Loading...
CCPC Minutes 08/16/2012 R August 16,2012 TRANSCRIPT OF THE MEETING OF THE COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION Naples,Florida August 16,2012 LET IT BE REMEMBERED,that the Collier County Planning Commission,in and for the County of Collier,having conducted business herein,met on this date at 9:00 a.m.in REGULAR SESSION in Building "F"of the Government Complex,East Naples,Florida,with the following members present: Mark Strain,Chairman Melissa Ahern Phillip Brougham Diane Ebert Karen Homiak Barry Klein Paul Midney Brad Schiffer Bill Vonier(Absent) ALSO PRESENT: Heidi Ashton-Cicko,Assistant County Attorney Ray Bellows,Zoning Manager Thomas Eastman,Real Property Director,CC School District Page 1 of 69 AGENDA BY: COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION WILL MEET AT 9:00 A.M., THURSDAY, AUGUST 16, 2012, IN THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS MEETING ROOM,ADMINISTRATION BUILDING, COUNTY GOVERNMENT CENTER, THIRD FLOOR,3299 TAMIAMI TRAIL EAST,NAPLES,FLORIDA: NOTE: INDIVIDUAL SPEAKERS WILL BE LIMITED TO 5 MINUTES ON ANY ITEM. INDIVIDUALS SELECTED TO SPEAK ON BEHALF OF AN ORGANIZATION OR GROUP ARE ENCOURAGED AND MAY BE ALLOTTED 10 MINUTES TO SPEAK ON AN ITEM IF SO RECOGNIZED BY THE CHAIRMAN. PERSONS WISHING TO HAVE WRITTEN OR GRAPHIC MATERIALS INCLUDED IN THE CCPC AGENDA PACKETS MUST SUBMIT SAID MATERIAL A MINIMUM OF 10 DAYS PRIOR TO THE RESPECTIVE PUBLIC HEARING. IN ANY CASE, WRITTEN MATERIALS INTENDED TO BE CONSIDERED BY THE CCPC SHALL BE SUBMITTED TO THE APPROPRIATE COUNTY STAFF A MINIMUM OF SEVEN DAYS PRIOR TO THE PUBLIC HEARING.ALL MATERIAL USED IN PRESENTATIONS BEFORE THE CCPC WILL BECOME A PERMANENT PART OF THE RECORD AND WILL BE AVAILABLE FOR PRESENTATION TO THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS IF APPLICABLE. ANY PERSON WHO DECIDES TO APPEAL A DECISION OF THE CCPC WILL NEED A RECORD OF THE PROCEEDINGS PERTAINING THERETO, AND THEREFORE MAY NEED TO ENSURE THAT A VERBATIM RECORD OF THE PROCEEDINGS IS MADE, WHICH RECORD INCLUDES THE TESTIMONY AND EVIDENCE UPON WHICH THE APPEAL IS TO BE BASED. 1. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE Fiala __V 2. ROLL CALL BY SECRETARY Hiller -Henning -rig _17'' 3. ADDENDA TO THE AGENDA Coyle Colette 1L 4. PLANNING COMMISSION ABSENCES 5. APPROVAL OF MINUTES July 19,2012 6. BCC REPORT-RECAPS 7. CHAIRMAN'S REPORT Misc.Cones: 3‘frfiy, , Date: \ Item#:\LA=—2—V=1) 3 os)Aei Copies to: 1 8. CONSENT AGENDA ITEMS A. PUDZ-PL20110000406: Brynwood Center -- An Ordinance of the Board of County Commissioners of Collier County, Florida amending Ordinance Number 2004-41, as amended, the Collier County Land Development Code, which established the comprehensive zoning regulations for the unincorporated area of Collier County, Florida, by amending the appropriate zoning atlas map or maps by changing the zoning classification of the herein described real property from an Agricultural (A) zoning district with an "ST" overlay to a Commercial Planned Unit Development (CPUD) zoning district for a project to be known as the Brynwood Center CPUD to allow construction of a maximum of 145,000 square feet of retail and office uses which include a maximum of 25,000 square feet of retail and a maximum of 60,000 square feet of medical office uses. Also permitted are hotel and motel uses at 20 units per acre and group housing (assisted living facility and independent living units) at a floor area ratio of 0.6. For each acre of group housing or hotel or motel use, 10,626 square feet of retail or office use shall be subtracted from the total amount of allowable commercial square footage. The project is located on the south side of Pine Ridge Road, approximately 980 feet east of the intersection of Livingston Road and Pine Ridge Road in Section 18, Township 48 South, Range 26 East, Collier County, Florida consisting of 13.65+/1 acres; and by providing an effective date. [Coordinator:Kay Deselem,AICP, Principal Planner] 9. ADVERTISED PUBLIC HEARINGS 10. NEW BUSINESS A. ST-PL20120000168: Wiggins Pass Maintenance Dredging and Navigation Improvement Project Special Treatment Permit. [Coordinator: Stephen Lenberger] B. Presentation of the Collier County Inventory of Shelter Space availability by Emergency Management, as required by the Growth Management Plan (GMP). This information was requested during one of the Planning Commission's review of the 2011 Collier County EAR. [Coordinator: Mike Bosi] 11. OLD BUSINESS A. LDC Amendments 2012 Cycle 1 [Coordinator: Caroline Cilek, Senior Planner] 12. PUBLIC COMMENT ITEM 13. DISCUSSION OF ADDENDA 14. ADJOURN CCPC Agenda/Ray Bellows/jmp 2 August 16,2012 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Good morning,everyone.Welcome to the Thursday,August 16th meeting of the Collier County Planning Commission. If you'll all please rise for Pledge of Allegiance. (Pledge of Allegiance was recited in unison.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. If the secretary will please do the roll call. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Mr.Eastman? MR. EASTMAN: Here. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Mr.Vonier is absent. Mr.Schiffer? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I'm here. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Mr.Midney is not here yet,probably,right? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right,he's usually a few minutes--five minutes after. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Ms.Ahem? COMMISSIONER AHERN: Here. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Mr.Strain? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Here. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Ms.Homiak is here. Ms.Ebert? COMMISSIONER EBERT: Here. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Mr.Klein? COMMISSIONER KLEIN: Present. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: And Mr.Brougham? COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: Here. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: ***Addenda to the agenda. Ray,are there any changes that you know of? MR.BELLOWS: I have no changes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: ***Planning Commission absences. Our next regular meeting is two weeks from today in this room. I guess that--no,three weeks. Actually,it's the first Thursday in September. I don't know the date.Does anybody? COMMISSIONER EBERT: The 6th. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: 6th. Anybody know if they're not going to make it here on the 6th? COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: I will not be present. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay,so-- COMMISSIONER KLEIN: I will be present,Mr.Chairman,but I will not on the 20th,just so you know. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay,thank you. COMMISSIONER KLEIN: I could not resolve between my wife's vacation plans and mine.We're going together,so-- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Oh,dam it,you've got to do one of those joined vacations. COMMISSIONER KLEIN: I know. I lost,I had to give up. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you,Barry. Okay,we do have an agenda for that next date,so we're set to go. ***Approval of minutes. The July 19th,2012,they were sent to us electronically.Does anybody have any changes or corrections? COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Motion to.approve. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion to approve by Ms.Homiak. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Second. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Seconded by Ms.Ebert. Discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: All in favor,signify by saying aye. Page 2 of 69 August 16,2012 COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Aye. COMMISSIONER KLEIN: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye. COMMISSIONER AHERN: Aye. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Aye. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Any opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion carries. COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: I'll abstain. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Phil abstained. Pm sorry. So it's 6-0 with one abstention. ***BCC recaps. Ray? MR.BELLOWS: The BCC did not meet in August. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's an easy one. ***Chairman's report. There's so much that could be reported,but I'm going to for the sake of time just move on today. ***Let's go straight to consent agenda items. The first one and the only one up is PUDZ-PL20 1 1 0000406,the Brynwood Center. The information was sent to us in our packet. I didn't know if there are any issues that need to be further addressed. Anybody on the commission? COMMISSIONER EBERT: Yeah,I had a question about the eating places. In the final PUD on it, it just said that it would be only for hotel guests. If there is a good--I mean,does it have to be put that strict? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Because it's within the close range of the housing development to the south, that's why. If they put it further away,I believe there's a 400 or 600-foot-- COMMISSIONER EBERT: Four hundred. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: --buffer. Yeah. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Four hundred. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: If they put it north of that,then I don't think--then that wouldn't apply. But if they put it within that range,that's close to the residential so we don't have another Stevie Tomatoes incident. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Well,I know,but if you found out there was a good restaurant-- they're probably not going to build a hotel there anyway. But if you figured out that there was a good restaurant in there and you wanted to go in via just going in because it's good and you don't have a room key, that to me was just a little different. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well,I mean,I think it's for the protection of the residents to the south. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Yeah,well. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: We had such a bad experience with other situations,I think this buffer of 400 or 600 feet is what we've tried to enforce. MR.BELLOWS: Yes. And we also had an incident with a tire store nearby causing noise. So that --keeping those commercial retail uses further away was deemed appropriate. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So I think that's why it ended up that way and so-- COMMISSIONER EBERT: Okay,that was just it,I just thought that was a little unusual. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody have anything else? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: If not,there's a motion to approve? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I'll make one,Mark. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Brad? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I move consent Item PUDZ-PL20110000406 as being representative of the hearing. Page 3 of 69 August 16,2012 COMMISSIONER AHERN: I'll second. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Seconded by Melissa,motion made by Brad. Discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: For the applicant's sake,thank you,the numbers worked a lot better than the asterisks. So all those-- COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: Abstain. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: All those approving the motion,signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Aye. COMMISSIONER KLEIN: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye. COMMISSIONER AHERN: Aye. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Aye. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: All those opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion carries 6-0,with Phil Brougham abstaining. And the abstention was because Phil wasn't present at the time we did that one. ***Okay,we'll move on to the next item,which is our--well,we have no advertised public hearings. What we have is new business. And I questioned this at the time the agenda was put together,and I found out that the advertising for an ST permit is not the same as an advertising for a rezoning. I guess it just needs to be posted as it has been for an ST. So it's actually under new business,not advertised public hearings,which is 10.A. And that item is ST-PL20120000168,the Wiggins Pass Maintenance Dredging and Navigation Improvement Project. And Steve Lenberger is making--are you going to start the presentation,Steve? And I want to ask County Attorney,since this isn't a zoning matter,do we need disclosures and swearing in? MS.ASHTON-CICKO: I always like to error on the side of caution,so rm going to ask you to go ahead and do that,please. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. All those wishing to testify on behalf of this item,please rise to be sworn in by the court reporter. (Speakers were duly sworn.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Disclosures on the part of Planning Commission. I think Bob Krasnowski and I just talked a little bit about it before the meeting started,but I don't know if there's any issues that will be relative to that discussion coming up today. So other than that,let's move forward. Steve? MR.LENBERGER: Good morning. For the record,Stephen Lenberger,Natural Resources Department. What you have before you here is a special treatment permit for dredging to improve navigation and address the erosion issues at Wiggins Pass. I just wanted to briefly talk about the ST overlay. I pulled out the section of the code and I put it on the visualizer. It's 2.03.07. And just a couple things from that section. It says all lands within the ST overlay district shall be designated as environmentally sensitive. And the regulations are directed towards the conservation,preservation,protection of ecological and recreational values for the greatest benefit of the people of Collier County. Page 4 of 69 August 16,2012 And also at the same time to permit those types of development which will hold changes to levels, determined acceptable by the BCC at the public hearing. So the ST section of the code requires that petitions be heard by the Environmental Advisory Council and the Planning Commission,and those recommendations be forwarded to the BCC,which is why we're here today. We have a few speakers here for you.You're going to get a presentation by the consultant team. And also Gary,our Coastal Zone Manager,is going to give you an update. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Thank you,Steve. MR.McALPIN: Thank you. Good morning,Mr.Chair,Counsel members. I'm Gary McAlpin with Coastal Zone Management of the Natural Resources Department. And I just wanted to give you a quick history and perspective on this project. I think it's important that you get a little bit of background and the history that we went through or going through to date. (At which time,Commissioner Midney enters the boardroom.) MR.McALPIN: I started with Wiggins Pass in 2005. It was my first project when I came with the county,and we were dredging the pass.We took about 40,000 cubic yards of material out of the pass. We had a difficult time. The dredge was too small. To my surprise,two years later we're at the same situation. That was early 2007. We were dredging it again. Every time we dredge the pass,at that point in time it was costing us a half million dollars. Now the cost is closer to$750,000. It's a crazy approach. And in 2007 we said we've got to do better. We can't continue