Loading...
CCPC Minutes 08/27/2012 EARAugust 27, 2010 CCPC/EAR TRANSCRIPT OF THE EAR MEETING OF THE COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION Naples, Florida August 27, 2010 LET IT BE REMEMBERED, that the Collier County Planning Commission, in and for the County of Collier, having conducted business herein, met on this date at 8:30 a.m. in SPECIAL SESSION in Building "F" of the Government Complex, East Naples, Florida, with the following members present: ALSO PRESENT: Jeffrey Klatzkow, County Attorney Heidi Ashton - Cicko, Assistant County Attorney Mike Bosi, Comprehensive Planning Manager Page 1 of 44 Mark Strain, Chairman Melissa Ahern Donna Reed -Caron Karen Homiak Paul Midney (Absent) Bob Murray (Absent) Brad Schiffer August 27, 2010 CCPC/EAR CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, good morning, everybody. This is a continuation of a workshop that started on Wednesday for the EAR, the Evaluation and Appraisal Report. It's an every seven -year review of the Collier County Growth Management Plan. Today we will go through the remaining elements. If everybody will please rise to start the meeting with the Pledge of Allegiance. (Pledge of Allegiance was recited in unison.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: ** *Okay, roll call. This -- before we do, Ms. Ebert, her first meeting won't be till next month as our first regular meeting. Mr. Murray said he couldn't make it till 11:00. And with that, Donna, would you like to do the -- COMMISSIONER CARON: Mr. Schiffer? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I'm here. COMMISSIONER CARON: Ms. Ahern? COMMISSIONER AHERN: Here. COMMISSIONER CARON: Mr. Midney is absent. Ms. Caron is here. Mr. Strain? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Here. COMMISSIONER CARON: Ms. Homiak? COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Here. COMMISSIONER CARON: And that is it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: We have a quorum. Okay, the order of today's agenda. And Mike, I don't think we need a refresher on the introduction, I think we're okay. But I'll let everybody know where I think we need to be today. The first one up will be the drainage sub - element. The second one will be the natural groundwater aquifer recharge sub - element. The third one will be the Conservation and Coastal Management Element, CCME. Then we'll do the sanitary sewer, the potable water and last the capital improvement. And the reason for that hierarchy is Stan had -- actually, Stan's new sidekick, I guess he didn't know the rules of the road and he e- mailed me and said look, we're the most important department in the county, do you mind if we go fast this morning. And I said, well, what about the public? He said no, we should be first. I said oh, okay, you must be new. Stan, I'll let you take it from there. MR. CHRZANOWSKI: Yes, sir. Good morning, Stan Chrzanowski, with Engineering Review Services. And you're right, this morning -- my last day is September 30th. I'm retiring. My replacement is going to be Jack McKenna. They hired him about a month ago. He's probably going to do a better job than I did. And also with me I have Mac Hatcher and Jerry Kurtz from the stormwater department. Because the rules that -- so you do have quite a few people here that have other jobs. And this is a very important thing we're talking about, so you have a lot of points of view on this. I guess I'll get started. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, Stan, before you do, you have been an unbelievably dedicated individual to work with all these years. And I know this board and I myself have relied on you many times for good guidance, practical guidance. And the county as a whole is just going to be at such a loss without you here. So I hope that you're going to be out there somehow so that when Jack has these questions that come up that you always handled so well, that he can at least look at your resources once in a while, so -- MR. CHRZANOWSKI: Yes, sir, not a problem, except I don't take my cell phone when I go kayaking, so -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, neither do I. And that's probably where you and I will bump into each other the most from here on out, so -- thank you, Stan. COMMISSIONER CARON: We need Stan when we discuss the cord method again. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I think that's why he retired. COMMISSIONER CARON: Yeah, I think so, too. MR. CHRZANOWSKI: It's one of the reasons, yes. I'll make sure Jack knows all about that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: By the way -- MR. CHRZANOWSKI: You take a cord and (indicating.) Page 2 of 44 August 27, 2010 CCPC/EAR CHAIRMAN STRAIN: On our next Thursday's agenda we had an introduction of Jack McKenna as the new county engineer. Did you want to do that now to save your having to be here next Thursday? It doesn't -- I know it's not going to — unless he's going to take an hour and a half to tell us about himself, I'm sure that we could just get done so you guys haven't got to the come back next Thursday at the same time. I know your department's shorthanded and busy, so -- MR. CHRZANOWSKI: Yes, sir, I'd rather do it now. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Let's just -- yeah, if there's any more than what you've already done, just let's get it done. If not, at least we can stand up and say hi to Jack since he's going to be filling your shoes. MR. CHRZANOWSKI: I'll let Jack come up here and tell you about himself. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Great, thank you. MR. McKENNA: Good morning, Commissioners. My name's Jack McKenna. I suppose I'm fortunate to be taking over after Stan. I'm very fortunate to have had a time of overlap; that's been a great asset in many ways, not the least of which is becoming friends with Stan. We've dealt together on many topics over the years, but never had the one-on -one contact like I've had here this past few weeks, and I've enjoyed that immensely. If you have any specific questions about me, go over my background? I've been down here since'79, passed -- well, since '98 I've been working with Gulf Bay at Fiddler's Creek. And prior to that I was in the consulting arena with Agnoli, Barber and Brundage for 11 years prior. Prior to that in vertical construction. And also worked for the county in the early Eighties. So it -- was chairman for several terms on the Productivity Committee. And looking forward to being back with the county and serving the public once again. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, if any board can try to confuse you, we will. Anybody have any questions or comments for Jack? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Thank you. Nice to hear you're on board, Jack, thank you. Stan, we'll move into the drainage element then. Do you want to do an introduction and then we go through the pages at a time like we did on the rest, or do you have any introduction to provide at all? MR. CHRZANOWSKI: No, sir, no introduction. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Let's start right at it then. The first -- let's go to the Pages 1, 2 and 3, see if there's any comments from the Planning Commission on those first three pages. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And Mark, this is the drainage sub - element, not -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The drainage sub - element, right. We're not going to get -- yeah, we've got groundwater and CCME after this, so -- okay, any -- pages four and five? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: On Page 4, Mike, are references to a couple -- at least three different -- four different codes and ordinances, all of which as amended. And there's been others that I've missed pointing out to you. But when I catch some of them as examples, I think I'll mention so you can make sure we note it. Pages six and seven? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: One question, Mark. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Go ahead. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Stan, in here there's -- and it happened before a little bit -- there's a public comment that somebody wanted a more holistic approach to this. What do you think they were meaning? I mean, I think I know what the word holistic means, but -- MR. CHRZANOWSKI: Actually, you're going to have to state the question a little more explanatory because -- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: In the bottom of Page 7 there's a public comment, and it happened in prior things where the watershed management and water resource management should have a more holistic approach. I mean, what do you think's missing that they're looking for with that comment? MR. CHRZANOWSKI: I always thought we had a holistic approach. I mean, we talk about groundwater, we talk about hydrology, we talk about surface water flow, we incorporate the LIDAR into it. I don't know how you could get more holistic than that. MR. SCHMIDT: I may have some input on that. Page 3 of 44 August 27, 2010 CCPC /EAR For the record, Corby Schmidt. At that hearing some of the public comments were similar. And in this case where that holistic approach was brought up, I think the people were talking about taking into account the environment, the surroundings, the land nearby, the neighborhood, perhaps, as well as the things Stan talked about. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Corby, was the concern that some of the -- like the drainage ponds weren't reflective of the neighborhood, stuff like that, or what do you think they were -- MR. SCHMIDT: They were no more specific than that. Just offering their insights, but not specifically. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: All right, thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. And Stan, I don't know who wrote up the interpretations to the policies, but in Policy 3.4 -- and I don't know if Mike gave you a heads up on my question. Policy 3.4 reads, county improvements to and the maintenance of existing drainage facilities shall be a priority over new construction projects in the urban and Estates designated areas. So to me that means we've got new stuff to do in the urban and the Estates, but if existing drainage facilities in the other part of the county that have been there for a while have problems, they're a priority before we build new things. But then when you read the writeup it says, this policy requires that the county give major emphasis to drainage improvements in the Estates and urban areas, as opposed to other portions of the county. Do they mean — are they saying something different in those two statements? Because in one it seems the priority's supposed to be the existing, but in the writeup it seems to says the emphasize should be on the Estates and the urban, which seems to be the opposite direction that the policy first line states. MR. CHRZNANOWSKI: I should probably defer to Jerry Kurtz on that, since stormwater is the one res -- Jerry worked under road and bridge. MR. KURTZ: Hi. Jerry Kurtz. Yeah, I read the same thing you did and interpreted it the same way. I'd like to look at that. And there seems to be a little bit of a discontinuity between the two statements, so I agree. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Do you want to just clarify it by the time we get to the adoptions so we'll be in -- that's I think the only direction we need to worry about. MR. BOSI: Well, and just to point out, this policy is not being suggested for change, so you won't see it in adoption. I think that you just -- what you're providing is the clarification to -- this policy is saying that existing drainage problems shall take priorities over new projects. And it's not primarily focused upon a geographic as the primary point of this policy, but it's -- the point of this policy is that existing drainage problems shall take priority over new problems. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And I agree with you. But if it got into this document without someone realizing that's what it meant, someone who probably was reading this with the intention of being involved in it, maybe the policy is not reading clear enough. That's the only comment I want to leave you with. And if you think there's a way to tweak that policy so it's clearer so that it's kind of -- because if this rolled down and didn't come out at a public meeting and staff made interpretations of this GMP based on that and we ended up in the implementation, who knows where it would go. All I'm suggesting is make sure it's as clear as it needs to be. With that, we'll move on to Pages 8 and 9. Anybody have any questions on Pages 8 and 9? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, 10 and 11? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And the last one is Page 12. (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Corby, of course the Page 12 has the same issue with the house bills -- that 697 reference you made in here. If we're going to include a reference to it, I'm only suggesting that because you bring in the 2055 LLC study, that we actually place the recommendations we're trying to talk about in that study and language. MR. SCHMIDT: Understood. Mr. Chairman? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes, sir. MR. SCHMIDT: I do have a few comments. My work sheet pages are not the same as the ones you're working from. So if we could go back to Policy 4.1. Page 4 of 44 August 27, 2010 CCPC/EAR CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Sure. Okay. MR. SCHMIDT: The language in that policy refers to the Big Cypress Basin/South Florida Water Management District five -year plan. It's a simple matter of the terminology of the name of that document. We were told after the EAC workshop and after the ORC document was prepared that the Big Cypress Basin does not publish that five -year plan, it's actually the county that does that. And the correct title of that plan -- or the convect language that should be in this policy is the Big Cypress Basin Strategic Plan. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. And when I asked for a copy of that plan, Jerry I think got a response from the Big Cypress Basin that I must be confused and I meant the strategic plan, because they don't have a five -year plan. But I wasn't confused because now I know where I got my question from. So one of you just be consistent and make it strategic is all you're saying, that's fine. MR. SCHMIDT: It is. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Again, though, this is saying coordinate with, so I'm not sure there's an issue here with self-amending. But in order to make sure we don't get into a self - amending issue, it's one of the things that we may want to date, the strategic plan dated such and such. And then we know we've locked into a document that doesn't change the GNP every time it's changed. And that takes us to the end of the drainage issue. Stan, this is embarrassing, normally we have a lot of hard questions on you. Now Jack's going to think this is an easy pushover board. MR. CHRZANOWSKI: I was prepared to answer more than I was asked. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, that's like in deposition, you never say more than what you're asked to answer. Donna? COMMISSIONER CARON: Just before we leave this, I just want to confirm with staff that we were going to change Policy 6.2, is that correct, to reflect the 150 percent? We will update it? MR. BOSI: Yes. COMMISSIONER CARON: Okay, I just wanted to get that the on the record and confirm that. Thank you. MR. BOSI: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody in the audience want to comment on the drainage sub- element? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: ** *Okay, let's move on to the natural groundwater aquifer recharge sub - element. Thanks, guys. MR. CHRZANOWSKI: Thank you, sir. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Corby, I don't know if you need to do an introduction. This is pretty -- MR. SCHMIDT: As with the others, not necessary. If you'd simply like to get into the document. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Let's take Pages 1, 2 and 3. Anybody? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The objective, Mike, objective one, it says, the county shall continue review every two years and revise as necessary existing map delineations. Again, we're back into the self - amending issue. Would that be then self - amending the GMP by revising those every two years outside the process of the GMP? Under your achievement analysis, the second paragraph, it says, the objective should be revised to replace review every two years with review every three years and the biennial review with the three -year review. Well, first the self - amending issue would apply there again as a question. But then if this could be allowed, why would we even want to put the review period in there and tie ourselves to that? It wouldn't even be necessary. So I would just ask that question and see if it's even needed. MR. SMITH: For the record, Ray Smith, Pollution Control Department. I think it's important to put some sort of timeline on this. We're talking about the protection of our wellfields and the update of the modeling. The reason that I'm recommending that three years versus two years is to go through the process of updating the FLUE and updating Land Development Code to achieve that measure. It really takes about three years, along with the assessment of the data. So that's -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, so if the intention is to change this objective, or the, you know, outgoing Page 5 of 44 August 27, 2010 CCPC/EAR policies from that objective as well, based on the three -year review so that we actually change the GMP every three years for this objective, then I guess we're not self - amending, we're actually -- MR. BOSI: And to clarify a point is we don't change this policy, we don't change this objective, we change the maps that this objective is dealing with. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. Which changes the GMT. MR. BOSI: And it goes through the GMP amendment process, so -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's fine. That's what I've been saying all along — MR. BOSI: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- that seems to be the process -- MR. BOSI: The appropriate way -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- it should go through -- MR. BOSI: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- otherwise, all these documents become changed in the GMP changes without anybody knowing it. MR. BOSI: And I believe that's why the policy is structured in this way that we're going to change it from two years to three years, but every two or three years, whatever that time period is, it's through the GMP amendment process that we actually -- what the direction -- objective is asking us to do. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's great. That's for the better. Thank you. Pages 4 and 5? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mike, on Policy 1.5, the last darkened addition that you were going to make, the change, it refers to South Florida Water Management District's lower west coast water supply plan as amended. You know the question. MR. BOSI: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Self-amending issue. Pages 6 and 7? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: On Policy 2.4, Mike, it refers to high or prime recharge areas. Are those defined somewhere? How does anybody know what is high or prime versus any other? Do we have any way of knowing that so the public is aware of it? Since we're writing standards for them. MR. BOSI: Those are designations. And I should probably let Mr. Smith take this, but those are designations from the South Florida Water Management District, and this policy is just asking if we will evaluate whether we need to adopt more stringent standards than those standards that are adopted by the South Florida Water Management District regarding the high and prime recharge areas. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. But a member of the public reading this wouldn't know what you just said. So would we want to clarify to them that these are the high and prime recharge areas pursuant to whatever document they're found in? Or how would you -- how would the public know what that high and prime recharge areas are if they're doing due diligence on a piece of property to find it consistent with our Growth Management Plan? MR. BOSI: And I guess maybe there's more clarification needed, because it says, you know, standards for higher or prime recharge areas within two years of the South Florida Water Management District governing board's adoption of such areas. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. Have you ever been to that website? MR. BOSI: Well. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Wait till you see the data on that website. MR. BOSI: Once again, in terms of a policy level, I can't get into the pragmatic delivery of information services from that body, but this policy does I think give the clue to the reader that you've got a contact -- that the South Florida Water Management District is the agency that would adopt those and would have information related to them. Now, how easy? I guess that might be a question, I'm not sure how we could clean that up. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I understand. And I just want to make sure there's some way to tie the high and prime recharge areas and if their definitions are there. I use that South Florida site frequently, but my goodness is that Page 6 of 44 August 27, 2010 CCPC/EAR a huge site. They've got every -- I mean, tons of data on that site. Okay, Pages 8 and 9. Anybody have any questions on Pages 8 and 9? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mike, on Page 9, in objective five, Policy 5. 1, 5.2 and 5.3 uses the word critical. How would you -- how was that word critical refined so that someone knows if the groundwater recharge area that they want to do something in is a critical one versus anything that may not be critical? MR. BOSI: Well, I guess I'll have to defer to Mr. Smith, but I'm not sure if any of our recharge in our groundwater resources are anything but critical, so -- but maybe I will defer -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, why don't we just take the word critical out so it applies to all of them and there's no question about it. MR. BOSI: That would seem appropriate to me, but I speak from a lack of knowledge. