can't sell these things. So they wanted some release that if they don't sell them within a certain amount of time they can sell them at a market rate, because the market's not there for this kind of housing. I just wanted to make sure we weren't making it worse instead of better. MS. MOSCA: And it would be based on the density, the additional bonus. And that's what that particular project that you're referring to received. They received a conversion of commercial density bonus for those units. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: On Page 3 in your -- COMMISSIONER MURRAY: If I can -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Sorry, I thought I'd asked when we started. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Not a problem. I recognize, I think, the constraints that the county has in terms of by law what it's required to do in some respects. But we can't venture from reality either, I think -- or maybe Page 75 of 89 August 25, 2010 CCPC/EAR we can. You're suggesting ultimately we go to 850, I think it was, 850 units ultimately, right? MS. MOSCA: That's correct. That's actually based on the projections from the Shimberg Center, yes. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Well, similar to the situation with impact fees, as the cost of housing rose, the value, purported value rose, and so the impact fees were applied. And we have the similar situation, we had a greater need for that. Now we have all this housing. And I'm not trying to repeat what the Chairman's just related to, but I want to set a stage. You have all of this out there. I'm concerned that with this because of the density bonus we're going to have when we get our restart, we're going to have people coming to us seeking to build this kind of product because they get better, I won't say guarantees, but it's a lot easier for them in some respects to move their product. And Pm worried about what we're doing flooding, and you're saying that Shimberg requires you to come, arithmetically come to 850. You have no latitude. MS. MOSCA: No, it's not a question of that. I think staff proposed 850 because it's an average. We looked at years 2010 through 2030, and on average it would be 850 additional units per year. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: At one point we were at 1,000, then we wanted to go to 1500, we went back to 1,000, now we want to go to 850. But we're using a horizon of what, 25 years? MS. MOSCA: Right. Twenty years. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Couldn't we deal with the reality of today -- all right, 20 years, 15, 18. The point is that it's such a long -term that I'm just concerned that we're going to raise number that just doesn't make any sense. And it provokes developers who want to come in and do a quick job, it provokes them to do that. And that's a concern I have. I'm not sure we can do anything about it. But I'm not sure that 850 is a valid number, especially with the horizon we're talking about. I think it's amending, so to speak, in the sense that if five years from now we find we're in the trouble we were in in 2005, there will be no problem in modifying that number. So I don't see why we need to put such a high pitch on it. I would be an advocate for really low- balling it for the purpose of making it clear inasmuch as 728 out of 4,214 have been built. It just makes no dam sense to put an 850 number on there any more. Let's motivate them to build what they're going to build and get this inventory, this incredible inventory used up. MS. MOSCA: And my concern is because you do have that 15 -year tie -in that the inventory is always going to be changing. Recently we heard, and I could probably defer to Buddy, that there were two apartment units or two apartment complexes, rather, that were going into foreclosure. So if that does occur or has occurred, we lose all of that inventory. So we're constantly trying to put new inventory on line. But I do understand your point. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: And I understand yours. I understand that this is appropriate for us to try to plan out. The appropriateness of it, though, is how many. And reality strikes me it just doesn't seem logical to suggest that 850 is a good number when we see all of this product all around us. And I'm pretty sure that if we were running into trouble when we didn't have inventory, there would be a lot of developers who would like to get in the business. So I would be an advocate for a deep change. I would like to go even 500. MS. MOSCA: I think the direction probably would be to try to come up with some additional data and analysis to support the 500 number so that I could provide that information to the Department of Community Affairs. Again, the projections are based on the Shimberg Center, which we're required to use for our projections. But I'll try to do that as part of the adoption hearings, with Buddy's help. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Thank you, I'm not going to belabor this. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Schiffer? COMMISSIONER SCHUTER: Well, first of all, this number is really just a threshold that we put for the county saying that we're doing good if we're getting this number every year, adding to it Shimberg's numbers are there. We can't even -- when we had the AUIR we've never been able to even get this number presented to us. So we've asked and asked and asked and asked and we've never got it. So it's a number that has nothing to do with developers, it has nothing to do with a market, it has nothing to do with anything other than some agency saying you know, you guys should be bringing on line something about this number. Page 76 of 89 August 25, 2010 CCPC /EAR It wasn't an issue until we really got into a crunch with affordable housing. And there is an illusion now that we don't have a crunch in affordable housing. But remember, when everything slipped, everybody's salary, what was the low income guy is now a lot lower than it was back then. So everything just scaled itself down. So I see no -- I mean, the Shimberg number, they've studied it, let's assume they know better, that's fine. But the number doesn't have any meaning to anything other than, you know, a little threshold that we should look at once a year, but we never get to look at the number anyway. Isn't that right? I mean -- okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ms. Caron? COMMISSIONER CARON: Does the -- does this 850 number apply to both rental units as well as ownership units? MR. RAMSEY: For the record, Frank Ramsey, or Buddy Ramsey, Housing Manager. To answer your question, yes, it does. In fact, I think all the experts that I'm reading and hearing is that rental is the new home ownership. And I do think that the element, if it would be the desire of staff and of the Board, would maybe benefit from specifically referencing that. As Michele mentioned two affordable rental developments recently went into foreclosure. And when at auction. And when they are sold they will lose the restrictions. And those two developments alone represented 17 percent of the affordable rental apartments here in Collier County. COMMISSIONER CARON: Yeah, it's important to -- MR. RAMSEY: If I could just make one comment on the number. I've always had a problem with this specific number, because it doesn't change with the market. And it's not -- it can't self adjust. The problem is coming up with an alternative, tying it, a percentage tied to building permits issues or some other measure, and I have not been able to come up with a very good one thus far that would also pass muster with DCA. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Murray? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Buddy, I guess I'll call you Buddy. MR. RAMSEY: Yes, sir. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Aren't you also constrained by the -- not the number but by the -- I'm going to call it legitimately qualified housing? For instance, there's been an assertion made for a long time, which I agree with, that there are many affordable units that are not considered inventory because they didn't have some connection in the first instance. So we're not counting those. And so we're counting these and saying we're going to lose this is one when in reality we have all these here. If those properties are not taken soon because of foreclosure and there've left, the mold will destroy them, we aren't achieving anything by making believe over here and ignoring over here. So as part of the restudy that's going on, is that going to finally include those other appropriately qualified homes and apartments. They are not currently on that inventory. Is that part of the restudy? MR. RAMSEY: My understanding, and it's not run through my department, but yes, the data is being analyzed on most recent sale price. But built and affordable purchase price mortgage amount based on income level. So you will capture that inventory of non - restrictive units, what you're referring to, market rates units that are selling for an affordable price. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: And they've been selling that way for a long time. They just never had any first money associated with the county. MR. RAMSEY: Correct. COMMISSIONER MiTRRAY: Okay. So for the first time we'll have a real inventory. And then that 4,000 number will go considerably higher, won't it? MR. RAMSEY: It will. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Any other questions on Page 2 and 3? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, I've got a question on Page 3, and I don't care whoever answers it. Policy 1. 1, it refers to interlocal agreements between the City of Naples, the City of Marco and Everglades City. I've been able to Page 77 of 89 August 25, 2010 CCPC /EAR locate the City Naples and City of Marco but not Everglades City. Do we not have the interlocal agreement that's referred to here? MR. RAMSEY: I'm not aware of an interlocal agreement relating to affordable housing with Everglades. COMMIS SIONER MURRAY: I don't think there is. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, aren't we inconsistent with our GMP? And if we are, then how is Everglades City handling their affordable housing? MS. MOSCA: Policy 1.1 actually states that we'll pursue interlocal agreements. If this is something that the Housing Department and Board of County Commissioners is not going to pursue, then it makes sense to remove Everglades City. And I don't know how they're meeting their affordable housing needs. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Why don't you find out by adoption and make the appropriate adjustment, if need be. And then the value of the amount of affordable housing that we're taking on behalf of the other two cities, do we know how much the other two cities have in affordable housing quantity, how much they should have based on the pro rata share that we supply, and how much for that we are supplying? For example, we get up to $50,000 from Marco Island. From the City of Naples, which probably have less affordable housing than anywhere else, the city agrees to waive city administrative planning review fees and building permit fees for projects meeting affordable standards. The county agrees to waiver defer impact fees. The county agrees that the county's affordable housing activity administrative expenses including but not limited to staff salary, travel expenses, paper products, computer equipment and other operational expenses will be funded through a countywide general fund. The city is currently paying 25.5 percent of this fund, which shall be considered the city's proportional share contribution. Would you mind telling us somehow how much that has come to? We're accepting a burden of nine million dollars in deferred impact fees for these other groups and as a county whole. And out of it we're getting 25.5 percent of a fund from the City of Naples for that. I'm just wondering how much it compares to compared to the amount the county is deferring on carrying all this for Marco and the City of Naples. So is that something that the staff can find a number for since it's part of our contract with the City of Naples? MR. RAMSEY: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You can e-mail it to us. I think by the next EAR discussion it might help us understand what the relationship between the City and us should be based on how much they're contributing. Because, if you notice, and I'm going to bring this up later on, we have numerous policies in here that are the City of Naples policies. But they're in our GMP and we have no way of regulating or controlling what they do with them. Ms. Caron? COMMISSIONER CARON: Yeah, we had this discussion a number of years ago, I mean, a couple of years ago. I think it was when we were trying to revise this number the last time, about these interlocal agreements. And they were supposed to be looked at. I mean, not to pick on Marco Island, but Marco Island gives us $50,000 as year. Is that maybe one unit of affordable housing for the entire City of Marco Island? And we have to absorb everything else? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's one bedroom, actually. COMMISSIONER CARON: Yes, well, exactly. So I mean, rm just not sure who's negotiating these interlocal agreements, but I want the cities negotiator, not whoever's doing it for the county. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Murray? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I just want to make this comment. Cormac Giblin was the guy that was in the job, he's gone awhile now. And when he was very young in the job these questions were posed to him and we've never been able to get an answer. I think good luck to you is the thing I would say about trying to cut your fingers on that number. MR. RAMSEY: If I could just make a few comments about what was said. For Marco Island the amount paid is $50,000, or 10 percent of their building permit, whichever is greater. Sc during the boom years they were paying us a tremendous amount of money. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You said whatever was greater. So they weren't paying us more than 50,000. Page 78 of 89 August 25, 2010 CCPC/EAR MR. RAMSEY: No, whichever is greater, either $50,000 or 10 percent -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. MR. RAMSEY: So they were paying -- I'm sorry, yes, ma'am. COMMISSIONER CARON: But I think if you look back, that figure never exceeded something like $250,000, which maybe gave us two units instead of one. MR. RAMSEY: Correct. And the beauty of the Marco Island fund is that the funds aren't required to be used on Marco Island. So they provide an outstanding ability for the County Commissioners to use those funds for activities that are not grant eligible. Some examples have been relocating a donated manufactured home to Immokalee, paying permitting fees in Immokalee. Additionally, through the interlocal agreements with the City of Marco and the City of Naples, we retain the entitlement funding from the state and federal government, and that allows us to keep that administrative cost, the 10 percent administrative to pay staff. And then they're entitled to certain amount of federal grant money each year. So there is a benefit, both from using their population demographics in our information, in our entitlement, and -- but I do agree that it is somewhat of a tricky hand -off. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: It would just be nice to know that in the future negotiations, if there are any, that someone as a member of this county staff has a handle on the value of those to each community so we know how much they've getting and we can negotiate in maybe a better position for the county, if need be. MR. RAMSEY: Absolutely. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Pages 4 and 5? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I do, Mark. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Schiffer. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: First let's go to Objective 2. What do we do with the Collier Housing Development Corporation, Buddy, do we have to yank that out? MR. RAMSEY: I would. And maybe just reference just various nonprofit and for profit providers of affordable housing. The Collier County Development Corporation, now known as the Collier County -- they slightly changed their name. They more do a home buyer education and foreclosure prevention now, not so much vertical construction. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: So what do you think we should place in there, or do you have it under control, Mike? MS. MOSCA: It's actually, it's under the objective achievement analysis, second paragraph. Were going to add the phrase, for profit and not for profit providers of affordable housing. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Murray? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I have a question. Page 5, under Policy 1.4, Policy Achievement Analysis, and second sentence up it says in targeted areas of the county. Affordable work force housing in targeted areas of the county. I know that the law says they are to be essentially divided out equally among -- so the question then is really important. I didn't realize we had targeted areas in the county. What does that mean? That was so that you got a break. MR. RAMSEY: I believe what that is saying, sir, is that targeted areas -- COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I think that's a serious word there. And I think that needs to be looked at again to see whether that's a real statement that is intended, in other words, they really are targeted areas, or are you going to comply with the law that says that that affordable housing shall be distributed equally among the districts. Very serious question for a number of us. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Unfortunately the law doesn't say what you just said. That's really unfortunate. The policy was changed back a few years back and it did say what you say. And when we discussed the idea of adding required acreage to all the projects coming through, I forgot the terminology we used -- COMMISSIONER CARON: Inclusionary zoning. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Inclusionary zoning, we failed to focus on some of the smaller language changes in Page 79 of 89 August 25, 2010 CCPC /EAR this element. One of those small language changes was taken -- where the county said the county shall distribute affordable housing equitably, which is what you're quoting, to the new words that we have today, which says the county shall seek to distribute. Basically we diluted that effort. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Yes, we did. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And that dilution is inconsistent with Florida Statute. So — I mean, Mr. Murray's got a good point, we're not consistent with statute. We have a different policy that I believe is not consistent with statute. And I think it's going to cause some problems. And I'm sorry, Bob, I wanted to make sure you -- COMMISSIONER MURRAY: No, I'm not upset. That's fine. I think it needed to be said. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, the statute is 163.317.6.F.1.G. And it says the following, housing element -- we shall have a comprehensive plan that will include the following elements. A housing element consisting of standards, plans and principles be followed in the creation or preservation of affordable housing to minimize the need for additional local services and avoid the concentration of affordable housing units only in specific areas of the jurisdiction. We don't know if we've done that or not because we don't have a study that tells us if we've actually accomplished that goal. Nor do we have a requirement that that goal is to be attained. And I think that somehow this policy needs to be brought back to that more aggressive stance. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Absolutely. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I think maybe that's where Bob was heading. And I wanted to make sure that the -- since I did have a copy of the statute I got a chance to relay it to you all, because I think we need to be going there more favorably. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Can't you just take out those two words, seek -- Collier County shall instead of -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: We could -- COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Instead of seek to. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's, I mean, if this Board wants to -- COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Mark, are you saying that you don't think that it should be concentrated in Immokalee, the affordable housing as it has been for the last, I guess, 20 years? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I'm not saying it shouldn't be, I'm saying that we, in order to comply with the statute, we need to do a study to find out how we've avoided concentrating affordable housing only in specific areas of the jurisdiction. I don't know how they're going to lay out the areas of the jurisdiction. I'm not sure how that terminology's going to fit together. When it does, we need to see if we've over - concentrated in any one area. Immokalee, on the other hand, because of its demographics may have a different outcome in that study. Maybe the median price of a home in Immokalee may be different than it is along the coast and there you may have a different demographic. I don't know. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Curiously, once the study's been determined as to what the inventory is, where it is, the word targeted may very well come into play because of the fact that there are places that do not have the equality. And the effort can be made to direct some affordable housing in those areas where they properly should be. That will serve to help on greenhouse gases and vehicle miles traveled, the whole thing. So it's an important issue. I couldn't stress it enough. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: I support it. But every time I've been on this Board and they've tried to put affordable housing in other areas of the county, the room is always full, you know, of objectors. So I'm surprised that it's even stated as a policy, since it's never really been completed. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ms. Caron? COMMISSIONER CARON: Yeah, I do think that that study is the important thing. I don't think we should make any changes to this policy at this point until we've actually seen that study and analyzed that study and vetted it in the public. Again, back to our -- this Board's policy on how to handle things. So that study apparently is going to be coming to us. Do we have any idea when? MS. MOSCA: The study should be completed by December and it's actually going directly to the Board of Page 80 of 89 August 25, 2010 CCPC /EAR County Commissioners. It was a Board - directed exercise. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Could we know that information before the EAR adoption so we could weigh in on this issue? You'll have it pretty close by then, so you'll at least be able to verbally give us some kind of -- MS. MOSCA: We should certainly be able to e-mail the status, the report, everything. But of course the Board of County Commissioners won't take any sort of action on it, acceptance of the report until December 14th. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But see, to take those two words out is no different a process than it took to put the two words in. We didn't go through any public vetting or public process. We went through a meeting like this in which nobody noticed it because they're all focused on inclusionary zoning. So I'm not sure we would need to change the process for to put this back the way it was before it got inadvertently changed. Ms. Homiak? COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: That isn't what we're doing here. Part of this is to try and make some changes possibly to reduce vehicle miles traveled and greenhouse gas emissions. So wouldn't you want to try to distribute work force housing equitably? I mean, everywhere? I mean, those two words are stopping that, basically. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I think that's the goal. Brad? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Yeah, I mean, I don't -- I think it should be put in the right place, but distributing it evenly may not be the right place. I mean, you want it along transit routes, you want near employment COMMISSIONER MURRAY: No, that's not the law -- COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Equitably, not evenly. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: What is equitably mean, and equally? In other words, uniformly? COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: It's mostly talking about affordable work force housing. So, I mean, it's intended to be possibly -- I mean, the whole concept is to get it closer to where people work -- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Correct, which may not be -- COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: -- and affordable for those people. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Right. Which then does tend to put it in, you know, smaller locations. Right now it's happening by nature because no one's building work force housing, no one's building affordable housing. We're remodeling existing neighborhoods, existing buildings, and therefore the economy is placing it where the value of it should be. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Murray, did you — COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Yeah, I did. But I -- this is really a good conversation. Look, the way I see this, right now if DCA were to pick up on it, we would be out of compliance in terms of equitable distribution. So at the minimum that needs to be rephrased, and I think the policy achievement analysis is just a set of words today. This is not the same analysis that was made earlier, was it? May have had similar words or some structure. But this is today's analysis, is it not? MS. MOSCA: That is correct. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Okay. So somebody can change this to be reflective of the law, and then when the inventory is determined then this body and others can go about trying to make things work better. But I'm concerned that if you don't change it you might find yourself in a little bit of a problem. And you're right, Mark, if our body was the one that modified phrasing the last time in a meeting like this, I see no problem in going back and modifying it to where it should be, certainly. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: David, did you want something to interject? MR. WEEKS: For the record again, David Weeks of Comprehensive Planning staff. A few comments. One is the phrase equitable distribution, even if we change it to a mandate, back to shall equitably distribute, there's still flexibility because ultimately the Board of County Commissioners determines what that wording means. Secondly, I believe the genesis of that requirement goes back to that concern for creating a concentration of affordable work force housing, probably the word slum was used, I think inappropriately, but that's a perception. And as I think we're all aware, Commissioner Fiala in particular has consistently expressed a concern about having so much affordable work force housing placed in the East Naples area, as a generic term. To try to equitably distribute the affordable housing I think is a worthy goal to pursue, but the reality is if you Page 81 of 89 August 25, 2010 CCPC/EAR look at commission districts or if you look at planning communities, whatever geography you use to determine what the areas are that you want to equitably distribute this type of housing in, there are real differences in those geographies, both economically, as in the value of land, the value of dwelling units in that area, the amount of undeveloped land, the available land for the affordable housing to be developed is going to vary by geographic area. So the ability to actually accomplish that equitable distribution simply may not be there. Mr. Midney brought up a point, if we were to view, if we were to mandate that the housing be distributed equitably and if we were to view that very strictly, then it may be that someone comes forth with an affordable housing project, let's say it's in Immokalee and the Board has to deny that, even though there might be a demonstrated need because we have an unequitable distribution, Immokalee is already too high on the scale. And for those reasons, I would suggest that we not change it to a mandate but that we leave it as it's worded or something similar to that, that we will seek to but not mandated. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: One thing that you need to be aware of, Immokalee doesn't need the benefit of any affordable housing language at all. They have densities far in excess of any affordable language that we can possibly accrue in the county. So to even think this is going to impact Immokalee in any way it's changed, it won't. Because if you want to do affordable housing, you get the density by right, you just go to Immokalee and do it. So I'm not sure that an argument that this is going to hurt us in areas where we want more affordable housing is applicable based on our zoning standards that already provide the density far beyond what this would have provided. MR. WEEKS: I would respond back that the affordable housing by right in Irnmokalee is an unknown. The provision is there in the Immokalee Master Plan but the implementing LDC language has yet to be developed. So though I would tend to agree that the objective was to make it much easier, and we hope that happens, it still is an unknown, we just don't know if it will happen or not. But I would also mention that, aside from Immokalee, what about other geographic areas? What about the greater East Naples area? The same scenario, if there's a demonstrated need for it, does the county want to put itself in a position where it may have to deny a request because of the inequitable distribution that may exist? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ms. Homiak, then Mr. Murray, did you have anything you want to add? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: No, I want to pick on David. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: I really would like to see this have a lot more work on it then -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I think that's the direction that we're going to end up with staff is they look at the alternatives that we're talking about to change this, but bring it back with either lack of or support of the study you're doing. And if the study doesn't support it, well, then we may have to consider a way of saying something here that isn't consistent with just changing it back. MR. BOSI: I will say that the study is going to give you a distribution of the what the market rate housings are or how they're distributed. But when we talk about seeking to distribute affordable work force housing, I think those are ones by agreement. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, however it needs to be -- MR. BOSI: And we have the map as of now. We have that map available. And there's not an equitable distribution. I mean, there's over 2,000 units that are allocated to Immokalee out of a total of close to 4,000. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Murray? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Yes, sir. You see, I realize this gets really confusing because you have the low then you have the low, low and then you have what we now call affordable work force, right? And I guess, David, what you were indicating is that somebody making a case for it. So what came to my mind is maybe the Economic Development Council was fortunate to get an organization to come in and it's enough to warrant hiring a bunch of folks. And that would be the kind of case that you would say that they'd come to the Board with and plead on the basis of But other that, I can't imagine, and I imagine you can, where anybody else can make an argument that they have to be located in North Naples or South Naples or Faca Palm, or whatever that's called. And because as you indicated, clearly there's a difference in the Estates properties, et cetera, et cetera, et cetera. And I don't want to belabor this thing, but I just think that the key here is we ought to try to comply with the Page 82 of 89 August 25, 2010 CCPC/EAR law, which is I'm sure what you agree with. And we ought to avoid focusing or targeting any area. And I'm not speaking specifically for greater East Naples, because for all I know North Naples could be inundated with work force housing. And if we're only talking about work force housing, it's not so much of a problem. The problem for my understanding is that low, very low and work force are now lumped together in this thing. And that is where we have to really get a hold on it. So I don't know that that will help in any way, but that's something I think if it can give you some ideas. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, any more comments on that. We're on Page -- we were on -- we're on Page 3 -- no, we're on Page 5. So let's move on to Page 6 and 7. Anybody have any comments? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Just one quick thing. Mike, could you send me a copy or reference link to the law that we're not in compliance with? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The law regarding? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Distribution of -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Florida Statute, you mean? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: -- work force housing. Yeah, do you know it? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Here, I'll give it to you, save Mike the trouble. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: 163 something. MR. BOSI: Thank you, Chair. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You're welcome. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Mark's got laws in his pocket. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I've got to deal with guys like you, what the heck. Okay, six and seven. How about eight and nine, anybody have any questions through Page 9? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And Mike, this begins the asterisk policies. And when I went to discover what those little asterisks mean like in Policy 2.8 on Page 8, I realize that they are for the City of Naples. Nothing to do with Collier County. So what does it mean to have a City of Naples policy -- and there's quite a few of them, because as we go on in this element you'll find that there's a whole pile of them that have nothing to do with Collier County. Page 11, the whole page practically is the City of Naples, as -- and there's some on Page 12. It's scattered throughout the entire thing. What good is this in our GMP? How enforceable is it? Have we been enforcing it? Do we know what the city is doing about it? Has the city done what they said they would do or what we told them they had to do by these policies? How are we -- where are we at with all this stuff? MS. MOSCA: I'll address that. It's actually a joint housing element with the City of Naples. You'll see throughout the element that there'll be Naples and county policy direction, as well as some specific to Naples. When I worked with the City of Naples, they provided updates for those specific Naples policies. I'm not sure how the element was originally established, but somehow we have the joint element. And as Buddy had stayed, he administers a lot of those funds for affordable housing. And I'll defer to Buddy if he wants to add something. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: If they decide not to follow the policy, how is it enforced, what method of enforcement do we have? Do we have any power? MR. RAMSEY: I don't have any power to withhold entitlement funding for them or anything. If they have an eligible project, I have to give them the money. MS. MOSCA: They're required also, Mr. Chair, they're required to go through the same process that we're going through with this particular Housing Element. They'll provide their updates to the DCA as part of their evaluation and appraisal report. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I guess then, because of some agreement it's appropriate that they have specific policies for them in our GMT. MS. MOSCA: To the best of my knowledge. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ms. Caron? Page 83 of 89 August 25, 2010 CCPC/EAR COMMISSIONER CARON: Why wouldn't we just have one policy that says the county will administer and -- I mean, again, I'm questioning why we have nothing to say about, for example 3.5, which wants to protect Old Naples. But we can't do anything to further that policy or not. So it seems to me that a lot of this could come out, you know, and I don't know what the agreement says. MS. MOSCA: Well, again, it is a joint element. So we're not responsible for enforcing the City of Naples policies. This is something -- they don't have their own Housing Element. So they'll have to, again, provide updates to these policies to the DCA justifying some of these actions, programs have been completed and so forth. Just as we're doing here. COMMISSIONER CARON: I was just wondering why in their Growth Management Plan wouldn't they have a housing -- what are they saving by giving it to us? I don't know. MS. MOSCA: I don't have an answer, I don't. COMMISSIONER CARON: It seems odd. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Murray? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Just to be clear, Policies 3.5, 3.6 and I think 3.7 as well, and perhaps more, they are the result of an interlocal agreement? MS. MOSCA: I don't know the answer. I tried to find out. I just don't know -- COMMISSIONER MURRAY: If they were the result of an interlocal agreement, you could start off the statement with, for instance Policy 3.6, in accordance with the interlocal agreement, the county and the city, or the City of Naples will study, however you want to phrase it. What I'm driving at is you find a hook that you can relate to it. Because it surely does look very strange. When I read this, I said okay, that's nice, we're recording what they've recorded. Presumably they recorded. Perhaps we are the only ones who've recorded it. MS. MOSCA: I think if you look at the entire element in context you'll see the various goals, including the objectives and policies. And then the beginning of the element states that it is a joint element. So I think it lends itself to state that there will be policies within -- for the City of Naples included within the county's Housing Element. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: And I don't really have a problem with that part of it. But I guess our discussion here is centered on the fact that we have these things popping out in our GMP. We've spoken about agreements that were extant, and we don't know much about those. But if those two are tied together in some way, it certainly seems a nexus where you could relate to it. Other than that, I really don't know why they're in there, even though you say if you take it context. Because then we need to have a preliminary statement or prefatory statement regarding that, which we don't. MS. MOSCA: Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, Melissa then Brad. COMMISSIONER AHERN: On Page 11, Policy 3.3, my question was in reference to SHIP funding. Are we even receiving SHIP funding anymore? MR. RAMSEY: Not currently, no. I would hope the program -- legislation did not kill the program, so the program is still active. It's still an active statute. I have the report, unfortunately, due September 15th to the state. But no, the last money we received was called Florida Home Buyer Opportunity Program, and that was to provide up to $8,000 to fast time home buyers eligible for tax credit. I hope to get funded again in fiscal year 11/12. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Go ahead, Mr. Murray. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: On Policy 3.3, which we just, I think, related to, moderate income residents, are they the same people that would be using affordable work force housing? MR. RAMSEY: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Brad, did you have a follow -up? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: We should check in. There's got to be a reason the City of Naples is part of Collier County. Poor Melissa represents it. So Buddy, must there be a reason that they're in there? I'm sure we didn't do it just to frustrate ourselves or put a bunch of requirements we don't have anything to do with. MR. RAMSEY: This was done before my time. My guess would be that don't have the staff capacity to administer affordable housing programs. Page 84 of 89 August 25, 2010 CCPC/EAR I recently held a meeting with some staff in the City of Naples requesting -- they're requesting my assistance in how they should spend some money they received from Coastland Center Mall when they built it, and they want to do rehabilitation to homes in the City of Naples. So I think it might be more of a capacity issue. And that by not having their own they don't have to maintain a housing staff department such as us. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And they pay you through some agreement? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Sounds like the agreement. MR. RAMSEY: Maybe. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, Mike, there's a lot of similar issues as we go through this. I don't know if there's a point to even bringing them up if you guys are going to evaluate this at some point as an overall program to try see why we even need these things. And if the city can be taken out, that's fine, but we have quite a few policies that's referring to the City of Naples. And repeatedly it says they've not been created or they're not been done. The last time this was reviewed was probably in seven years ago in the last EAR. And here we are seven years later and I bet you we could go back and find the same verbiage in response to analysis. I'm not sure why it's all there. And earlier Nancy Payton said something to the effect that we have so many policies, if don't put a timeline on them we don't ever do anything with them, or something to that effect. And actually we don't. These are a good example. Ms. Caron? COMMISSIONER CARON: Well, that was partly my point in saying it's sort of out of site, out of mind. If they don't have to have a housing elements in their GMP, then they don't think about it either until Buddy comes to them and says, here, you have some money, how are we going to spend it. MR. RAMSEY: That's becoming more and more difficult as well on Naples and Marco, is finding eligible projects. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Let's move to 14 and 15. COMMISSIONER AHERN: I had a question on 13. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Go ahead. COMMISSIONER AHERN: Policy 4.2 in reference to the demolition, I'm wondering what county funding is being used for that? 1 believe the NSP reduced the amount allowed for demolition? MR. RAMSEY: Correct. Until the neighborhood stabilization program, or NSP, came around, I believe this was all run through code enforcement, and that I believe a lien was placed against the property for the cost of the demolition. We set aside a small amount of money in the neighborhood stabilization -- NSP for demo and recently actually saved a lot of money by partnering with the fire department, and they burned the house down for us as a training exercise, thus reducing our cost. But NSP3 is announced and the county will receive money under that and we'll be able to revisit strategies. And if that's demolition of blighted structures then -- COMMISSIONER AHERN: So we're not using funding outside of grants? MR. RAMSEY: No, generally what we do is the homes are in such a condition that they can be salvaged. This one, due to extensive, extensive termite damage was just not feasible to save. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, 14 and 15? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Yeah. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Murray? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I love this one, Policy 5.4, especially when you get to the next page and it says, however, the city remains interested in incentives to preserve historic structures. I'm almost embarrassed to see that be in there. We didn't achieve it. We don't know if we ever will achieve it, but they're still interested. Could we do better than that? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I think it goes back to the overall evaluation of all the City of Naples Page 85 of 89 August 25, 2010 CCPC /EAR inclusionary policies in our GMP. And I think staff needs to sit down with the City of Naples and says look, you guys are going to do this or not. If not, let's just change the GMP language so that this EAR brings everything back to center and we can start right going forward, whether you have to put more flexibility for your time frames or eliminate the time frames or refer to them differently, I think that needs to be done. Because right now this entire section of the GMP is woefully inaccurate. And I don't think it's the county's fault. It seems to be more of a lacking of the City of Naples. Melissa's area, you know. COMMISSIONER AHERN: Let's have a lot of questions in this -- the last paragraph states that the policy remains relevant and then discusses the joint study between the county and city to be completed by 2011. Is that feasible? MS. MOSCA: My understanding from my discussions with City of Naples staff is that the city is working presently with county staff. The date of 2011 was in fact provided to me by the city. So I'm going to assume so. And I'll contact the City of Naples again and try to, you know, clean that up and work closely with them to get some sort of action plan or work plan so that I can bring that information back to this -- COMMISSIONER AHERN: Who would they be working with at the county? MS. MOSCA: I would imagine that it would be zoning staff for the historic preservation or the preservation board itself. I don't know for sure, but I will check into that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, anything else on Pages 16 and 17? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Objective 6 on Page 17, Collier County shall monitor changes to state and federal regulations pertaining to group care facilities and as necessary amend this Land Development Code to ensure compliance. If I'm not mistaken, state statutes have changed, the ACLF reference has been replaced by a more broader CCRC type reference. You may want to check that. Because if that's the case we'd need consider amendments to the LDC in regards to that. I know the LDC still refers ACLF. Pages 18 and 19. (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: On Page 19,1 think, Mike, I pointed this out to you. The Objective 7 refers to -- that's on Page 18, refers to urban coastal fringe in the last three words. On Page 19, Policy 7.3 refers to the coastal high hazard area. I want to make sure they mean different areas or they're trying to mean the same area. I'm not sure which. MS. MOSCA: That actually was a very good catch. It should be changed in Objective 7 to coastal high hazard area. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I have a point. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, Mr. Murray. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: At the bottom of 19, should be noted that the process for awarding funds to rehabilitate residential units must be competitive, comma, not restricted to certain geographies within the county. As a result, the county recommends revising the objective to remove the restriction that rehabilitated units must be located only in the Immokalee urban area, et cetera, et cetera, et cetera. I think this kind of has a connection with that other question that was raised and we spoke probably more than we needed to about it. You might want to -- I mean, I can understand this. And this comports more closely with what we were trying to say. Okay, thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, Pages 18 and 19? Did I already say that? Pages 20 and 21? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And then we'll wrap up on Page 22. Any questions? Melissa? COMMISSIONER AHERN: Policy 9.3, are we currently expediting plan reviews for housing projects? MS. MOSCA: No, we're not presently. MR. RAMSEY: Well -- I'm sorry, for energy conservation design, no, we're not currently. But for affordable housing, yes, we are. Page 86 of 89 August 25, 2010 CCPC /EAR COMMISSIONER AHERN: I'm familiar with the affordable but I'm wondering why we are not doing this. MR. RAMSEY: I believe, and I don't want to speak out of turn, that this -- these policies are new to the element to try to recognize the new focus on energy efficiency. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Wait a minute, it's new to the element? What do you mean new to the element? Being introduced this time in this EAR? MS. MOSCA: Yes, it's an addition as part of the legislative change for House Bill 697. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Where does it say that, because we -- MS. MOSCA: Right above Objective 9, the lead -in. MR. RAMSEY: So all of Objective 9, I believe, is new. MS. MOSCA: That's correct. MR. RAMSEY: I'm sorry, Objective 9 and all the policies therein are going to be new. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Ready? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Go ahead, Mr. Murray. Were you done, Melissa? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Policy 9.5,1 think I just want to be absolutely sure that we are talking here when we're inserting ourselves, the county, promoting the incorporation. Not that I disagree with it for all. But we are relating it only to construction and rehabilitation associated with affordable housing, correct? MR. RAMSEY: It does not state that implicitly, but we certainly could say. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Could somebody, could somebody then construe that this should be a whole new program of marketing and advertising and so forth to make sure that we buy locally and we buy energy star building appliances? I don't know, I know that the federal government, you know, does the SEER, I think that's what it's called, S -E -E -R rating. They have their public announcements and the state has the public announcements. Since we have some budgetary issues, I just wondered if we needed to continue to promote. And there are various ways of promoting. You have essentially a captive audience when you're dealing with work force people who are very low or low. But you wouldn't have that otherwise. So as long as it -- I'm happy, as long as it relates only to the housing. MR. RAMSEY: And I would agree with you wholeheartedly in the sense that we are putting in higher SEER rating air conditioners and other energy efficients into affordable housing because that household really needs the benefit of a lower energy cost on their monthly bill. So you could say the county shall promote the incorporation of U.S. EPA energy star building and appliance programs into construction and rehabilitation practices of grant funded affordable housing. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: And that's fine. And I have no objection to it being -- I'm just worried about duplicative costs where these things get snowballed, okay? MS. MOSCA: The issue with HB 697 is that it applies to all housing. So I understand that you want to restrict it only to affordable housing projects, but -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Why? MS. MOSCA: Well, I thought that's what Mr. Murray was saying -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Why wouldn't the people who have the biggest appliances and the biggest homes and run the massive 10,000 square foot facilities, why don't we demand they use the higher SEER rating because they can afford it more than the affordable people can. Why would we -- MS. MOSCA: I agree. I thought was perhaps my misunderstanding. I thought -- COMMISSIONER MURRAY: What I'm trying to avoid is taking on another activity that relates to housing and broadening it to everything, and the next thing you know we'll be requiring a permit if you don't have a SEER rated 93. That's my concern. I don't think it's excessive. I do agree that we want to advocate the highest SEER rating, no question. Just don't need another budgetary item. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Schiffer. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: All the building codes have minimum standards, which are pretty high now. And this isn't saying you have to go above that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I don't think you need to change the language because I don't think that's what Mr. Murray intended -- Page 87 of 89 August 25, 2010 CCPC/EAR COMMISSIONER MURRAY: That's not what I was asking, I was qualifying. MS. MOSCA: I'm sorry. MR. RAMSEY: I apologize. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, that takes us to the end of the housing. Is there anybody else that has any comments about the housing? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Let me just say one thing. We can congratulate Buddy and his team. They spent $7.3 million on time, which most communities didn't, in the neighborhood stabilization program to buy houses, remodel them -- remodeling is work for contractors, and then they're selling them now and bringing that money in to flip it again. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Fantastic. MR. RAMSEY: Thank you. It was a lot of work. In 18 months it was a lot of work. But we totaled 83 units acquired. So far we've already paid out actually over $700,000 to local contractors and millions more to follow as the projects roll on. So I appreciate the kind words, Brad, and all your help on the Affordable Housing Advisory Committee. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. And that gets us through the Housing Element. We have a few minutes left, and Cherie's not a bit tired. So we have one item that only is a few pages. It's the Intergovernmental Element. I know Carolina is -- oh, right. It's not a complicated one, I hope. So why don't we just try to get through that one so we can cross it off our list and we'll remaining for Friday. Mike, I'm not going to ask you to say anything. So let's just get Pages 1, 2 and 3. Anybody have any questions on Pages 1, 2 or 3? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And the last pages, four, five and six, and then the back -up material. Is there any questions from the Planning Commission on that element so we know we're -- either leave it as staffs suggesting or any issues? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I've got one, two and three. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The ICE? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I thought I was looking at the right one. Intergovernmental Coordination? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah, it's countywide assessment, ICE. There's six pages. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: No, no, I know where -- I'm way in the back. Okay. No wonder I didn't have a problem. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Are there any comments or questions on the ICE Element at all? Anybody from the -- there's nobody from the public. David, you want to criticize anything about it at all? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, well, with that, I think we wrapped up as much as we can probably do today. COMMISSIONER AHERN: Mark? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes, ma'am. COMMISSIONER AHERN: On Page 6, I just put a not, Policy 3.2 there was just some grammatical errors. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Where's that. COMMISSIONER AHERN: Policy 3.2, the rewrite. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Yeah, I have a grammatical, I'll talk to you about it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: There's a grammatical in the rewrite? COMMISSIONER AHERN: It says requires the Collier County to procedures to plan. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's normal. To develop procedures to plan for the future. So Mike will surely catch that one in the go around. Thank you. Okay, with that I think we're finished. We would need a recommendation or a motion -- Mike, is there anything else to wrap up? MR. BOSI: No, but the workshop was advertised for today, just to let the audience know that we will be continuing it on the 27th. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's what I was just going to do. I'm looking for a motion to continue to 8:30 in Page 88 of 89 August 25, 2010 CCPCIEAR the morning on Friday morning here in these chambers. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: So moved. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Second? COMMISSIONER AHERN: Second. COMMISSIONER CARON: Second. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Melissa and Donna both. Let's do them two at a time. All in favor, signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Aye. COMMISSIONER AHERN: Aye. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Aye. COMMISSIONER CARON: Aye. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Aye. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye. Anybody opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: We're out of here. Thank you all. * * * * * * * * * * * ** There being no further business for the good of the County, the meeting was adjourned by order of the Chair at 4:50 p.m. COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION MARK P. STRAIN, Chairman ATTEST:D�n�� G DWIGHT E. BROCK, CLERK These minutes approved by the Board one, as presented ✓ or as corrected TRANSCRIPT PREPARED ON BEHALF OF GREGORY COURT REPORTING SERVICE, INC. BY CHERIE' NOTTINGHAM Page 89 of 89