to disturb the environment with the damage that we're causing and go through the cost and to improve navigation. And we started to look at it and we wanted to see what we could do to minimize or eliminate the erosion on Barefoot Beach. And you'll hear testimony today that the shoreline has receded about 200 feet in that southern end of Barefoot Beach. We wanted to improve navigation so that we could maintain or get to a three-foot draft vessel. We wanted to do it as efficiently as possible,improve the operation and we wanted to do most importantly,or one of the most important issues,we wanted to have the least impact to the environment and improve the environment while we were doing this. First we started off with a modeling program. And we wanted to see if we could stabilize the inlet or straighten the inlet,stabilize the beach at'Barefoot Beach,eliminate the mangrove erosion and straighten the channel. Consultant came back after spending three or four months modeling this program,he said yes,you could do all that. But you have to come in and you have to put an erosion control structure,which is a code name for a jetty,up there to stabilize the pass. We knew from the very beginning that that was a non-starter,because it didn't meet the Land Development Code and it didn't meet the wishes of the county,the citizens of the county at that point in time. We couldn't stop the issue. We couldn't continue going on with the way we were going.It was too detrimental and too costly,if you would,in terms of the environment and money to do it. So we looked,reached out,we did some research,and in North Carolina they prohibit armoring of the coast. And they do their work with what they call soft engineering by building sand dikes and training channels with sand dikes. We talked to the people up there. We got a recommendation on Coastal Planning and Engineering, which was the consultant that we were using down here,had done the major beach renourishment. And we started a modeling program. This time--and that was in 2008,late 2008. And we set up a community task force that was approved by the Board of County Commissioners. And we involved the--a very strong cross-section of the community. We involved the boating community, the environmental community,The Conservancy,Friends of Barefoot Beach,the Pelican Isle Yacht Club, and we had a member from Marco Island,we had a member from the City of Naples,and we had another member from Incorporated Collier County on this group. Page 5 of 69 August 16,2012 It took us two years to go through this,to do the modeling and develop a plan. We vetted the plan and we had a number of alternatives that we looked at. And that's what we're going to share with you today. Since that time we developed the plan. We had to go back and we needed to make sure that this was pennittable by DEP. So the plan that they--when we would come through,they would be able to permit. We researched that with them. We spent six months dealing with them on this issue. We are basically dealt with all the environmental--excuse me,with all the technical issues of DEP. We have a letter of consistency that we need to get from the county and we have to have a use agreement with the state park of which we are working on both.And we do not anticipate any problems on this. So what we believe that we have--we're going to present to you today is a program,a project in which the ST application is consistent with the Growth Management Plan and the Land Development Code. We have approval from the ECA and we have approval from DEP.And we certainly have the good community input and stakeholders acceptance of this program. Steve came with Coastal Planning and Engineering,has been our technical engineer on this from the very beginning. He'll be supported by Loren Floyd,who's the environmentalist. And with that,Steve,would you present,please. MR.KEEN: Thanks,Gary. Good morning. I'm Steve Keen with Coastal Planning and Engineering,and I've been working on this job since 2009 for Gary. And I'd like to just say that we've developed a lot of information on the inlet.And I'm trying to limit the amount of information I present today. And if there's some question that I overlook or something like that, if you ask me,I'll be more than happy to cover that. And we've gone through a lot of iterations on this,so--this is a picture of Wiggins Pass that was taken rather recently. And I think if you look at this,you can kind of see the shoreline here. The channel has a distinctive S shape. And it's also kind of hard against the shoreline here of Delnor-Wiggins State Park. And I just want to,as you go through this,kind of look at some of the historic pictures I'm showing you as where the channel's been in the past. And I think you'll--it will show that we're trying to kind of go back in the past and relocate the channel to a location it's been in the past. The subjects we're going to talk about today are summarized on this slide here.Gary's already mentioned the project,the directives. I also have a table of the description. And also some of the conventional wisdom on the pass that have changed over the last 10 to 20 years. And I think this is an important point here. Because what we thought was going on at the