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You know, someone might argue that the area that they're dealing with as a recharge isn't critical and this only refers to critical ones, and so is it -- Ray? MR. SMITH: We can drop the word critical. I mean, the focus is protection of our recharge areas, and let's cover it all. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I agree. And so I think if you don't mind, that would be a good way to clarify it. Pages 10 and 11 wrap it up. (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And Corby, we have the same reference to House Bill 697. MR. SCHMIDT: Understood. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody have any other questions with the natural groundwater and aquifer recharge sub - element? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Nancy? And any other speakers after Nancy, just come on up. MS. PAYTON: Nancy Payton, Florida Wildlife Federation. And again, it's a general comment, but focused on these proposed new objective and -- objective and policy. And again, it's not measurable, it's aspirational. It's really meaningless unless there are some specifics in there: Reduced by a certain percentage, meet something by a certain time. Just by saying the county will strive really is not good enough. And that's not the intent of what the county should be doing through House Bill 697. I mean, this again is gobbledygook. It is taking up space in our comprehensive plan because it's a meaningless addition. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And you were -- I think you were here the first day. That reference is going to be refined in all the elements in which it shows up to be more specific. MS. PAYTON: I just want to make sure to hammer that it's in all these different elements and it's going to be consistent. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I think we share -- MS. PAYTON: And I'm just going to begetting up and saying it over and over again -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's okay. MS. PAYTON: -- because sometimes things are forgotten. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No. MS. PAYTON: Yeah. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. Anybody else wish to speak on the groundwater aquifer recharge element? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, now we'll probably move into the easiest one of the day, the CCME. And I'll say the acronym to start it out, the Conservation and Coastal Management Element. And Michele, they got you in this one. Lucky you. MS. MOSCA: Good morning. For the record, Michele Mosca with your Comprehensive Planning Staff. I am the comprehensive planning staff coordinator for the CCME or the Conservation Coastal Management Element. Primarily, though, we have several departments that provided the review, the analysis, and I just want to introduce them. That way as you go through the element, you can address them directly with any questions you may Page 7 of 44 August 27, 2010 CCPC/EAR have. I see that some of them aren't here yet, but we can perhaps jump around, if we need to. So we have Stan Chrzanowski from the Engineering Services; Ray Smith, Pollution Control; Susan Mason and Laura Gibson from Natural Resources; Nathan Beals, Water and Sewer; Jerry Kurtz, Stormwater and Drainage; Mac Hatcher, Watershed Management; Gary McAlpm, Coastal Zone Management; Melissa Henning, Conservation Collier; and Dan Summers with Emergency Management. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. Now, we postponed the hearing and discussion of this element to this morning to accommodate all those people. Is there a reason why they couldn't be here? MS. MOSCA: I'm sure that they'll be here. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, that's not the point. We start at 8:30; everybody in the public is expected to be here if they want to address us. I'm just wondering why everybody else couldn't have been here that you just listed on there if they intended to participate. Knowing we postponed this for their convenience. MS. MOSCA: Right. Unfort -- Steven Lenberger, who had the majority of the review for the Conservation and Coastal Management Element, he's still ill, so Susan Mason and Laura -- MR. BEALS: She's ill too. MS. MOSCA: Susan Mason? MR. BEALS: Yeah. MS. MOSCA: Okay. So we're running low on staff. I apologize. Dan Summers was in fact called away. He did let me know that he wouldn't be here this morning, so I wanted to mention that as well. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Hopefully the questions that are asked will be able to be answered by the people that remain. MS. MOSCA: I hope so. Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: This is nearly a 100 -page element. It's probably the biggest one we've been discussing, so I will try to move through it multiple pages at a time, because we could spend a lot of time going two pages at a time. And with that said, did you have any further introduction, Michele, or did you want us to just get into questions? MS. MOSCA: We could -- that's fine. We can actually go through the page -by -page analysis, if you'd like, or -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah, I was going to go -- MS. MOSCA: I think it's probably easier. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- about five pages at a time. I'd like to ask members of public who want to speak on this, when we get to the section that pertains to your particular policy you want to speak on, raise your hand or stand up, come up to the mic., because I'd rather hear your issues relevant to when we're on that page than wait to the end. So that way we can all focus on it better. Let's go five pages at a time. The first five pages, does anybody have any questions or comments on the first five pages of the CCME? Ms. Caron? COMMISSIONER CARON: Policy 1.2.3, it says that the data should be organized by established watershed or sub - basin. And then under your policy analysis it says that there's no need to organize it that way. That but then the next sentence says it should be organized that way. So what do you want, guys? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Good catch. MR. HATCHER: Mac Hatcher with Stormwater and Environmental Planning. The reason that we feel like most of the data doesn't need to be organized by watershed is that most of the data is GIS data, which means that it's got a tag to locate it in space, regardless of where it falls within watersheds. So any time we do an analysis, that data can be organized by watershed or by commission district or any other spatial delineation that needs to be made. The reorganization is to organize the data that is not spatially oriented by watershed. So we would have the GIS data simply as GIS data. And then data that is watershed dependent will be organized by watershed. COMMISSIONER CARON: That's all fine. We just need to figure out what you're going to actually say Page 8 of 44 August 27, 2010 CCPC/EAR here. And that's not here. MR. HATCHER: I'll amend the policy to reflect that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's not what -- MR. HATCHER: The analysis. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No, the analysis says it should be retained, so you intend to amend this policy now? MR. BOSI: Based upon the testimony that was just provided, I guess we are. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Something I neglected to mention at the beginning, Mac, I understand that you were going to give us a presentation, a brief presentation on the watershed management plans at some point. And Mike, I think you mentioned that to me. It might be appropriate to do that, if it's convenient for you, now before we go into the rest of this element so that we have the benefit of that information in the questions we ask as we continue on. Would that work for you? MR. HATCHER: That's fine. The watershed management plans are being developed currently. The consultants have updated the Big Cypress Basin hydrologic model to do the analysis. We started really in 2007. We updated the county LIDAR in corporation with the Florida Department of Emergency Services. That took us until January of this year. That was the necessary element for the update of the Big Cypress Basin model. That leaves us -- oh, and we are required by the growth management policy that speaks towards watershed management plans to complete by 2010. So we are trying to complete those plans by the end of the year. We have scheduled a presentation of an analysis of alternatives for you all on November the 4th. If you would like a workshop, we could do a workshop in October. And we recognize that this is a compressed time frame that may not leave enough time for discussion as some people would like, but it's necessary to meet the deadlines. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ms. Caron? COMMISSIONER CARON: It's necessary to meet the deadline? This deadline has been constantly shifting right along. Why suddenly is the deadline the deadline? MR. HATCHER: Because we have contracts now, and the work is scheduled and we don't have budget to go beyond the deadline. COMMISSIONER CARON: But contracts can be modified, that's -- you know, it seems like suddenly at the eleventh hour we're rushing to cram it all in. And as even you say, we may not have time for full discussion of this. And I'm just not sure that it really makes sense to -- MR. HATCHER: Well, the commissioners have given us specific direction to complete on time. Now, that is adjustable, but it's not adjustable by staff. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, in order to understand the depth of the issues we're talking about, the idea of a workshop and then a meeting by this board, I think that's good, because we can get more knowledge on it. And what I'd like to suggest, Mike, is that we have our regularly scheduled meeting next week. If you could by then take a look at how we could schedule a workshop and then the meeting time frames, and we could get that solidified, and that will give us an opportunity to understand the depth of the issues you're involved with in a much more better orientation to it so when we hear it in November, we have a little bit more background. So I think that's a great suggestion. Thank you. Is that okay with the rest of the board? COMMISSIONER CARON: Uh -hum. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Question I have, Mac, on that issue is we just came out — or somebody, we didn't. The government came out with the FEMA maps. And as expected, they don't help us in a lot of -- well, let's put it this way, the opinions of a lot of the people who are going to be forced to make payments for insurance, they may not be that much of a help but a hindrance. How is your efforts in the watershed management field overlapping with the FEMA, which FEMA lays out I guess the floodplains and where floodwaters may go. What kind of interaction do you have in those two categories? MR. HATCHER: Well, I like the term that you used, overlap. We do have overlap with the FEMA study. The FEMA study is directly related to flooding. And the FEMA models that were developed are probably the most comprehensive models around today to address flooding issues. They include the storm surge plus runoff. They were Page 9 of 44 August 27, 2010 CCPC/EAR based on the 2001 LIDAR. And that model is probably not as robust as the Big Cypress Basin model in terms of evaluating some characteristics of water resources like evaporation and recharge. But in terms of an analysis of flooding, they are the most comprehensive assessment of flooding that we'll have. As part of the watershed management plans, we will be using the model to try to estimate capacity of the canal systems by designing 100 -year runoff events. So there will be an analysis of flooding, but our model is probably not as good as the FEMA model for the end analysis of flooding. But it should give a very good idea of how flows in the system are handled and what could be done to maximize recharge and retention of water. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Will your finalization of the watershed management plans have any impact, either positive or negative, on the elevations and issues involving the FEMA plans? MR. HATCHER: I don't believe they will. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Okay, with that, before we go on to the next group of pages, anybody have any questions? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Let's go to Pages 6 through 10. (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mike, on Page 7, Policy 1.3.4, looks like they're going to -- it says annual basis for NRPA's and their implementation criteria are developed in the objective achievement analysis for the policy achievement. Says the policy is no longer relevant. But wouldn't that policy apply if we wanted to create more NRPA's? I mean, right now I know — I thought up in the Wiggins Pass area there was a discussion about making some areas NRPA up there. Is there a reason why we have to delete the policy if there's a possibility it could be used in the future, or is that one that is irrelevant to that matter? MR. BOSI: Well, Policy 1.3.1 does provide for the process for the establishments of new NRPA's within the county. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: What did 1.3.4 do originally? MR. BOSI: I believe 1.3.4 was -- and I don't have a history upon that, but I would believe that that would be the establishment of the technical advisory committee to establish the initial NRPA's within the county. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And how are the future NRPA's that could be created under Policy 1.3.1 then, how are they brought forward? They're not brought forward through a technical advisory committee? MR. BOSI: No, it would just be through the processes established by Policy 1.3.1. 1 believe the EAC would probably be that body that would serve as a technical advisory committee. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And the TAC doesn't exist today? MS. MOSCA: That's correct. Mr. Chair, also as part of the watershed management plans is an opportunity to establish new NRPA's. That's my understanding from Mac Hatcher. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, good. That might expedite areas that want to be joined in. Okay, we're going through Page 10. Anybody have any questions? Nicole? Oh, Donna first, then Nicole. COMMISSIONER CARON: Okay, we're through 10. Go ahead. Nicole can speak on -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, Nicole? MS. RYAN: For the record, Nicole Ryan, here on behalf The Conservancy of Southwest Florida. And I just wanted to make a couple followup comments on your discussion of the watershed management plans. Because The Conservancy has been very supportive in working with staff to get these watershed management plans into meaningful policies during the last EAR, so that we would have the plans by the time that this EAR came forward. And we've also been very supportive of the funding so that the watershed management plans can become a reality. I think Commissioner Caron brought up a very, very good point though: These were due in'93, and they're still not done yet. And part of this watershed management planning process and outsourcing a lot of the technical data to consultants, there was the assurance on the part of the county that there would be ample opportunity for the public and stakeholders to provide comment. Not just at public hearings, but to sit down with staff, with the consultants and Page 10 of 44 August 27, 2010 CCPC/EAR really get into the details of the data. And while I appreciate the fact that a workshop in front of the CCPC, monthly updates to the EAC are going to be very important as this moves forward, that is not the proper venue for the technical experts to be trying to hash out details. And I must say, The Conservancy has a lot of concern about how the technical background on which these plans are going to be formed, the direction that that technical background is going. In our review, it's really not so much a technical memorandum of how water quality standards can be met, but it's a memorandum of arguing why the county can't meet the state and federal water quality standards. So we're very concerned about that. And we don't want to have to come and debate that with staff and the consultants at your workshops. We want to sit down, talk with them. It's always much better to have those sorts of discussions at something other than a full- fledged public hearing. So if this needs to take a little more time to do it properly, I think it should. I'm not sure we need to have the consultants as part of the process once their contract ends. I think these are things that staff can do. But it's been a long time in coming, these documents need to be done promptly. We were promised that the stakeholders would have ample opportunity to be part of this, and we're finding now it's the eleventh hour, there's not time to do that. And we really believe that it's going to be a better product if we take the time to do it right. So I would just leave you with those thoughts and comments. And I understand staff can extend the time frame. But if it looks like we do need more time, I would ask that you keep that in mind. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Before you walk away, is there a specific policy that you can point to in -- because this is an EAR process. We've got to focus on the policies and what we can accomplish under an EAR. MS. RYAN: Exactly. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Is there a specific language of a specific policy that you would suggest be modified to accommodate the ability to provide more time if the Board of County Commissioners were to grant that to staff? MS. RYAN: Well, in Objective 2.1 it talks about the watershed management plans being completed by 2010. If we expanded that -- I'm not sure we even need another full year, but we could put in there by the end of 2011. That would be one way to give a little more time so that we can have the in -depth stakeholder discussion and get a good plan put forward. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, we could suggest that, and then if the board wants to consider it, due to the issues that have occurred since they last directed the time frame, which have been economic lay -offs, change of personnel, that will give them the opportunity to do it. Mike, what do you think? MR. BOSI: Well, we wouldn't make that change to the objective. Remember, these policies will be amended 2011 -2012 at final adoption. So the watershed management program will already have been completed. What it sounds like is we've had a specific policy direction from the Board of County Commissioners. If it's the request of this body of the Planning Commission for us to go back to the Board of County Commissioners and ask if there's any flexibility within that schedule, it sounds like that's what the Planning Commission is directing or contemplating. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I think we have one person's testimony that there appears to be a problem. I think what I would like to suggest is staff look at the suggestion and see if they could do a better job if they had a little more time. And if that's the case, then make that suggestion to the board. I don't think we should buy off on any one person's immediate suggestion standing up here in a public process, but we ought to look at it. I mean, that's the least consideration we could provide is to look at it and see if it's a logical -- something we should logically consider. And I think the direction to staff would be take a look at it and if it's reasonable, and if there has not been public vetting to the extent it should have been or there is a possibility to do a better job with one-on -one communication between some of the stakeholders and the team, it might be a good thing to do. But I think we ought to leave the door open. Does anybody here feel differently? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I think that's more the direction to come back with than anything else. Mac, do you have any comment? Page 11 of 44 August 27, 2010 CCPC/EAR MR. HATCHER: No, we're not at all opposed to having one - on-one discussions with The Conservancy. We had a public meeting at the end of the -- or the evening of the EAC presentation. We were planning on doing that with not the September EAC but all the future EAC meetings. But we can schedule private discussions with them, if they would like to do so. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I think you ought to follow up and take a look at this issue of the time frame. And if the time frame needs to be recommended for a little more time, I think this board's saying the opportunities from us is that we should look at that and do it if needed. Donna? COMMISSIONER CARON: Yeah, I was just going to --I hate to jump ahead on something, but if you go to Page 13, then you're going to look at Policy 2.2.5 where they talk about stormwater management systems. And we were suppose to have identified them by 2008, and staff is now just saying, well, we didn't do that so we'll do that and we'll push that out to 2015. I think it's probably logical that if it hasn't been done, obviously the time frame needs to be moved. But also, if you're just getting something and people have been promised input, cramming everything into the last minute just to meet a deadline that's already been passed by so many times, it's almost absurd, that to extend the time period until everybody has had input and we've been able to have a workshop and thoroughly vet things as well just seems to be better policy to me. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But I think, though, the way we phrased it, for staff to take a look at that, because if you really want to say that we need to adequately extend something to allow all the public input and meetings that are desired, nothing would ever get done. Because there's always that person out there who wants to have another meeting. But I think staff can get a good handle on how practical it is to get this done by the end of the year and still meet the intent of having that good discourse between the other parties. And I think you need to come back with a recommendation for us on that. COMMISSIONER CARON: Yeah, I'm not talking about holding things up for life for one person with an agenda, so -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No, I know that. I'm just suggesting, though, we got to temper how far we go out with this. Go ahead, Mike. MR. BOSI: And remember, it won't be until December 7th that we're back before you. So these issues will be -- we're not going to come back with an adjustment to this policy. This policy will not be changed based upon this issue. It will be the pragmatic -- the direction from the Board of County Commissioners if we've had the discussion and the assessment is that we won't be able to fit this -- the one -on -one's that The Conservancy is seeking within the public process, that we'll have to go back to the board. And the board will tell us whether they want us to adhere to their prior directive or if they would like us to elongate the process. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I think the point is we need to look at it and make sure we're covered. MR. BOSI: Sure. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay? Chuck? MR. MOHLKE: Mr. Chairman and committee, good morning. I would like to comment, if I may, on Policy 2.1.7, which does invite comment that is on Page 11 of the material before you. The language of this particular policy suggests that the county taking the lead and promoting intergovernmental coordination between the county and other governmental agencies involved with watershed planning, including -- and then I don't need to repeat the long delineation of agencies or municipalities that are included. And concludes at the end of its last sentence, which may be useful within the watershed basin planning and management process. I'm somewhat acquainted with the experience of the last roughly 27 years of the City of Everglades City in regard to issues like this. And it would be important, I think, although perhaps not a feature of any amendment of language in the plan or changes in Policy 2.1.7 to call to the attention of this committee and the staff the fact that implementation of these features called for in this policy becomes central to the issue of how these plans are Page 12 of 44 August 27, 2010 CCPC /EAR developed. And because of the area, particularly that south of U.S. 41 and east of Collier Seminole State Park, is one terribly vulnerable to a wide variety of issues that this element concerns itself with. And I'm hopeful that the Planning Commission will at some point in time continue to inquire of the staff about the implementation of policies like this. You only have me saying this, Mr. Chairman, but based upon the experience with Hurricane Wilma, the ability of mechanisms like those suggested in this policy to act effectively, efficiently and promptly, promptly to address problems which are related to the matters discussed in the Conservation and Coastal Management Element becomes crucial. A great deal of money is involved. A great deal of money. And these mechanisms remain unclear. And unless experienced people who bring themselves to the table in some cases voluntarily, in some cases not, are able to participate prior to a major natural disaster, or man-made disaster, the proper implementation of the welcome intent of this policy is very, very difficult to accomplish. There are probably other agencies that might deserve being mentioned in this policy. It's somewhat ambiguous as to what is meant by other governmental agencies. But I suggest that there are other federal agencies with important jurisdiction here that are not mentioned in the policy and perhaps need to be. The Federal Emergency Management Agency, for one, the National Park Service for another, that have a very important impact on that area, much of it in the V Zone category, that is south of 41 and east of Collier Seminole State Park. I'm not suggesting any fundamental change in the intent of the policy, but perhaps a staff revisiting or the committee revisiting the issue of whether or not there are mentions of agencies, regional, state and federal, particularly federal agencies, that may deserve consideration in terms of an amendment of the language of the policy. Thank you for the opportunity. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Thank you, sir. And Mike, and maybe Mac, would you guys take a close look at that and see if it needs to be revised. Just Mac, as a side note, where it says you will rely upon the work performed and data collected by other agencies, did you in fact go to the other agencies and use their information to the extent available? MR. HATCHER: Yes, I will admit that FEMA and the park service weren't contacted, but the other agencies listed there were, as well as the Big Cypress National Preserve. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, it might be important to see if there are some priority agencies that should have been contacted or added to the list, as Chuck's suggesting. So take a look at it and when we come back for adoption, I'm sure it will be discussed. Thank you. We left off on through Page 10. Let's go through Page 15. Go ahead, Ms. Caron. COMMISSIONER CARON: Yes. On Page 11, Objective 2.2 says all canals, rivers and flow ways discharging into estuaries shall meet all applicable federal, state or local water quality standards. And it's being suggested here that we change this language to say that we'll just attain the highest water quality practicable. And I think that's not a really wise change to make, because if you allow squishy language like that, you'll get less than nothing happening. We've had this objective in here from the beginning, and every day we should be striving to meet that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ray? MR. SMITH: For the record, Ray Smith, Pollution Control. I agree with that, every day we should be striving to meet the state, federal and local rules and regulations associated with water quality. Unfortunately -- and let me back up and say yes, there are anthropogenic impacts associated with exceedances of water quality. We keep a very good eye in the Pollution Control Department associated with, for example, petroleum storage tanks, because they generate hazardous waste, wastewater treatment plants, leachate disposal sites, etcetera. Though there are occasions where exceedances occur due to natural conditions. Those exceedances could be, for example, fecal coliform. If you have a warm - blooded species down the canal from you, a bunch of ducks, you'll have an exceedance in fecal coliform. If you have -- if you're in an area with a swamp, your dissolved oxygen will be lower than the standard. It's just a natural occurrence. Now, you could -- and we do take — and I want to emphasize this — we do take the appropriate measures to sample correctly. We have a quality assurance, quality control plan that we follow in depth so we're not spotting ducks down the path and we're sampling there anyway and use our data. Page 13 of 44 August 27, 2010 CCPC/EAR I'm just pointing out the fact that there are natural occurrences. And the language that I'm suggesting regarding the change that's open for comment is, all canals, rivers, flow ways, discharging into estuaries shall meet all applicable federal, state and local water quality standards, or attain the highest water quality practicable. My intent of that change in language is to address those natural conditions that occur but not to discard the importance of protecting our water quality associated with anthropogenic impacts. COMMISSIONER CARON: But when you're working with FDEP and the other agencies, they take none of that into account ever? I find that to be startling. MR. SMITH: Ma'am, I'm just looking at the language. We have a very good working relationship with DER They of course understand that there's natural impacts associated with it. But you need to also understand that when standards are established in some cases, they're established throughout the state. They're not focused on specific regions within the state where the environments change. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Can you tell me how water quality standards are established in the state? By what mechanism? Is it a -- does someone put through a piece of legislation, is it a statute, is it 9J -5, is it -- where does it come into play? MR. HATCHER: FDEP is responsible for setting the state water quality standards. And they're established in the Florida Administrative Code through the established process for adopting administrative code. There are public hearings with the Environmental Regulatory Commission and then the rules are adopted if they are not challenged. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, so these standards are in the Florida Administrative Code. MR. HATCHER: Correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Heidi, does a local jurisdiction have the right to write law that would supersede Florida Administrative Code? MS. ASHTON: We wouldn't want to write anything that's inconsistent with the Florida Administrative Code. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Well, then we don't need to change Objective 2.2. MR. HATCHER: Commissioner, there is one other option. We can petition the Department of Environmental Protection to have a site specific alternative criteria which will meet the existing water uses, which means that it will support biological life and protect human safety if conditions support that alternative criteria. This is an expensive and time- consuming process, but it might save us from having to improve waters that practically will be extremely difficult to improve. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, then I would suggest the language that would be added is not to change it to eliminate the water quality standards, but to suggest that subject to any site specific approvals that we have in whatever way you just now suggested could be submitted. And then if you're successful in your endeavor, then that would change ob -- then Objective 2 would be applied in that manner and not being a broad - brushed exemption due to all water quality -- I mean, exempt it to the -- attain it to the highest water quality practical. That's really broad. I don't mind your idea, it sounds good. And if you're successful in arguing that on a locational basis or a specific basis, then that's how the objective could be written. And I certainly will probably have some input on that. But that seems to fit what you just said, Mac. MR. HATCHER: I agree, it's -- like I said, it's an arduous process to have to go through, but it's possible. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But at the same time, I don't think by putting your language in there we can supersede the Florida Administrative Code. So one way or another, it's got to be the way it is, with the exceptions that the code allows, which you've just articulated to us. So if we add that language that those exceptions are permissible pursuant to the process you stipulated, then I think we're there. MR. HATCHER: Well, this comes up again in the groundwater section. And there are instances in the groundwater section where the site specific alternative criteria don't apply, won't apply, and we really don't have any way to adjust those. When you have petroleum tanks that discharge and violate the groundwater standards, often the state will decide not to remediate immediately because it's simply not practical. There aren't any drinking water sources in the immediate vicinity, and the natural bacteria decomposition of the petroleum is often seen as the best recourse for remediation. And we have more of a problem in that situation. Page 14 of 44 August 27, 2010 CCPC/EAR CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Who would be responsible for remediation in those cases; do you know? MR. HATCHER: In some instances it's going to be the state, if they've participated and done everything they were supposed to do as petroleum tank storage owners. In some instances where the owner is responsible and the owner's not able to do the remediation, then it might be the state. But I'm not an expert in this field, and I guess don't want to Iead you on any further than that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Well, we'll be moving into that groundwater one soon, right after we get past these five pages here. So I think the solution to these five pages would be a consideration of the direction that we gave in regards to Mack's response to this issue, and that would seem to resolve it. And we're on Pages 11 through 15. Is there any other questions from the Planning Commission? Go ahead, Ms. Caron. COMMISSIONER CARON: On Page 12 on 2.2.2, the last line says, nonstnzctural methods such as discharge and storage in wetlands are encouraged. Do we need to say here, or should we be saying here treated discharge? Would that be a good phrase -- word to add? MR. HATCHER: In the -- COMMISSIONER CARON: Or do you think it's not necessary? MR. HATCHER: Well, it would need to have caveats. In the instance of stormwater, it would be a violation to discharge stormwater from a facility that's required to treat the stormwater into a wetland prior to treatment. In the case where you're diverting surface waters into a wetland to restore hydrology into a wetland that may have been upset due to drainage by a canal, that treatment would not be required and not necessarily be appropriate. So-- COMMISSIONER CARON: So the rest of our regulations in the LDC and what not would essentially take care of that, and so it's not needed here. MR. HATCHER: Right, the state regulations, the Water Management District surface water requirements are the regulations that the county relies on to require that treatment. COMMISSIONER CARON: Okay, thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Any other questions through Page 15? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Because I have one more. Mike, the discussion we had on Policy 2.2 with the highest water quality practical language not being maybe the best, but a substitute for that? The same would apply I believe to Objective 2.3. I notice nobody was going to suggest changes to that, which is good. But to be fair, we need to make sure we cover all of it. And I don't know if 2.3 is applicable to that site specific application that Mac said. But if the county were to apply for it and go through the policy, it ought to be open to them on Objective 2.3 as well as Objective 2.2, I would think. And with that, let's -- we have two public speakers. Nicole? MS. RYAN: For the record, Nicole Ryan, Conservancy of Southwest Florida. And my comments are on Objective 2.2 and 2.3. And I think Heidi's input was very good, because my first comment was going to be meeting state water law is not optional. The standards that the state and federal agencies put in place take into account natural sources of pollution. That's factored in. The Environmental Protection Agency has set the standard that unless it can be demonstrated that a pollutant level — there's no outside sources of pollutants, then there has to be a total maximum daily load established. The county is going to have to do cleanup and limit the amount of pollutants and nutrients going into our waterways. Essentially these agencies understand there are some background natural levels of pollutants, and that's fine. There's also non - natural sources. And because of that, cleanup does have to occur. Now, there is the ability for the county to do these site specific alternative criteria. Those have to be done on a very specific basis. So we're not talking about a county -wide application of this. It's very extensive, it's very expensive to do. And unfortunately through the whole watershed management planning process, instead of finding ways for the county to meet state water law and clean things up, we seem to be spending all of our time arguing that we shouldn't have to meet state water law. And that's something that's very, very concerning. Page 15 of 44 August 27, 2010 CCPC/EAR I would recommend the language stay as -is. If the county does a site specific alternative criteria, then that's understood that that is the new state law for that water body. But you're still going to have to meet what the state puts in place as the applicable law; whether it's the standards in the Florida Administrative Code, whether it's a site specific alternative criteria, I think both of that can be captured under the objective and it doesn't then put language in that makes it look as if Collier County is trying to lower our water quality standards for a bunch of different water bodies. That's not the language we should be going in. So I would recommend the language stay as -is. I think if the county wants to go through that process, they can and still be meeting Objective 2.2. And I did want to point out on Objective 3.1 where it talks about the groundwater, I don't know if you've had a chance to look through any of the EAC's comments, but staffs recommendation that that be changed to include the weakening language of meeting the standards to the extent practical, that was not in the EAC's version. So if you see that they didn't comment on it, that's why. Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mac? MR. HATCHER: I would like to respond very briefly. Nicole is correct that DEP nor EPA will make us try to clean up Fakahatchee Strand, because Fakahatchee Strand doesn't meet the D.O. standards. However, this policy says that the water quality standards will be met in Fakahatchee Strand, and that's just not possible. So unless we go the site specific alternative criteria route, it's simply not going to happen in many of the natural wetlands, forested wetlands throughout the county. The site specific alternative criteria is still an option for the canal systems. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you, Mac. Nancy -- or Ray, you had something to interject before Nancy? MR. SMITH: Yes. I don't know if I understood appropriately, but there was some mention that 3.1 dealing with the groundwater recommendation, and again the term as practical was not included in the EAC. But it was there. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. I saw a copy of the EAC's report, and it wasn't there. So maybe you have a copy that it was. MS. MOSCA: For clarification, it was simply mentioned on the record. It did not actually get into the book, but it was referenced on the record. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, that's the difference. Nancy? MS. PAYTON: Nancy Payton, Florida Wildlife Federation. We have dirty water in this county and the ducks didn't do it. And Im going to stand up for the ducks, because the blame is getting shifted to the ducks. And I object to the narrative at the top of Page 12 that accompanies the discussion of the objective which says, however, due to natural conditions impacting water quality found in Collier County, some federal and state water quality conditions may not be achievable. And they talk about the issue that -- implying that it is nature that is skewing things. And if -- they must account for nature and they have to lower the human impacts to account for that, not elevate it and if we go over it's due to the ducks or wood storks or anybody else. And I just -- I find it quite laughable that our problems in this county are going to be attributed to ducks. It's our problem and we have to solve it. COMMISSIONER CARON: Agreed. MS. PAYTON: It needs to be reflected. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And I think that's the recommendation from this board is to not insert that new language. At the same time, I'm not sure why it even got this far. Because if we can't violate the Florida Administrative Code, why are we even talking about trying to do it through a GNP amendment that can't supercede Florida Administrative Code? And there are methods in which the Florida Administrative Code apparently can be addressed on a case -by -case basis. They did that for a purpose, we should use it. MS. PAYTON: And it goes back to we have to have a relevant and workable comp. plan, and not aspirational or policies that we really can't legally or otherwise implement. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, the other thing though, too, nature's -- the muscovite ducks have come into our area. They weren't native before, so I m sure it's probably a lot of pollution caused by so many of them now Page 16 of 44 August 27, 2010 CCPC/EAR populating the area. Okay. MS. PAYTON: I think we have bigger problems with landscape companies than we do Muscovys, frankly. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's the name of them, huh, Muscovy. MS. PAYTON: Muscovy ducks. And it goes back to our other policies. But yes, there are issues and they can be managed, but they shouldn't be the blame of our water quality problems. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mac? MR. HATCHER: The Florida Administrative Code on water quality standards goes towards protecting water quality from discharges. And there are a lot of areas of the county where people do not make discharges that impact the water quality. Fakahatchee Strand is one case. Big Cypress National Preserve's another. There are natural conditions that violate state and federal water quality standards, and we just simply are trying to find some way to have high quality water that supports biological uses in the county, supports and protects the safety and welfare of the public, but yet does not violate the statement in the Growth Management Plan policies. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you, sir. Okay, we're on Page 16 through 20. Anybody have any questions on Pages 16 through 20? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I guess Page 16 is where I'm going to start. It seems that we're trying to remove the requirements for certain nutrients because the FDEP doesn't support -- rule doesn't support the need to measure those nutrients. But for a while we apparently have. Can you explain as to — okay, if we haven't, it's something that we've done that's actually better than FDEP, why would we want to reduce our standards to a lower level if we're working with a level we already -- that's better than that? And apparently we have for some time, because it's been applied that way. MR. HATCHER: We had a rule that wasn't on -- or we had policy that wasn't being implemented because there is no standard method for measuring or modeling the runoff for anything other than the nutrients in BOD. So that is the reason that we're proposing to limit it to the nutrients. The nutrients is what is being proposed to be modeled by the new state stormwater rule. That's what was proposed to be modeled by the Army Corps of Engineers study for the EIS for Southwest Florida. And that's where we're going -- or recommending. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So if we leave a rule in that is better than a DEP and addresses five or six elements or -- not elements, loading qualities that are not defined by the DEP, there is no definition as to when those get to a level that is problematic? We don't have any way to benchmark them, say? MR. HATCHER: We do have a way to benchmark them. We don't have an accepted methodology for measuring them. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So the engineering companies that do due diligence on a piece of property, they do their soil and their water test and they come back with a series of chemical analysis, and they actually have analysis for some of these elements, zinc, lead, copper, doesn't mean anything? MR. HATCHER: No, they have analysis for all of those parameters. You can't determine those concentrations in the soil or water by standard methods. What we don't have a standard method for is the prediction of what the runoff of those parameters will be. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: What do you mean runoff of those parameters? MR. HATCHER: This policy gets at modeling the expected loading runoff, the accumulation of these materials from stormwater treatment, and that model is not in place or practiced at this time for any of the parameters listed there, except for nutrients. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Well, I'm sure we're going to hear more on this. And I'm a little confused as to if we have it in the code, why did it get there in the fast place if there wasn't a way to measure it, or wasn't a way to know whether or not the measure was problematic. MR. HATCHER: Those parameters are the parameters that are typically studied in stormwater runoff models. The state over the last, I don't know, five, 10, 15 years has determined that nutrients are the primary culprits from stormwater runoff. The treatment mechanisms that are in place for suspended solids, which would include most of the metals, are adequate and those parameters are not as large of a problem in the runoff after it goes through the treatment processes Page 17 of 44 August 27, 2010 CCPC/EAR that are in practice today. So the nutrients are the focus of the new stormwater rule, and appear to be the primary problematic parameters in stormwater runoff. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But there is a standard then, by what you just said, for suspended solids. MR. HATCHER: Yes, there is. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, what about BOD, which stands for? MR. HATCHER: Biochemical oxygen demand. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. So the standard -- MR. HATCHER: There are water quality standards for both of those parameters. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: What about lead? MR. HATCHER: There is a water quality standard for lead as well. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: How about zinc? MR. HATCHER: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And copper? MR. HATCHER: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, there are water quality standards for those, but we want those removed from our responsibility to be tested because we're going to fall back on DEP which only does nitrogen and phosphores; is that what we're saying? MR. HATCHER: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I'm going to go through more discussion to try to figure out why we would do this. And I understand -- I understand what you said in English language. I'm not quite understanding what impact it has as to why we would not want to continue that monitoring. I'm not sure what it hurts. And especially if we find something skewed way out of line, it would be good to know in that if it's in an area critical to a development of recharge or something like that, I would assume. MR. HATCHER: Absolutely. And we have not stopped monitoring for those parameters. The Pollution Control Department includes those parameters in their routine monitoring. What we are stopping is requiring the modeling of those parameters in stormwater runoff for new development. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Now, can you explain then how that — what that means? Because right now we've got two different aspects; we're talking about modeling and we're talking about monitoring. And you're saying it's not -- you don't want to require in monitoring -- or in modeling, but you want to require in monitoring. MR. HATCHER: Correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. rm not sure I understand the implications of that. MR. HATCHER: Current stormwater treatment standards require that a new development model estimate what their contribution of nitrogen and phosphorous will be. The proposed standard will set limits for what they're allowed to have in their final discharge. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. MR. HATCHER: The monitoring goes towards keeping track of what's in the surface waters from all sources. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So when the modeling from a discharge point of a new development -- you're saying we shouldn't get into these five issues that we previously had, but yet we will measure those in a monitoring criteria in some other body of water. MR. HATCHER: Correct. Well, in the discharge -- the waters that the stormwater treatment systems discharge into are water monitored for water quality parameters routinely. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But if the modeling is done in a manner that addresses these five in order to prevent it, which is basically upfront, wouldn't that help the — now, this is modeling -- wouldn't that help then the monitoring of the body of water that's receiving those five elements to hopefully assume it's going to be a better outcome? MR. HATCHER: It would, but practically, the treatment systems that are in place, if you put in a treatment system that will treat nitrogen and phosphores, the state has found that you will remove more zinc, copper, lead than they were requiring you to remove in the first place. The nitrogen and phosphores are more difficult to remove from stormwater than the other parameters are. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. So if you're doing a modeling that's showing you're meeting the nitrogen and phosphores criteria in the modeling effort, the theory is that, or maybe the fact is that that will address the lead, zinc Page 18 of 44 August 27, 2010 CCPC/EAR and copper so that when you do the monitoring, there'd be no further impacts from that particular discharge based on the modeling of the nitrogen and phosphores; is that where you're going? MR. HATCHER: That's correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. When someone models for nitrogen and phosphores, assuming your statement is right, that it either equals or supersedes the ability to capture the concerns of the lead, zinc and copper, then wouldn't we -- what's it hurting to require the lead, zinc and copper to be modeled along with it if it's going to be caught with it anyway? Why the need for the change? MR. HATCHER: It's extra work on the person doing the stormwater analysis, and it's simply not been found to be necessary. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: What is the extent of the extra work? Let's say take one, take lead, what does that person have to do that's going to require them with the sampling they use for the nitrogen and phosphorus for the modeling they use for the nitrogen and phosphorus to create an additional issue for lead? MR. HATCHER: They would need to find a stormwater model that addressed those and run it for those parameters. It might not be a terribly large addition of work, but there is no standard model to do that. And we would be left with the, I guess, job of becoming very expert in the area of models and these things so that we could decide if the models they were using were appropriate, since there is no standard set. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Well, that -- I understand your explanation, and I understand the link between modeling and monitoring, and it's focused on lead, zinc and copper. What about the TSS and the BOD's, how are they captured by the modeling of the nitrogen and phosphores? MR. HATCHER: Again, they are parameters that are treated better than nitrogen and phosphores by the same treatment methods that are being used today. And the removal of those parameters is easier to accomplish than the nitrogen and phosphores. If you meet the nitrogen and phosphores standards by the treatment methods that are in practice today, you will meet the total suspended solids and BOD standards. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I know, I received a very lengthy and technical memo from -- I think we all did, from Jennifer at The Conservancy. I wish I was knowledgeable on the science that she was writing about, because it was far beyond what I could readily understand. I think I'll reread it after your explanation. But knowing that this is such a contentious point with some, is there some documentation that confirms what you said that we can rely upon that the TSS, BOD's lead, zinc, and copper are levels that are accounted for in the new standards by the DEP for nitrogen and phosphores? MR. HATCHER: The publications that DEP sponsored to set up the discussions for the new stormwater rule are where this is discussed. I can provide you all with links, they're available on line. And I can also let you know that Jennifer has a different opinion. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, yeah, I think I realize that. I'm just trying to make sure we get to the bottom of what's reasonable. Again, one person's opinion isn't what should be dominating, it should be a thought -out approach to all this in how practical it is. So I'm not saying I'm dying on the sword for her opinion, I'm just trying to understand it in comparison to all this. And if you have that kind of information you could supply to us with a link, and please, don't give me the link for South Florida Water Management and say here it is. Give me more specific a link. MR. HATCHER: DEP has a very impressive website, as well as the Water Management District. But I can provide you with links to the documents, or I'll get the documents and put them on a CD for you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. And I think that -- I would certainly like to explore that document. It would help by the next EAR report. The government has as tendency now with the internet to overwhelm us with data, hoping we won't find what we're looking for. And some of the agencies are really good at doing that. Ms. Caron? COMMISSIONER CARON: Yeah, I just had a couple of questions. We've been having people test for these -- for zinc and all curr ently. So what models are they using right now? MR. HATCHER: They're not using models, they're using chemical analysis. Chemical analysis is used to test water and sediments. Models are used to predict what may happen or has happened. They're predicted. COMMISSIONER CARON: And the next question is that this change in thinking by the state, and we'll get the further information you have for us, but this change in emphasis, what happens if in another three years or five Page 19 of 44 August 27, 2010 CCPC /EAR years the change in emphasis changes again? Will we just have lost all this information that we might have been collecting all along and have a better situation? MR. HATCHER: Well, I guess the short answer is yes. COMMISSIONER CARON: Yeah, okay. Because models change and people change their mind about models, and we try models that everybody swears they're going to work and then we find out that they don't work, and then we have to remodel and figure out another way to go. So I just -- MR. HATCHER: We're constantly faced with that type of assessment. People that use different models are going to come up with slightly different results. And the comparison between those results is increasingly difficult. So when processes change, then you have to factor that in is when you analyze old results. COMMISSIONER CARON: But if we were to continue doing what we've been doing, again you're saying models weren't being used, it was just a chemical process, we'd at least have data if — MR. HATCHER: Well, again, we haven't been doing this. We required it, but we haven't been requiring it because the model wasn't available, there wasn't a standard model available for them to use. COMMISSIONER CARON: I see. So -- MR. HATCHER: And this is not a state requirement that we're dropping. This is something that we had that was above and beyond. COMMISSIONER CARON: Okay. That we've just not been doing. Okay. MR. HATCHER: Correct. COMMISSIONER CARON: We've been ignoring. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: We need to take a break for the court reporter, but Chuck is standing there patiently. So Chuck, if you want to take a moment and let us know what you have at this point? MR. MOHLKE: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. It will just take a moment. Chuck Mohlke, appearing without portfolio but with an enhanced interest in the welfare of the community of the City of Everglades City. I'm very pleased to be able to note for the committee's consideration the last two sentences of Policy 2.3.6 that acknowledged the importance of sampling the outfalls that are created from major storms and what I will call, perhaps unprofessionally, the reverse riverine effect that happens when you have a major storm from the southwest that accumulates inordinate rainfall north and east of a coastal area. And I can give you ample examples, if you choose. The best one would be a no name storm March 13, 14 of 1993, the so- called white hurricane that deposited hurricane -like snow effects all the way up to Nova Scotia. When that reverse came back, the physics of that brought all kinds of accumulated debris, chemicals and a wide variety of other effects that impacted significantly the area south of U.S. 41 at the end of the Turner river basin. And the fact now, if I understand this properly, that that will be carefully monitored and these areas that are referred to as undisturbed, which covers that vast area north and east of those small communities of Everglades City, Plantation Island and Chokoloskee, it would not surprise any member of the committee or anybody present here today to see what the after effects of this reverse stormwater flow is in that community. And that deposits left behind unmonitored have unknown effects. And if I understand this statement in Policy 2.3.6 properly, that will be monitored in some fashion. And all I can do is say that Pm in great support of that. And the efforts to finally address some of these consequences of increased frequency of major storm effects and rainfalls is greatly desired. Thank you for the chance to make these remarks. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you, Chuck. And just to make one comment, the statements say they'll be addressed. But as we know, we don't always do what the statements say. We can only hope. So with that, let's take a break to 10:15 and we'll come back at that time and start where we left off. (Recess.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: We're on record, but it's coffee break. Hold on just a second. The discussions we've had with Mac have put everybody to sleep and so now they're just trying to wake back up again. We just eliminated some elements with coffee, so — okay, are you done? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I'm done. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, before we move on, let's -- Nancy, you had something you want to add at this point? Page 20 of 44 August 27, 2010 CCPC/EAR MS. PAYTON: Yes. Nancy Payton, Florida Wildlife Federation. And a comment on Page 15, Policy 2.3.6, talking about water quality. And subsection B excludes single - family homes. And as long as we exclude single - family homes, we are not going to achieve our water quality goals, and that includes northern Golden Gate Estates. And in the revisit of the Golden Gate Area Master Plan, I recommend that the county view it as one large development area and work on water quality policies and solutions for that area. Because it is upstream from our coast. And if we do not address it, then all the rest is for naught. You can do all the oyster beds you want in Naples Bay, but it's not going to get us to where we need to be. So we need to think twice about excluding single - family homes, or deal with them in a specific area rather than individual homes. Am I making my point, to have -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes. MS. PAYTON: -- certain areas to address water quality, through land acquisition or other programs. But northern Golden Gate Estates is a big problem and we've got to begin to address it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Another reason to make sure that restudy committee comes into play. MS. PAYTON: Absolutely. And I'm suggesting that the restudy committee not just be Golden Gate Estates but include that area. Not the separate committees for certain Waal fringe areas, but to look at that area as a whole, because some of the problems may be able to be addressed in abutting lands or integrated. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And I think that was why the suggestion was that the two committees, the rural fringe and Golden Gate Estates, have joint meetings occasionally, to air common concerns. Because the communities are quite different overall in most of -- in many of their other aspects. MS. PAYTON: Well, I would not say so, but we can discuss that another time. Because what happens in North Belle Meade affects certain parts of northern Golden Gate Estates. And what happens along Immokalee Road has implications to some parts of northern Golden Gate Estates. So there are parts of the rural fringe that are integrated somewhat with northern Golden Gate Estates. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. Nicole? MS. RYAN: Nicole Ryan, Conservancy of Southwest Florida. And my comments are on Page 17 and 18 under Objective 2.5 and its subsequent policies. Objective 2.5 essentially requires the county to establish and implement an estuarine management program. And the policy analysis indicates that this has been done through a number of different either plans, programs or LDC components. And because of this, the recommendation is that the objective is no longer relevant and should be deleted, as should the policies. And I'm questioning why that should be deleted. It is still relevant that the county continue implementation of estuarine management programs. And in other sections of the GMT where the program has been implemented, the objective and policies remain. For example, NRPA's, it's just acknowledged that yes, it has been established and the county will continue. So I don't believe that we want to remove that, it's an important component, acknowledge that it's being done and will continue being done, and it should stay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And we hadn't gotten that far in discussion yet, but I was certainly going to bring that issue up. And I can see Ms. Caron was too. So you jumped the gun on us a little bit, but well get there. And that's where we had left off on discussion on Page 16. 1 was remiss in one item that I failed to bring up that I had talked to Mike Bosi about previously on Page 13. I'd just like to go back and get some clarification on it. And that's Policy 2.2.5. This is that -- those members of the Planning Commission that were here about a year ago, we had a lengthy presentation by Robert Wiley on some FEMA guidelines and issues that were coming up, and there was an introduction to bring in a whole bunch of new policies that were concerning in a lot of ways, some of which was the one referenced in 2.2.5. Since that time a lot has changed. FEMA's come in with new rules, the county found solutions to a lot of their problems without having to raise the level of cost to the individuals in the county as citizens of the county as much as would have been had we continued with that particular meeting. And I believe now that South Florida Water Management District has taken a position where they're more or less in charge of enforcing what the Policy 2.2.5 was trying to achieve. And Stan, are you -- I just took all your thunder, huh? Page 21 of 44 August 27, 2010 CCPC/EAR MR. CHRZANOWSKI: Good morning, Commissioners. Stan Chrzanowski with Engineering and Review again. Yes, sir, that's about it. If you want me to go into a five - minute explanation of -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No, that's why I brought it up to Mike last week, because I originally questioned that policy but I forgot to bring it up today, because it seems like the policy isn't any longer relevant because of the actions that have now occurred after this last year or so of activity. And I just I guess would want to make confirmation of that. MR. CHRZANOWSKI: We wanted to postpone it for a reason. Everybody agrees that stormwater management systems should be inspected. And the policy actually says for compliance with their approved design. The ordinance that was written basically required every component of the system, re- sectioning of the lakes, TV'ing of storm sewers. It was ambitious. And it received a lot of objection from the public, because this is not something we were imposing on the developers, this was something we were imposing on HOA's. And at a time when the economy was not doing well and people were not paying their dues and other problems, we were going to put a major expense. And I could see where they had a lot of questions about how we were going to do it. There's a lot of ways you could do this, from very thorough to just walking the berm, the perimeter berm and looking at the discharge structure. And the devil is in the details, and they're not yet worked out, so we figured we would postpone it till the future. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, isn't the issue though a lot of it handled by South Florida Water Management District in regards to design and what the accomplishments are supposed to be to the systems, and should there be problems -- isn't South Florida the agency that -- MR. CHRZANOWSKI: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- generally goes out and verifies the problem and seeks the correction? MR. CE RZANOWSKI: And they have presumptive criteria. They presume that if you built it according to their specs and the plans that they approved that it's going to work correctly. They're not outcome based. They don't require testing. And at some point you guys or somebody is going to require testing to see how we're meeting loads. And at that point I presume the district will come up with some policy or procedure for doing that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, is Policy 2.2.5 any longer necessary in our GMT? Or is this accomplished by policy within the administrative side of the — MR. CHRZANOWSKI: We think that it should be looked at periodically in the future, which is why we put it off till whatever, 2015? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, we don't get -- well, any changes then -- I didn't have an objection to your expanding it to that date, but I just want to make sure, if we have the flexibility to decide then at that date if the job's not being done, we can interj ect ourselves. And if it is being done, why push it. MR. CHRZANOWSKI: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, thank you. Back on Page 16. The chunk of pages we're supposed to review is 16 through 20. And I've got a question on top of Page 17. There's a reference under Objective 2.4, third line from the bottom, or fourth line, it says, additionally, Coastal Zone Management staff remains in contact with DEP for all permitted issues, as well as cooperate and coordinate with Rookery Bay with regard to water quality. Down on Policy 2.4.3, the writeup there says, Rookery Bay staff has been invited to participate on the Watershed Management Technical Advisory Team. No comments were received. How are we coordinating with them if they don't comment? MR. HATCHER: We're inviting them to the meetings, providing them with all the data that we can, and talking to them whenever we can get face -to -face with them. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Who specifically at Rookery Bay are you talking to? MR. HATCHER: They have had a change in staff, and -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Who in the past have you talked to? MR. HATCHER: I will have to get back with you on the names of the individuals that have been assigned to Page 22 of 44 August 27, 2010 CCPC/EAR the project. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, only reason is if their cooperation -- and I think it's vital because they have -- they're in charge of probably the biggest estuary in the county. I do a lot of work with Rookery Bay, I work closely with permitting and environmental issues for them, and I know they like to be proactive in these issues. And if the right person down there isn't being contacted, it might help to know who you've talked to in the past so it can be -- MR. HATCHER: Gary Lytton, who is the -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. MR. HATCHER: -- director, has been the one that has assigned the task to the individuals. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. MR. HATCHER: I'm sure it's a question of their basically availability to provide comments. And they do have some reluctance in interjecting themselves into county policies. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, and if that's the case, then we just maybe need to make sure we word this right so that we're not -- we're contacting them or we're notifying them. Because if they're not participating because of different reasons, that's another -- we don't want to force the issue in our GMP is all I'm suggesting. MR. HATCHER: We are making every attempt to provide the materials to them so that they can comment if they decide to. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. On Page 17 and 18, Objective 2.5, I had a similar concern as the -- as Nicole had expressed. I don't know if we see the reason to remove the objective and policy. I think maybe instead of -- it says, the county will continue the implementation of its estuarine management program. I think we might want to use verbiage like we've used elsewhere. We want to initiate and maintain the estuarine management program. Because that's what we're doing. By taking these out, it does provide the argument, well, if you took them all out, why do you still need to do it? I'd like -- I'd rather we were proactive, leave it in and maintain it as a policy going forward to make sure we continue with it. Is that okay? COMMISSIONER CARON: I'm not sure that some of these actually have a big effect on — some of these LDC sections. Some of them have more than others, but -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah, I think that's just -- COMMISSIONER CARON: -- some of them are -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah, that's just staffs way of saying they've met the objective. But regardless, I think it all should stay there. Anybody else through Page 20? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I think we run into on Page 19 the same problem with the water quality reference under Objective 3. 1, the very last paragraph. And that's the one that was not part of the EAC's written packet. MS. MOSCA: That's correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And then we heard it was presented orally. I don't know, if nobody else has any different attitude, I think it stays the same as we suggested earlier in regards to the other places. Anybody on Page 20? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, the next group of pages is through Page 25. Does anybody have any questions through Page 25? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Let's go through Page 30. I knew there was parts of this thing that weren't problematic, so we're getting into them. Anybody through Page 30? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Through Page 35? COMMISSIONER CARON: Um. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes, ma'am. COMMISSIONER CARON: Just give me a minute. I wanted to look at -- go ahead and continue on and I'll Page 23 of 44 August 27, 2010 CCPC /EAR just -- I just want to check on Page 29 on 6.1.1, but -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Mike? MR. BOSI: Yes, Chair, I have -- Mr. Midney at the conclusion of our workshop on Wednesday had provided me, because he wasn't going to be able to be here, a comment related to the CCME Policy 6.1.2.D. And he asked -- which reads -- it's referring to NRPA sending lands and says, calculated at higher value of 90 percent in the native vegetation present, or as otherwise be permitted under the density blending provisions of the FLUE (sic). And he asks that, consider adding the following phrase to that at the end of that statement. After the phrase NRPA sending lands, before the colon insert the phrase, and lands within the Lake Trafford/Camp Keais Strand system overlay. So before you would get to the calculated at higher value at 90 percent of native vegetation present, he wanted to include, the NRPA sending lands. And in addition the, and lands within the Lake Trafford/Camp Keais Strand system overlay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Has staff done an analysis on how that impacts the Lake Trafford/Camp Keais over -- I mean, you may not have, because it happened so recently. But I mean, what impact does that have? MR. BOSI: Well, we would -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And if it -- and the reason I'm asking that is if it — if the Camp Keais Strand, if that overlay was equivalent to a NRPA, why wasn't it made into a NRPA to resolve the issue? MR. BOSI: Well, the Camp Keais Strand overlay I believe was part of the discussions from the modifications that was proposed within the Immokalee Area Master Plan. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. MS. GIBSON: Laura Gibson, for the record. It actually originally -- well, there's initially maps in the beginning -- the very first Growth Management Plan in 1989 as a wetland area. As most wetlands were throughout the county. And during the -- I guess it was the 2004 EAR cycle, or -- that was -- no, the 2002? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I think we get the point. MS. GIBSON: All right, sorry. During actually the Eastern Lands review process through all the final order requirements where the county was required to take a closer look at -- part of it was protecting our natural resources. The Immokalee wetlands, that are called the Lake Trafford/Camp Keais Strand system, were looked at as being important just as the wetlands in -- connected wetland systems in the RFMU and the RLSA like Camp Keais Strand and Okaloacoochee Slough were, because they are a connected system. But since they didn't fall in that Rural Land Stewardship Area, or most of it doesn't, or the Rural Fringe Mixed Use area, they still -- we have this policy in the CCME regarding those wetlands and their greater protection than other urban wetlands. So that's why it's -- at that point I believe the NRPA's were also reevaluated in other parts of the county and it was decided, you know, for the 90 percent preservation of those. And all that was done, though, for the Lake Trafford/Camp Keais Strand system at the time was to add a policy, Policy 6.2.5, to include those wetlands like they were wetlands just as important as in the rural fringe. Does that help? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, under 6.2.5 you've got the rural fringe and the Lake Trafford/Camp Keais Strand system combined, under that policy. And under 6.1.2 it strictly addresses the county's Rural Fringe Mixed Use District. And it breaks the uses within the mixed use district down according to what you find in the rural fringe. You find receiving lands, neutral lands, non -NRPA sending and NRPA sending. If we were to insert under NRPA sending and the Camp Keais Strand system there, how would anybody know to look for it since the policy headline is for the county's Rural Fringe Mixed Use District? So I'm -- MS. GIBSON: Yeah, that may not be the appropriate place to do that then. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. And I also want to verify that in the Immokalee Area Master Plan the preservation rate there was 90 percent. MR. BOSI: That's the crux of the question. What's being suggested in the Immokalee Area Master Plan that has been transmitted to the Department of Community Affairs, what is the level of protection of preservation that's being required by that plan. Is it in coordination with this 90 percent, as would be suggested by this policy. Page 24 of 44 August 27, 2010 CCPC /EAR CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. MR. BOSI: That is -- that's -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Can anybody answer that? MS. GIBSON: Well, it was not addressed in the Immokalee Master Plan, it was — a reference was made to 6.2.5 where it's addressed. And the applicants in Immokalee did not want to change at all any other elements, so they did not come forward with any changes to the elements. Just like the preservation requirements for the rest of Immokalee would fall back to the CCME, so would the Lake Trafford/Camp Keais Strand wetlands. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Based on that then, where would the Camp Keais Strand's wetlands fall in regards to preservation? What percentage? MS. GIBSON: That is still a question. And that's probably why -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I think that question needs to be answered before we can insert a change that affects the property ownership there. And especially a program that has been implemented by the citizens of Immokalee in a five -year review. And I'm not saying we shouldn't do it, but I think to be fair, by the next time the EAR comes around, there needs to be more research done on this to see if it's a viable alternative or option. MR. BOSI: That discussion appropriately is going to take place before we have this -- in December. Because you're going to have this discussion with the Immokalee Area Master Plan before you for adoption. And the most appropriate place for the preservation standards required for the Strand in Immokalee is in the Immokalee Area Master Plan. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Then I would suggest that -- and again, I'm not trying to not agree with Mr. Midney, but we just don't have enough information, and I think we need to wait till that discussion is had with the Immokalee Area Master Plan. MR. BOSI: And Ms. Valera, as the coordinator for the Immokalee Area Master Plan, will note that and make sure that that's addressed by staff in terms of when that plan comes before you again for adoption. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, I think that works. MS. GIBSON: And we have put a note to that section too that we realize -- or staff realizes that that needs to be clarified and want to work through that with this EAR cycle, too. MS. MOSCA: Mr. Chair, I was -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. MS. MOSCA: -- waiting my turn. We do have a -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, you don't get that now. MS. MOSCA: Okay. I just didn't want to move ahead, but this is related to Policy 6.2.5. And under the staff achievement analysis, there was a portion inadvertently omitted. I did have a discussion yesterday with Bill Lorenz, he's the director, and it is, as Laura stated, is still unclear from a stakeholder point of view what that percentage will be. I don't want to speak for The Conservancy, but I know at the EAC meeting they had suggested a recommended 90 percent, the NRPA sending. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Well, and I think, by the way, if you look on 6.2.5, the fourth line, and I had made a note, does not specifically reference which one the -- the Camp Keis should be Item D. See where it says on the fourth line a reference to Policy 6.1.2? COMMISSIONER CARON: You need to go back to reference, Page 33, which is D, NRPA sending lands. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Page 43 references Policy 6.1.2, but it references the entire policy, not defining which one of those percentages apply. So in your solution, in your looking at this after the discussion of the Immokalee Area Master Plan, if it needs to be corrected to a certain point, we simply instead of referencing all of 6.1.2 reference a specific sub - element of that policy, and that would get us there. Okay, we left off on up to Page 35. Does anybody have any other questions? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Nicole? MS. RYAN: Nicole Ryan, Conservancy of Southwest Florida. And I will just weigh in on the 6.2.5 and the reference back to 6.1.2 at this point, because you've discussed it. Page 25 of 44 August 27, 2010 CCPC/EAR And during the Immokalee Area Master Plan process it was very clear that they did not want to deal with trying to do any wordsmithing in the CCME, but it was acknowledged that when you look at 6.2.5 and you talk about those Lake Trafford/Camp Keais Strand wetlands, it gives you this menu of options. Do you take it to the receiving standard, the neutral, the sending or the NRPA sending? And in looking at the context of 6.2.5, The Conservancy believed that these wetlands were intended to be elevated in their protection. And we did agree that referencing it back to 90 percent standard of NRPA sending was the appropriate thing to do. So I did want to just put that on the record. And one other issue that we had brought up at the EAC deals with both 6.1.1. and 6.1.2. And the staff recommendation that as far as the requirements for the native vegetation retention, that the state and federal parks preserves and forests be exempted for the purpose of managing land for conservation. And the way that that sentence was worded, it confused me a little bit, wait a minute, if these entities are conserving land, why couldn't they meet vegetation retention requirements? In talking with staff, it's because some of the more in -depth policies require that within these projects a preserve be actually designated a preserve management plan, and that doesn't make any sense within these parks. So I didn't know if there could be some fine tuning of that verbiage so that it's understood the parks still have to follow any applicable native vegetation retention requirements, but they don't need to create a separate preserve and preserve management plan. I think that could be a good clarification on that, so I bring that forward. Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, and there were a series of other issues, though, that go beyond the preserve. And this came about as -- I was directly involved again with Rookery Bay. There was a -- they have a piece of property down there that they're trying to make into a facility similar to Corkscrew where you have a walkway through it and a bridge going over to it and things like that, and they ran into a lot of trouble trying to process through Collier County because they are a preserve management agency and they were told they had to reserve a -- do a county preserve management plan, which certainly was a waste of taxpayers money to have to go through that effort, and that's what I think this is all about. In the process, though, they have other issues that came along, like putting in a boardwalk or putting in a solid walkway and a landing ramp for the bridge and things like that. And I think the intention was simply to let these agencies who have rules usually stricter than ours in some cases move forward if they're a preservation agency. And Mike, I don't know if -- this isn't final language you have here, but if there's some tweaking that needs to be done to make it more appropriate, I don't think that's a problem. But I think you are aware of the issues. So as long as we don't -- as long as we don't cause ourselves to fall back into that trap, it was just a big waste of money for taxpayers the way it was set up. Let's move on to 36 through 40. (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Forty through 45? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Forty-six through 50? (No response.) COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I actually have a small question. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Go ahead, Mr. Schiffer. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: It's on Page 47, Policy 6.3.2. And it just -- you use the wording no lower than 3.5 feet. Does that just mean that the top of the dock can't be lower than that, or is that trying to discuss the depth of the water? MS. GIBSON: That would be the minimum height of the dock. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. Actually, the -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No, I don't -- I'm not -- I think we wanted to have -- didn't we want to have water clearance of that depth, water of that depth before boats -- in the siting of boats? Wasn't that what we were -- I thought this was -- MS. GI13SON: Well, if there's sea grasses there, we want to make it so they can get as much light as possible. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: So it is the -- in other words, what you're saying is the dock cannot be lower than 3.5 feet, thus -- since you are close to sea grass in this case, what you're saying is you would like to get Page 26 of 44 August 27, 2010 CCPC/EAR underneath it. And the four -foot width might be the clue, is you want a narrow dock, not too low to the water. MS. GIBSON: Right. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay, got it. Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: On that same page, 6.3.3, we're back to this issue of taking things out because another agency isn't as strict as we are. Why wouldn't we want to leave that in? Why wouldn't we want to make sea grasses an element that we have to be considered? MS. MOSCA: Mr. Chair, we are going to actually leave that in. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Well, it says it should be deleted. MS. MOSCA: Right. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But you're going to leave it -- MS. MOSCA: But since then we've had further discussions and it will be left in. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Pages 50 through 55, anybody? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: On Page 55, Mike, there's a Policy 7.1.6. 1 remember when we brought this in, I wasn't sure it was the right thing to do, but regardless, I don't think we should take it out but we ought to leave it -- we ought to rewrite it to assure that the continuance of the policy is maintained. So, you know, by taking a policy out, there's no substance then as to why we have it in the LDC. MR. BOSI: And as we discussed, I think the more appropriate would be that, you know, the county shall maintain the need for protection of listed plant species, simply so we have a rational nexus behind whatever -- the LDR regulations. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And I know you and I talked about stuff, but I've got to bring it up -- MR. BOSI: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- at the public meeting to make sure it gets vetted. Nancy? You disagree with this, right, you want all the plants bulldozed down? MS. PAYTON: Nancy Payton, Florida Wildlife Federation. I am back on Policy 7.1.2. And again, this one excludes single - family homes, which again excludes northern Golden Gate Estates. But yet the Golden Gate Area Master Plan talks about how their conservation goals are being met through Goal 7 of the CCME. So again I bring that up that Golden Gate Estates needs to be included in planning and implementing a program for habitat and listed species protection. Then there's some updating I guess that's going to take place on like references to Priority 1 and Priority 2 panther habitat, that's outdated. And on the top of 54 in I guess number three, the county shall consistent with applicable Growth Management Plan policies. This is a confusing circular policy that needs to be looked at closely. It's really not workable. We've had a variety of problems with interpreting it and implementing it in the past. And I'm going to make that plea again that the county reconvene a stakeholders group to address this, because it is not a workable policy and it is not working. So I'm going to -- even though it says it remains relevant, it's not. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, and I think more to your point is the issue that we started out with is that the self-amending policies are concerning. Three certainly tells us it's going to be self - amending by the simple fact that it's going to change as the other agencies change their plan. So we may want to look at that under that premise, and that may cure your problem. MS. PAYTON: Or how the county wants to interpret their recommendation. It's again another meaningless policy, but yet we have even the economic element talking about how we need to protect wildlife and habitat. But the crux of it is -- doesn't have any teeth. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I think what we should probably do is look at restating it, if it's to be left, in a manner that doesn't provide for self - amending but is more specific to something that's implemented in the LDC. Then the LDC get to be the more specific issues that are addressed. Because the way this is written, any one of the agencies could change anything; we've acknowledged it changes our GMP. And I believe DCA is concerned about self - amending policies. So anyway, it's another one to look at. MS. PAYTON: Right. But it's a step beyond that, and that is revisiting the current position that the county defers to other agencies, and there still is a large constituency within this county that would like the county to Page 27 of 44 August 27, 2010 CCPC/EAR establish and implement their own wildlife policies and not rely upon what may or may not be done by other agencies. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, thank you. MS. PAYTON: You're welcome. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: We left off on Page 55. And let's move, 56 through 60. (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Sixty through 65? (No response.) MR. SMOOT: Sixty -six through 70? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: On Page 66, Mike, the top of the page in your discussion, you're talking about inserting marine before wetlands. And my discussion with you, we need to be a little careful. I mean, all wetlands are some form of marine, otherwise they wouldn't be wet. So somehow that needs to be reworded or reconsidered. Anything else through 70 on Page 68? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Oh, the undeveloped coastal barrier issue. And Michele, I think we talked about this. On 10.6.1 it talks about developed coastal barriers. Or I think Mike and I talked about it. 10.3 refers to undeveloped coastal barriers. 10.6.1 seems to define what those are. And there are four of them. And I'm wondering if that was the intention. And if so, is that all we're ever going to have since we've defined them on 10.6.1 and how they then would relate to the Objective 10.3? MS. GIBSON: The ones listed in 10.6.1 are the only ones we have. It's also defined in 10.3.1. It references a federal definition of undeveloped -- or coastal barriers. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But my suggestion is if we are -- if we only have those four and we're not in an ability to have anymore, with the clarity of people trying to understand how this policy or objective applies, why don't we stick those four in an earlier part of the document so everybody knows what we're talking about? And if they're not one of those four they don't have to pay any attention to this. Does that -- MS. GIBSON: We can add that. MR. BOSI: And question: In the objective where it says undeveloped coastal barriers and then list the four that we have and then -- so that everyone knows that all these objectives, the policies underneath those objectives, are applying to these four individual -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. If that's all they apply to. And if that's all they ever can apply to. And if -- you know, if your review says that's true and we ever can't have anymore, then why not have it hanging out there and not explain it right in the beginning? COMMISSIONER CARON: Well, has anybody analyzed whether this is all there can be? MS. GIBSON: I'm not familiar with that. this. MR. HATCHER: None of us are intimately familiar with this topic. The staff at Parks and Rec is the lead on But undeveloped coastal barriers are specified by federal action, and these are the ones that are identified by that federal action. So there are obviously other undeveloped coastal barriers in Collier County, but these are the only ones that are specified that I know of. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, would you take a look at it before the adoption discussion? And that way if it needs to be, if it can be clarified to make it easier for the public to understand, well, let's just try to do it. MR. BOSI: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, Pages 70 through 75? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Seventy -six through 80? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: On Page 79, Mike, we talk about Policy 10.6.2. And we're -- we're suggesting we delete that policy. I believe that's the final outcome. Yeah, the policy is not relevant and should be deleted. And the basis for that is that the climate change report didn't feel we would have a six-inch rise -- or it would take 66 years to get to a six-inch rise. Now, that means it's one inch for every I 1 years. Page 28 of 44 August 27, 2010 CCPC/EAR This policy required a property to consider the impacts of that. And it was — the statement is in the sentence on top of Page 80, last sentence, this time fi-ame -- these time frames are well beyond the accepted planning horizon. They may be, but they're not beyond the accepted life expectancy of some of those high -rise buildings that are built within the areas that this may cover. And for that reason, that six-inch rise may be still relevant. It's not the life expectancy of the planning horizon we should be considering but of the buildings that are built there, I believe. And is that -- for that reason it may not be a good thing to delete this policy. Is there -- am I missing something in that analysis, or is it -- is my -- you got any thoughts on that? MR. BOSI: Well, I mean, the rationale that you provided sounds logical. The buildings that are being constructed most certainly have a much longer time frame than 2025, which is the horizon year of our Growth Management Plan. MR. HATCHER: I won't dispute your logic. It's a matter of FEMA maps get readjusted every five years, whether a building has to modify its structure or protection; gets reevaluated on a much more frequent basis than what we're requiring here. But it's not a terribly difficult thing for people to address, so if you all think we should leave it in, it's not a big deal. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I think -- I don't know -- I don't see the reason to remove it based on the life expectancy of these more expensive buildings that are built, so -- if nobody else has an objection. Let's run through Page 85. Anything? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Let me ask a question on this, Mark CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Go ahead. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: In the showing of compliance of this, have you required floor elevations and all to be raised? If somebody came in and put the lobby level of a high -rise right at the FEMA elevation, are you requiring a six -inch freeboard and stuff like that? MR. HATCHER: No. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. MR. HATCHER: We're requiring them to address whether or not they think that they can still be a functional project with a six-inch rise. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And how is that done? A letter, a study? MR. HATCHER: Any way they choose. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Well, give me an example of one. MR. HATCHER: I don't review the projects, so I can't speak to that. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay, thanks. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, through -- let's go through Page 90. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I've got one, Mark. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And it starts at 83, Policy 12.1.3, and it's the shelter capacity. First of all, do we know how much shelter capacity we have? This thing's requiring this year we have 900,000 square feet. MS. MOSCA: I don't have that answer, but we'll be able to bring that back to you after I meet with Dan Summers. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You supplied me — I had asked for backup, and we probably need to get that distributed by e-mail to Brad. MR. BOSI: That was something that I was never provided. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's the one I didn't ask you -- that's one of the 30 to 40 I didn't ask you for because I found it. If you go to the emergency services, it was either South Florida Regional Planning Council or Emergency Services website that information is all broken down. MS. MOSCA: You should have that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But you need -- if you could find it and send it on, that would be helpful. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Do you remember the answer, Mark? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah, I don't remember the specific number, but through the way they looked at it, it was met. And the way they looked at it is based on the seasonal versus non - seasonal population and then using all the school facilities and calculating it at 20 square foot per person. And somehow it came out right, and so they Page 29 of 44 August 27, 2010 CCPC/EAR proved their point. But I wanted to make sure that it was proved, and I saw it there. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay, good. And, you know, one thing, you know, some of these things in the GMP are timed. And, you know like for example affordable housing, things like this. We've always been trying to get -- I know we have Category A and Category B; we always tried to get a Category C which is where you're keeping us up to date on timed stuff. Could you really start that? I mean, we've been saying that for a long time. MR. BOSI: I will evaluate that request based upon staffmg availability. Most certainly, I understand the need. And I guess we have to start to try to establish a better reporting system upon a lot of these components so we can provide you that type of information. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I think step one, you know, as we go through these, we find them. Just isolate them and then, you know, even if you didn't know the answer it would be nice to start to, you know, give us that. MR. BOSI: Well, and that's something that, you know, Dan and his people over at EMS I believe probably that have a very good handle upon. And I think if he was here, he would be able to maybe provide some assurances in terms of how they keep -- they maintain their inventory of space available. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: But I think for example, the watershed, if that was done like that for 15 years, you would have been putting it in there not yet started, not yet started, not yet started quite a bit and we would have gotten, you know, much more curious, much more curious. Thank you. 93? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Well, let's run through the balance of this element. Anything through Page (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mike, I have one issue back on Page 86. Policy 12.1.14 says prior to the adoption of 2007 AUIR, Collier County shall evaluate whether to include hurricane shelters in the five -year schedule of capital improvements. That's the report I was sent, should we have adequate hurricane shelters. And we have them planned for the future, because basically the school systems provides most of them, and they're based on the various storm surges. Why wouldn't we want to include that in there just to show that we've accounted for it and we're doing that kind of a level of care for the citizens in regards to hurricane shelters and how we calculate it? I mean, that would have answered Brad's question easily. Is there a reason we chose not to do that? Is there a down side to doing it? MR. BOSI: Well, I guess the -- we looked towards the specific. There's two specific reasons why we performed the AUIR and the CIE. The reasons are related to the concurrency management system, the requirement for capital aid facilities to form the basis of the concurrency management system, and then for the Category B facilities to ensure that the level of service that is allocated and being charged new residents related to impact fees are being maintained and being adequately applied. Those are the two primary purposes of what that document is. This would be an area that falls outside of those, so we have not included it in the past. Starting -- if it's the desire of the Planning Commission to include the availability and inventory of the hurricane shelter space within the supporting documentation that we always provide with the AUIR, we most certainly can start to do that moving forward. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I would suggest maybe we ought to reconsider doing that, just -- it's a good thing to do, and we do mean it. I've seen the study. So why wouldn't we want to say something good and reassure the public that we're on top of it? MR. BOSI: We most certainly will. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Is that okay with everybody? make -- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Yeah, I think -- I mean, start a Category C, you know. Have C for crazy to CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That takes us through the CCME. Chuck, you have some parting comments? MR. MOHLKE: I do. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Again, Chuck Mohlke, appearing as an interested citizen. I would like to call your attention on Page 87 to Policy 12.1.17. It is the only mention that I could find in this Page 30 of 44 August 27, 2010 CCPC/EAR EAR document that concerns Collier County currently conducting a hurricane evacuation restudy. I wanted to point out, if I may, that the Department of Community Affairs requires the small municipality of Everglades City to use the hurricane evacuation program of Collier County as a feature of its coastal management element. It is a requirement that was brought forward in an amendment to the Everglades City plan in 1993. So the presumption is that if there is a hurricane evacuation restudy currently under review, please, consult with that small community to be sure that it is not mandated to do some things that during the hurricane evacuation process that it is unaware of If that doesn't happen, the community's experience with the Federal Emergency Management Agency is likely to remind the city, after reviewing these documents, that it was in some manner unobservant of a requirement of the hurricane evacuation plan, which would cause it some concern, some difficulty, maybe even the loss of some funding if that issue isn't addressed appropriately. So it could be included in the study reevaluation I think would be important. MS. MOSCA: Mr. Chair, I'd like to add something. In my conversations with Dan Summers, I was told that there is presently a Draft 2011 evacuation study that's being reviewed by staff. MR. MOHLKE: Well, I'm pleased to hear that, Mr. Chairman and staff, but I think I can testify accurately that Everglades City is unaware of that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I think it would be important. Because any of these municipalities that have to get out of the county have got to go through our territory. Why don't we look at putting some language in this policy when it comes back that references the need to either coordinate with or, you know, communicate with those other municipalities to assure everybody at least has knowledge of what we're doing. MR. SCHMIDT: Appropriate. MR. MOHLKE: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, very much. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Are there any other public comments on the CCME? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Great, thank you. Melissa, we're on time. ** *Let's move into the potable water -- actually, the sanitary sewer element, Item D. I know it's in this book somewhere. Ah, yes. Okay. Corby, this is one of yours, huh? MR. SCHMIDT: It is. Like some of the others, no introduction necessary. If you'd like to just get into the documents. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That sounds good. do. Document -- the next text of the document, we have -- let's go through the first three pages, like we normally Does anybody have any -- you've got to wait a minute, I've got to get to my fast three pages. rm still having trouble finding it. Okay, anybody have anything on the fast three pages? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: On Page 3, Policy 1.4, there's a reference to an ordinance. Again, I want to make sure it's not self - amending. Policy 1.3 refers to levels of services maintained by the service provider and whether such level of service meets the county's level of service standard in wastewater treatment. That's in the fourth line up from the bottom of Policy 1.3, and it's about the private utilities. Corby, when I mentioned this to you before, I -- we had the -- it was either the last EAR or the water study or something came along and we were trying to establish what the levels of services were in those other private utilities. And when the utilities staff went out to get the information, as required by our GMT, they were met with some cooperation, but in one instance they were told that it takes engineering money to get that established and that they would be charged -- they were going to charge us next time we asked for it. I want to make sure that if we have something in here that they're required to do, that somehow we have the ability to demand that they do it and not get into a situation where we're being charged for them to provide the information to be consistent with our Growth Management Plan. Page 31 of 44 August 27, 2010 CCPC/EAR I think Jamie, being in charge of the public services side of things, had a -- may have a handle on it, but I notice he's not here today. MR. BOSI: Yeah, I spoke with Mr. French and he had indicated that — you know, that the requirement we have in this policy, the 1.3, that they have to provide an annual report and they have to state the current policies and the levels of service are being maintained and demonstrate that they were meeting those LOS's is the mechanism that we utilize to ensure that they are indeed meeting those levels of service. And if there is an issue with that, that is when he would take that -- the issue before the water and the wastewater authority, which would then provide the means for resolution. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, because the last time this came up, I think it was in review of the CIE, and we were establishing these levels of service in the document. And we asked for verification, because we didn't have any at the time. And I think Phil Gramatges was responding to us. He had gone out and, you know, he had some a -mails to back up some of them, and then he went to one of them and they said well, here it is, but next time you ask for it we need to be paid for doing this. MR. BOSI: Was it with the CIE or was it with water supply planning process? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I can't remember which one it was. MR. BOSI: I think it was the water supply planning process that Ms. Valera had worked on and they said that's outside of our normal annual reporting. Because of that, that's where there was some resistance from those outside utilities. But it also kind of speaks to the issue, we were required to adopt the 10 -year water supply plan and update it every five years, so it's an activity that we do have to engage with these private utilities on a periodic basis. I'm not sure how we resolve their reluctance to cooperate on some of the outside of the annual reporting requirements. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I think you already answered that. If Jamie French has the ability through the PSC to make sure this is adhered to, as long as it's written properly in the GMP, all I'm really suggesting is make sure we have the teeth in the GMP we need to get the response we need at the time we need it to meet our other criteria and other demands. I think that's just a coordination issue. Pages 4 and 5? Ms. Caron? COMMISSIONER CARON: Top of four, staff has — MR. SCHMIDT: Again, I've got different pages. What policy are you referring to? COMMISSIONER CARON: That is Policy 1.4. Staff has a note here, should this policy provide an updated ordinance site. MR. SCHMIDT: Oh, it's one of those reminders. And just as with House Bill 697 for the use of as amended, we're reminding ourselves throughout the documents to double check all ordinance sites, statutory sites that could have changed during the last seven years. COMMISSIONER CARON: Good. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Chuck, did you have something you want to contribute? MR. MOHLKE: I do have a brief comment. Chuck Mohlke with a question concerning — the only mention that I could find in here that appears to be relevant to the remark I'm prepared to make, and that's in Policy 1.6. Performance standards for such facilities in Chapter 64E6, Florida Administrative Code. Mr. Chairman, I'm not as well informed about the comment I'm prepared to make as I would like to be, but there was a statute passed by the Florida legislature in 2006 that was designed to protect natural water bodies in the State of Florida from intrusion by septic systems. It is my understanding through conversations with Senator Al Lawson that he is preparing some material for legislative consideration with regard to this, that regulations are emerging that would make this apply to septic systems statewide. And that features of this, which I will endeavor, Mr. Chairman, to bring to staffs attention, but I thought for the purpose of the public record it might be worth noting that there may be a new regulatory scheme which could affect septic systems in the eastern county. Particularly if they fringe upon a canal system, a man-made water body, a natural water body or anything else that may not be yet anticipated. I hope I'm not sounding alarmist about this, but it was brought to my attention by Senator Lawson, this is a concern of his. And I will try and learn more about that and share it with the staff. But it would, on top of the other things that are now impacting the Estates related to FEMA mapping and a Page 32 of 44 August 27, 2010 CCPC /EAR variety of other concerns, it would not be a happy circumstance if this came as a surprise by some regulatory announcement at some later time. So I will take the responsibility of investigating that with the staff. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you, Chuck. And if you find anything, whatever you find, if you copy me with it, since I -- MR. MOHLKE: I will most certainly do that. Thank you, sir. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. Melissa? to that? COMMISSIONER AHERN: Chuck, are you referencing the ATU systems, or is this something in addition MR. MOHLKE: Well, I don't feel competent to answer that question in the detailed manner that I think you're asking. All I am informed about is that this 2006 enactment by the legislature that was designed originally to protect water bodies, particularly natural water bodies that are infringed upon by septic systems, so they would be in some manner regulated different than they are currently regulated to ensure that no seepage into those bodies would in any manner pollute this natural system. My sense is that if I understand Senator Lawson properly, that that is now being expanded to include other considerations for septic systems that in his view was never the legislative intention. That's the best I can do. COMMISSIONER AHERN: Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you, Chuck. Okay, anything on Pages 6 and 7? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Page 7, Mike, under the Policy 3. 1, the second part of it, as part of the EAR -based amendments the county proposes a new policy requiring private sludge and septic should be treated to a degree yadda, yadda, yadda. Where is that new policy? MR. SCHMIDT: It's just that we did not include any sample or example language, but we propose that a new one be written. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah, I know. Where is it? I know that's what it says. When are you going to spring it on us? MR. BOSI: During the GMT amendment process that's associated with the EAR -based amendments. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. MR. BOSI: Remember, we're not trying to find the specifics of where we're going, just that we need to address an issue or a goal or an objective, or in this case a policy. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Now I understand. Thank you. Pages 8 and 9? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Policy 4.6, Mike, says the county shall promote the use of Xeriscape techniques. Then it says, the policy remains relevant and requires the county to expand the use of supplemental water systems. That doesn't belong there. Wasn't that a write -up for another policy? MR. BOSI: I believe so. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, we just need to get it in the right one. And the one on 4.7, I think that seems to be the wrong writeup for that one too. Doesn't have anything to do with -- doesn't say anything about CDD specifically. So if you guys could straighten that out. I think I know where they went. Objective 5. In Objective 5 the county -- it says, the county will discourage urban sprawl and the proliferation of private sector sanitary sewer service suppliers. Why do you need the word urban sprawl? Why don't you just say the county will discourage the proliferation of private sector sanitary? Is there some connotation that is better to leave urban sprawl in, or does it make a difference? MR. BOSI: It's just another reminder I believe that the county is committed to trying to manage its growth in the most efficient manner. But in terns of -- I don't think you lose the effectiveness if you take it out. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. I'm not saying take it out, I just didn't know if there was a reason for it being Page 33 of 44 August 27, 2010 CCPC /EAR in, so I'm not -- it doesn't really matter then. The balance of this element, anybody have any issues? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Let me just quick. You're going to take out some of those other maps, is that -- I mean, does the map have to be referenced to be relevant in the GMT? MR. BOSI: These were just support documentation that was provided. It's not part -- those are not part of the element itself. MR. SCHMIDT: They are not, but I would agree that in order for them to be useful they should be referenced inside the element. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. All right, thanks. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The next element is the potable -- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Potare. (sic). CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Brad has a certain pronunciation for the word potable. It's not potable, it's potarable COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Yeah, the Latin word to drink is potare, so hence the word is potable. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I'm going to try to say that correctly. And I hope you transcribe it correctly. I'm saying potable. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: It's a bad habit a lot ofpeople have, they call it potable. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: As soon as my son who is studying Latin, I mentioned it, he knew exactly what you were talking about. There's a few other words he said that I mispronounce too, so — Okay, Pages 1 through 3 of the potable water supply. (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Page 1 is a reference to an updated annual document, Mike, it's one of those self - amending things to look at. Page 2 and 3, anybody? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: On Policy 1. 1, the write -up says, the policy remains relevant and should be rewritten not to be utility specific. How is it utility specific in the way its written? MR. BOSI: I think the term, the county. And there are other obviously utility providers other than the county. And I think that it could be inferred that it was only being applicable or designed to be applied to the Collier County public utilities system. MR. SCHMIDT: And that's the case with the comment where you see it elsewhere in some of these documents. It is never meant to be implied that the county itself is the only responsible party for getting some of these things accomplished, but those private providers as well. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Ms. Caron? COMMISSIONER CARON: Do they all fall under the master plan? Is that what the reference will now be? MR. SCHMIDT: They may not all fall under the master plan, but they are under the authority of the county. COMMISSIONER CARON: I just wondered what you were going to replace -- MS. VALERA: If I may, Carolina Valera with Comprehensive Planning. Yes, the private utilities are referenced in the 10 -year water supply plan, so we wanted to make sure that they also comply. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: On Policy 1.5, the county's going to coordinate with South Florida in the development of a water master plan update which is the primary planning document for the Collier County water /sewer district. We're going to replace water master plan update with lower west coast water supply plan. So -- and then we're going to replace the Collier County water /sewer district with Collier County. So the primary planning document for Collier County will become the lower west coast water supply plan, is that what that's going to say? MS. VALERA: The 10 -year water supply plan is based on the lower west coast water supply plan. So we need to follow the guidelines of the -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Which will be our primary planning document, the lower west coast water supply plan or the 10 -year water supply plan? Page 34 of 44 August 27, 2010 CCPC /EAR MS. VALERA: The 10 -year water supply plan, which is based on the lower west coast -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But if you replace the water master plan update with the lower west coast water supply plan, don't you want to then insert also something else? MS. VALERA: Probably, yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Probably? MS. VALERA: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Well, I mean, the plan you said is primary isn't going to be referenced, so I think you want to — MS. VALERA: The reason I said probably, because I haven't read the policy, but -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, if you didn't read it, who did? MR. SCHMIDT: I may be able to clarify, Mr. Chairman. The coordination we have with South Florida involves the larger document or the lower west coast water supply plan. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. MR. SCHMIDT: And the county takes from that its 10 -year water supply plan. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I understand. MR. SCHMIDT: So the coordination occurs in the larger or the bigger document, the more inclusive one. MS. VALERA: The answer is yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I understand that, but it says which is the primary planning document for the Collier County water /sewer district. What is the primary planning document? Which one? Whatever one it is, could you just say it? MS. VALERA: Yes, we will, we will. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. Pages 4 and 5? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I have something. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Sure. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And this kind of goes back to the problem. We do have people in Collier County that don't have the same water service. And Objective 2 kind of would be where that would cover it. For example, what are we doing to bring in some of these areas that are on the Naples system that don't have the same water supply as the county? We have a CRA that has a water supply that isn't as efficient as the rest of the county. Are we somewhere in here going to bring these different areas up to grade? I mean, it's -- here we put a CRA, we go for urban development and the water supply from the city doesn't support that without, you know, expensive thing. I mean, we have churches with water storage tanks, stuff like that that doesn't make sense. So where in Objective 2 do we start to look at people in the county that don't have equal water service? MR. BOSI: Where an individual property lies is dictated what water service provider that is available to them. Now, I believe that the utility districts are all creations of the state, and any modification to those individual districts require modification at a state level. Really, I'm at a loss as to whether the county wants to try to petition, pole these individuals as to whether they want to replace their current water and sewer provider with a different water and sewer provider and if we even -- how that process works. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: But I think, you know, this thing's discussing correcting deficiencies and stuff like that. So if we do have citizens that don't have the same -- or property owners that don't have the same access to equal water supply, shouldn't we be striving to do that? Or is that something that would not be in the GMP? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Michael, the questions that are evolved around these two elements have a lot to do with utilities. Is there a reason someone from the utilities department didn't show up here to answer these today? I know you're struggling to answer them, but you're not water and sewer. Oh, you're hiding behind the podium. Oh, you didn't want -- you're going to let Michael take all the shots? MR. BEALS: Good morning. For the record, Nathan Beals, Collier County Public Utilities. The reason I haven't stepped up is because my understanding of the Growth Management Plan, and Mike can back me up, is that it is for unincorporated Collier County, and that City of Naples and Marco Island who have their Page 35 of 44 August 27, 2010 CCPC/EAR own utilities fall under their own plans, land development plans and growth management plans, that we can't dictate what they do but we can only do what Collier County Water /Sewer District and then what the water -- Collier County Water and Wastewater Authority with Jamie French's group can handle. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: But I think my problem is I'm talking about people in unincorporated Collier County getting water from another system that's not equal to the rest of Collier County. MR. BOSI: And that speaks to that annual reporting. There's various -- and if you look in the CIE and this portion, there's various levels of service for each of those utility providers. Their only -- they're required to maintain that level of service provided as stated toward their individual system. I guess your question gets into the point, well, maybe the public -- Collier County's level of service standard for potable water is higher than the City of Naples utility provider. Why should we allow that to happen? We have no policies that really try to make a quantitative evaluation as to whether all utility providers have to have an equal level of service standard. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Well, I mean, if you read Objective 2, it really does kind of get into the fact that they're required to meet a level of service or greater. Again, you know, since this is the year, I'm just looking to see, should we have something in here that tries to bring everybody in the county at the same level, rather than orphaning some areas of it just because they're on some other city system? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But doesn't our CIE and this document as well go to the ability -- actually, it goes to the opposite direction, it breaks down the different municipalities and allocates them different levels of service. I understand what you're saying, but I think by reallocating the levels of service as we do in the CIE and this document, we actually acknowledge there are different levels of standards, but they have to meet these because that's what that area dictates. MR. BOSI: And that's what I'm saying. I'm saying that each one of those individual utility providers have established their own level of service standards. Now, whether it's equitable or appropriate that they're not all the same, I can't speak to -- I guess and that's probably your issue. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Yeah. And my concern actually isn't going to be the level of service, which is gallons per day per capita, it's going to be the amount of water and the pressure in which that water's delivered. And we have areas of the county -- but I guess if this isn't the place, this isn't the place. MR. BOSI: And Pm not sure it is the place. But they have those levels of service standards. They have to show that they are meeting those where they have to show that they're correcting those deficiencies. And I think that's what this objective is trying to indicate, that they have to work towards those, providing those levels of service. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The objective is saying, though, that the areas as maybe required to meet or exceed the level of service standards established in this plan. Now, the plan it seems like they're talking about because there's not one referenced, wouldn't it be this element, and wouldn't it be the CIE, which is the Growth Management Plan, and that would then cover it? They have to meet what their levels of service are established by the plan and if they have a different level of service than the county has, it looks like it would be acceptable based on that statement. MS. VALERA: That is correct. Carolina Valera again with Comprehensive Planning. And that's what we reference, as you said, Chair, in the CIE. In the water supply we do make sure as a government, as a county, we go through the 10 -year water supply plan, just to make sure that we do have water in a 10 -year horizon. Typically it's a little bit more. But at least in 10 years we report back to the agencies that all these private utilities including Collier County will have water supply for the future. If that helps. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Well, yeah, I'm concerned about the inequality. But if this isn't the place to do it, this isn't -- MR. BOSI: And one thing, if you look on Page 8, I mean, the City of Naples and Collier County Wastewater -- Sewer District both have the same 185 gallons per capita daily. MS. VALERA: And of course as you know, that's based on demand, based on, you know, the amount of water supply that they need and what they serve. So that would be different for each portion of the county or city or -- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay, we can move on. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The utility -- you work for Collier County Utilities? MR. BEALS: Yes, sir. For the record -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I wasn't sure if you might have worked for one of the other utilities when you got up Page 36 of 44 August 27, 2010 CCPC /EAR and said that's why you hadn't addressed things earlier. Maybe you can help me then. What I was trying to get earlier, what is our primary planning document? What does your department consider it? Is it the lower west coast water supply plan or is it the 10 -year -- MR. BEALS: For Collier County Public Utilities it's the master plan, based off of the 10 -year water supply plan. So for the county as a whole, which includes the unincorporated, it would be the 10 -year water supply plan as opposed -- it's also then based off the lower west coast water supply plan. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Did you participate in these? MR. BEALS: I did, yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. I just want to make sure that that clarification comes through in the final document. MR. BEALS: We'll make sure. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I guess we're on page -- we left off on Page 4 and 5 and we're going to Page 6 and 7. Anybody have anything on six and seven? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mike, there's on 2.5 and 2.6 both reference issues that may be self - amending, so — MR. SCHMIDT: Mr. Chairman? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes, sir. MR. SCHMIDT: A post -EAC comment from staff, and again working with Nathan and his team. Policy 2.1. Here's one of those locations where the note was made where the reference to the county 10 -year water supply plan is preferred rather than referring to the lower west coast supply plan. So the reference is different throughout the document. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. Pages 8 and 9. Anybody? Melissa? COMMISSIONER AHERN: How is the level of service standard actually calculated? I mean, is there a certain formula that's used that's different between Collier County versus the independent districts? MR. BEALS: I can answer -- for the record, Nathan Beals. I can answer for Collier County public utilities. We use the population projections for each year based from comprehensive planning — provided to us by comprehensive planning and our actual usage for that year demand. And we -- during the master planning process that we do, we look at our historical actual level of service and then go from there to provide. And that's why you'll see here the 185 in the narrative below, we've actually updated that to 170. COMMISSIONER AHERN: Because the population's decreased? MR. BEALS: Population's decreased. Our level -- because of increased use of reclaimed water and irrigation days and things like that. COMMISSIONER AHERN: Okay, thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, Pages 8 and 9? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mike, on Page 8, is Ave Maria supposed to be in there somewhere? MS. VALERA: Yes. MR. LEFEBVRE: Okay. And I forgot to bring this up on the wastewater. Because of a notation I see on Page 9, Policy 3.4, the intention here is to change the level of service standards in Policy 3.1 as needed. Wouldn't we want to move all the standards in both wastewater and potable water to the CIE and not have them here? Because the CIE is the only thing you can change on a yearly basis, where this can't be changed that easily. MR. SCHMIDT: That's correct. We've noted that from the last -- or the earlier portion of this session and so noted throughout. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, good. CIE. Then the Policy 3.4 suggested changes to -- or the reference to Policy 3.1 will really reference probably the MR. SCHMIDT: That's correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Pages 10 and 11? Page 37 of 44 August 27, 2010 CCPC/EAR (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Pages 12 and 13? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That wraps up potable water. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Potable. Start heading for potato and you're on the right track. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I know members of the public are here for comment. Does anybody have any comments on those items before we finish -- what we'll do is we'll finish up the CIE, ask for any final comments from the public and wrap it up that way. * * *So let's move to the CIE, which is the second tab. Way in the beginning. And Corby, that's you again. MR. SCHMIDT: It is. Again, no introductory statements necessary, unless you'd like to hear something. And I'll allow you to proceed as you wish. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, let's take the fust three pages. Anybody? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Pages 4 and 5? Ms. Caron? COMMISSIONER CARON: On Page 5, at the top where you're explaining the policy, is what's in bold something that you're considering adding? When further considering projects prioritized by this order, the higher priority shall be assigned to. That bold, that's language you want to add? MR. SCHMIDT: It is. Here's one of those situations where greenhouse gasses and emissions gave us the opportunity for some more specific language than some of those other instances you had discussed. COMMISSIONER CARON: How about adding, or not constructing at all? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: How do you prioritize something that's not being done? COMMISSIONER CARON: No, if you look further to the policy, then you'd know. The simple fact of the matter is that one of the options should be not constructing something. MR. SCHMIDT: We'll look at that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, through Page 5, does anybody -- Mike, there's some self - amending references on Page 5, I'm sure that you'll get into those. Pages 6 and 7, anybody? (No response.) COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Mike, in here you have a discussion where you want to move all the level of services up into the CIE and take them out of the individual elements. Is that something you're going to do? MR. SCHMIDT: Direction from your group first half of the session coincided with our recommendation, yes. MR. BOSI: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: On Page 6 in your -- it talks about county potable water systems -- how did I do, Brad? Did I do okay? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: You hit it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: It talks -- I notice Marco Island's missing under municipal systems in both categories. You want to throw that in or -- MR. BOSI: Okay. MS. VALERA: That is for potable water? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Did you say that right? And for sanitary sewer. MS. VALERA: It's my background. They do their own 10 -year water supply plan, so I don't believe we have to include them. But we can double check that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Is that what this is for, only those that do 10 -year water supply plans? I didn't see that, and I'm not sure how you got there. But -- MS. VALERA: Because were requiring levels of services. And if we don't have any purview over either the Page 38 of 44 August 27, 2010 CCPC/EAR city or we don't have to include them in a 10 -year water supply plan, then maybe there is no need to have -- MR. BOSI: We need to include them. They have to report to the Wastewater Authority, so we -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I was going to say, because you included them in the other elements. I'm just -- MR. BOSI: We need to include them. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Pages 8 and 9? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: How about 10 and 11 ? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I do. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Brad? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Policy 2.10 you want to increase the debt service percentage. You know, and obviously your argument is times are slow. But times will be fast again, and then we go up the ladder. Then after that times will be slow and they'll increase it again. And then times will be fast again and they're up the ladder another notch. So is this a smart thing to do? MR. SCHMIDT: Actually, I hope the language doesn't imply that we're asking to make that change, but only looking into whether a change can be made, and really asking whether this is the right place to indicate it. If we have a limitation, should this be where we state that. MR. BOSI: Now, let me expand upon that a little bit further. That debt ratio has been within our Growth Management Plan as far as we can tell since 1990. We -- I believe it's been there since the original adoption of our Growth Management Plan. We just put that statement out there to contemplate whether it was -- the possibility or the contemplation maybe that was appropriate. By no means does staff think that we're asking that we need to change this. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But just asking the question -- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Yeah. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- is opening the door for a floodgate of trouble. I mean, just by the mere fact you're asking the question it's suggesting it can be change. But -- MR. BOSI: I think it puts the principles of why this policy was established back to the forefront and we can say that a conservative approach to fiscal management is something that we view as highly important within this county; therefore this 13 percent is where we want to stay. That was -- I mean, by no means are we saying because you have to contemplate this policy doesn't mean that there has to be a change. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That may not -- it may work for us, but it doesn't work for the politicians. I don't -- first of all, if this EAR is only to make changes and you're not suggesting a change you want us to contemplate, we've contemplated, so does that mean you're not going to include any changes in 2.10 in the EAR? MR. BOSI: We're seeking your direction upon that. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Well, it sure confused me. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, it confused me too, Brad. I think the consensus is it doesn't need to be brought up. MR. BOSI: Understood. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Why open the door. Anybody else on 10 and 11? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Twelve and 13? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Fourteen and 15? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I have a question on 15. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Go ahead. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Policy 4.7, you're listing some things that buildings have to do to minimize loss. But one thing you're not really listing is the fact that it should be built wind speeds and stuff for the hurricane. I guess to the building code it's implied. I mean, there's no way you're going to build something without meeting the building code, so -- but, for example, you have construction above the floodplain. Well, there's no way you're going to get away with that either. Page 39 of 44 August 27, 2010 CCPC/EAR So my concern is the fact that you are missing consideration for, you know, a hurricane wind speed, stuff like that in your list of things. In other words, first of all, why have a list? I mean, the wildfire you don't have to build to, so that's good to put in the list. MR. SCHMIDT: You'd look to have that list expanded a bit to be more exemplary? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Well, I think yeah — well, yeah, just put maybe built to all governing construction codes or something. And then that way, wind speed, everything else gets picked up. So does floodplain, so does some of the other things. MR. SCHMIDT: All right. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Cherie', we're probably going to wrap up here in 15 or 20 minutes, but it's time you normally have a break. Do you want to take a break or just go through? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Go for the gold. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Go for the gold. CIE? How about Pages 16, 17, and let's go through the last one, Page 18, anybody have any other questions on the (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, public comment on anything at this point. Jim? MR. FLANIGAN: My name's Jim Flanigan, I'm a Golden Gate Estates resident. And for a few years now I've been following all the meetings, public hearings and whatnot that have been happening regarding the growth management, transportation and all the activities of the county. And I'm trying to keep an open mind about learning the process; it's a large process to get around. I tried to keep up with the EAR process, and understand what it meant and how and where it was going. And as I go through the Growth Management Plan, I tried to summarize it. And what I did was I came up with the fact that there are 15 elements that incorporate 39 goals which incorporated 155 objectives and 764 policies. Now, we were asked as the public to come and comment on eight major issues, according to DCA. And those major issues, obviously we've gone through some of that here today. Although in the process of this review, I'm not sure that we've actually addressed the major issues. We've gone through all the elements, but have we gone back through the major issues? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah, the morning of the first day. MR. FLANIGAN: Okay. Then I missed that and I apologize for missing that. But in the big picture of things, the process I saw as a public participant I think was lacking a few things. And I've written a summation of some of those ideas, and I just want to briefly review some of the major ones and then leave this with you for the record so that we can incorporate this into the process. When we first looked at the public comment period, we were asked to comment on those major elements. We were asked to comment on those major elements, but there was no reference to the Growth Management Plan, there was no reference to the goals and the objectives and the policies that we were trying to address and measure. And as well, within those policies and goals and objectives there was no measurement to be able to assess and evaluate those -- the successes of the Growth Management Plan. And the public comments were made, the staff took them back and attached them to certain policies and objectives in their opinion, and we were never brought back into the process to concur that with the public comments or to even reevaluate and reassess the interpretation of staff. And that one particular item was missing out of the process. And I -- you know, I don't know how you would do it myself, but that to me is one of the obvious leave -outs of the process. Kind of coming full circle. But I -- I've gone through the process and watched a lot of things happen, and there are some considerations I think that need to be made going forward to improve the EAR process and the growth management process as far as involving public participation and incorporating public perspectives and incorporating some of the things that are brought out, some of these meetings that the average person comes to these meetings, makes a comment and then goes back to work and try to make a living and never really gets a follow -up in the end. In general, that's the big picture. I think there needs to be a process whereby these goals, objectives and policies are framed so that when the public is asked a question to comment on certain major issues, that they can actually understand how they relate back to the Growth Management Plan and then bring forward more substantial and understandable comments. And frankly, more understanding within the public as well. Page 40 of 44 August 27, 2010 CCPC /EAR I understand that you have a vast amount of paper to govern here. And it's tough to put it down in the sound bites and whatnot. But I think some of the concepts of things like rural standards and some of the other things that we bring out in our public comments are going to get lost in the future without having that bringing full circle to come back to see that they're incorporated and our comments, whether (sic) they may not be attributable to a certain policy, are brought into an addressing of the public comments, and then maybe new policies and at least reviews for the future come forward. So I write better than I speak, so I will leave my comments with you. And I've made some copies for the board, and I thank you for your time. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: We certainly would like copies and that would be very helpful. Jim had called me and talked to me about some of his concerns, and I said well, we still have an opportunity to get on record and present things today, Mike. So I'd like to make sure his document is entered into part of the record for the EAR. One thing you pointed out that I never understood, never realized, but I was at one of those EAR meetings, as you know I was, and we all sat there and put our thoughts on these charts. And then you took them and you addressed them and explained them in today's process. But there wasn't a second meeting with the public where that was to come back and say okay, we've taken all your comments and here's how we believe they're addressed in the GMP and then gotten finrther input. And I understand that takes another meeting and more time. But it just was a possibility that there may be even a better way to proceed with the next EAR. And I think that's what Jim is trying to -- MR. BOSI: And I guess what I don't understand is that these day and a half -- and it was described that this was the second meeting. This is where you come and you see where your policies are being applied, where those comments that you made are being discussed. If there's 775 individual policies -- and Pm going to try and keep the -- capture the imagination and the attention of general public for an hour and a half to two hours, just reading 775 policies and asking for input upon those at a public meeting like that, it's not practical, it's not viable, it's not even useful. What we did is we asked for what in your experience -- you don't have to know about policies, you don't have to know about objectives, you don't have to be a water management expert, you don't have to be an architect, but you tell me what the big problems are there facing you in your daily lives and we'll see where you can apply those within our individual -- and we will try to attempt to attach those to individual policies and objectives. And if you really, if you want to see where the manifestation of that's going to come, come and sit and hear the Planning Commission and the EAC's discussion of the policy by policy and the objectives and see where those opportunities are. We're going to have not only this opportunity for the workshop but the opportunities for the adoption of these documents for all these policies and where it's applying. But then we also have the GMP amendment process where we're going to have a transmittal process through public hearings with all the advisory boards and then the adoption public hearings for — with all the advisory boards. So there's a number of avenues and opportunities. I don't know if another public meeting accomplishes more in terms of providing another avenue. And I will read these and try to figure out how we can hit those concerns, most certainly. But I feel from my perspective -- and of course I'm biased as to comprehensive planning management -- I believe that we carried out as inclusive as a process as we could within the resources that are available. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And I think you may be somewhat overreacting. All he's saying is -- and we did those for -- you did three meetings. You did them at night when people who work during the day can attend. You went out and asked the community, okay -- and you explained to them about it. I was there for one of them. You did a great job. They wrote down a little chart, here's our concerns. There was no follow -up meeting convenient to the neighborhoods in which those other three were managed to say okay, we read everything you said, here's how we think it's being addressed and we just wanted you to know. And Mike, it's not a bad thing, it's just saying here's another level that if we had the opportunity we could go to and maybe educate the public more on what's happening with this policy and how they get from those meetings to this more or less finalized public document. And I know it's not final, but the fact that it's in writing and on public record, it's a lot more final than just Page 41 of 44 August 27, 2010 CCPC/EAR having another informal community meeting. And I understand there's not a lot of staff now and not a lot of time. I think it's a constructive suggestion for the future. And that's all I think Jim was trying to get across. MR. FLANIGAN: And Michael, please understand, I'm not putting criticism on there. I know how massive an objective it is to take all of that and squeeze it down into two hours. What I'm hoping will come out of this is that when we take those six or eight major issues of the -- the DCA points out that we need to discuss, that we take and not focus on 15 elements but focus on the major aspects, just as a foundation for the public to understand those major issues. I don't know that we would ever consider 15 elements in all those policies at one sitting for one thing, but my only objective here was to get us to frame those major issues based on policy so people would have a better perspective of what questions you're really looking for. And a lot of those major issues don't transverse every policy, they're more focused on certain policies. And that's where I wanted to go with it. I appreciate what comprehensive planning did. And I understand the enormous task you guys have trying to boil that all down for the public. And I respect that a whole lot, you don't know how much. I'm still trying to get my hand around the whole growth management plan process. You know, the idea is you can get your hands around the Ten Commandments but you can't get your hands around the growth management process, and that's what I'm trying to do here. And thank you to the staff, and thank you for all your efforts and for keeping us informed. I'm just trying to find a way to bring a better process for all of us to get this -- get through this kind of process. MR. BOSI: Understood and I appreciate it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And Jim, thank you for your analysis. It's unbelievable. You did a heck of a job. I wish everybody had the time to understand it as well as you have, so thank you. Before we close, I brought up the issue in the beginning of the meeting as the possibility of instituting staff to come back to us at the EAR with an outline to -- or a draft of what would be considered a mobility element to be formatted over the next 18 months or whatever it takes after the EAR is done. The mobility element was supported by many members of the public that were here. I'm assuming -- does this board like that idea as a whole? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, Mike -- COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Is this separate from transportation? MR. BOSI: And maybe where I need further clarification, between now and December, you would like a draft element of a mobility -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No, no, the language that would be needed to enter into the EAR. MR. BOSI: Oh, policy. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. So that it can happen afterwards when you go through the next process of your follow -up work to the EAR. MR. BOSI: And I guess the concern that I would have is trying to be able to process all the amendments that are going to be EAR -based amendments on top of developing a mobility element as part of that process of the EAR -based amendments seems I don't want to say ambitious, but it seems like it could draw the resources and the attention away from the actual amendments within the EAR -based process to be able to also say oh, we're also going to introduce a brand new element within the Growth Management Plan and all that entails. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But Mike, we're just saying we like the idea, the public likes the idea. There might be a need for it. We're asking you to evaluate it and do put the language in the EAR that's coming up to give you the opportunity to evaluate it. If it takes a separate point of time to do it, that's fine. MR. BOSI: Because my perspective and thought was that it was -- in early discussions was the policy would be developed that Collier County would explore the possibility of developing a mobility option based upon some of the conclusions and some of the progress that's made within the master mobility plan, within also the other relevant aspects as discussed during our workshop. A policy such as that that we're going to explore the possibility of developing that mobility option. But I didn't -- what I heard coming from the dais was that was going to be as part of the EAR -based amendments. And I'm just — I'm reluctant to be able to make that type of a commitment. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I'm sorry, let me -- I'll try to say it again. We have to put policies in the EAR in Page 42 of 44 August 27, 2010 CCPC/EAR areas that we believe the GMP could be further refined to be better. And then you take those policies and you follow them up, and later on at some point that you can fit it into your schedule. I think we're suggesting that the idea of a mobility element be entered into that realm of things that we should be looking at at whenever it's scheduled to do. MR. BOSI: Understood. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Is that a fair statement? And did you have any question, Karen? I didn't mean to -- Mike started -- COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: I just -- it's going to be separate from the transportation element. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right, yes. It will be a standalone element on its own. MR. BOSI: Standalone. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, I think that's -- anybody else have any general comments? Melissa? COMMISSIONER AHERN: We were going to look at Policy 3.15 and determine if we were moving it to the housing or the Immokalee area. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: They were going to do that. COMMISSIONER AHERN: Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah, that was direction we had given to staff. She's talking about the economic element where it had the reference to the Immokalee Enterprise Zone and how to handle -- MR. BOSI: Enterprise, and the impact fee deferral? COMMISSIONER AHERN: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. And then it was either going to go to the housing element or possibly the Immokalee Area Master Plan, and you guys were going to come back -- MR. BOSI: Sure. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- after your research on that. Anybody else have anything? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And we're done. Nobody's jumping to the podium. Unbelievable. Half the time we originally were going to go for. MR. BOSI: Before you convene, Chair, just let me, from a personal perspective and a professional perspective, extend my thanks and gratitude to the members, and the time and the commitment and the effort and the energy and everything that's gone onto (sic) the process. We appreciate it. And we do feel that this detail policy -by- policy review will better the Growth Management Plan in the long run and this process was worth the effort, and we appreciate your time. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, Mike, I think it goes both ways. Your let's say good bedside manner in this whole process and the attitude you kept in dealing with us has been exemplary and we thank you for that. Okay, is there a motion to -- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Another thing. You know, in going through it, there are a lot of policies, and Jim actually did a great study. There wasn't that many that we really changed. So this means that our Growth Management Plan might be a good one. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. And I think the objective was to do just -- find that out. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Right. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And I think the careful way staff approached it — COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: We know that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- we're there now. Okay, Melissa? COMMISSIONER AHERN: Motion to adjourn. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Is there a second? COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Second. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, we are -- all in favor, we're adjourned. Page 43 of 44 August 27, 2010 CCPC/EAR * * * * * * * * * * ** There being no further business for the good of the County, the meeting was adjourned by order of the Chair at 12:02 p.m. COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION MARK STRAIN, Cha' cnn= These minutes approved by the board on D as presented /or as corrected Transcript prepared on behalf of Gregory Reporting Service, Inc., by Cherie' R. Nottingham. Page 44 of 44