pass say 20 years ago and what a lot of people believe about the pass has through our investigation found not be as straightforward as we originally thought. And if you relook at the facts in the new fashion,I think you can see that. Gary went over these objectives,and I think that it's pretty straightforward here: Provide safe channels for the boating;address erosion at Barefoot Beach. And we also have a concern for Delnor-Wiggins State Park.Lengthen the dredge cycle and accomplish it with the least effect in the environment;and lastly, try to do this economically. And Pm going to cover most of these points today. This is a layout of our proposed plan.And let me just cover the highlights of that.This little point right here is our existing channel that we're dredging,and we also have--we're allowed dredging back here periodically to clean out sand that goes back into those channels. So our new channel is basically pretty well straight all the way through here like that,following this line right here. You can see the existing channel bends way up here against Barefoot Beach,then circles back way down here hard against Delnor-Wiggins State Park,and then goes out into the Gulf here. And so by straightening the pass it provides for hydraulic efficiency and makes it more navigable for the boaters. In order to accomplish this we're taking quite a bit of sand out of here. Currently in the report it says 84,000 cubic yards. We're going to rebuild the flood shoal over here against Barefoot Beach. And we're Page 6 of 69 August 16,2012 protecting some mangroves that are right in this area by doing that. So these mangroves,about a third of an acre has been lost over the last couple decades in this vicinity right here. We're going to put some other sand that comes out of this either north or south of the inlet. And we've come up with a new ratio of putting the sand. Fifteen years ago it was assumed that the impacts were occurring to the south,and most of the sand was designated to go towards Delnor-Wiggins State Park. We've now found out that the longshore transport is actually going from north to south,and so the impacts have been building up actually on Barefoot Beach because of the asymmetry and the amount of sand bypassing that we've been doing. So we have a disposal area at Delnor-Wiggins,when we pass sand there. We have the main disposal area at Barefoot Beach,in this vicinity here,and we have an off-shore disposal area to help bring along the recovery of the ebb shoal. And we're also trying to reconstitute this point on Barefoot Beach to the south here where there's a lot of scarping going on and trees falling into the water. And so those are the major components of the project. This is our project description. We're going for a 10-year permit,possibly a 15-year permit on this project. For initial construction,we're looking at 84,000 cubic yards,distributed more or less like I was describing earlier. Basically we want to dredge the new channel,we want to bury the old flood channel,we want to bypass the sand to the north,and we have some unsuitable material that we're going to dispose of off-shore. And that's pretty much what our initial construction is. Our initial construction is almost twice the volume of what we do for regular maintenance dredging, but you will see over time that actually it becomes more economical to make an expensive and initial construction effort and get savings down the road. We're also planning on dredging at four-year intervals of about 50,000 cubic yards every four years. We're asking to permit a contingent intermediate ebb shoal dredging of small quantities when the bar goes across the inlet and inhibits navigation,and this will decrease the number of times we have to do major maintenance dredging. And we also have to create some monitoring plans with this that we're doing with the state right now. And the last option that's a separate item is nourishing Barefoot Beach and the ebb shoal when feasible. When I say a separate item,nourishing Barefoot Beach as a standalone project is being considered with another project. This is the layout. Again,I've already talked`to you about some of this. This is the flood channel that we plan to fill. This here is an--when we dredge the inlet,we need to stockpile the sand temporarily, and this is going to be the stockpile location. So we'll dredge from here,stockpile,and then once we get enough sand dredged from the new channel,we're going to move this sand over here and ultimately fill all of this area here up to mean low low water. And we picked that elevation because this shoal to the south is about at mean low low water,and so we want to mimic that to the north so that we kind of create approximately the same amount of flood shoal, which acts as a habitat for wading birds and other things. Also,notice here that this channel here goes pretty--naturally goes pretty much to the south. This is our dredging place right now. And so we want to move this back to the center a little bit and that will take-- relieve some of the stress off of Delnor-Wiggins State Park that has been concerned about this. So this is just another illustration of what the pass is going to look like. Just to show you,this is one illustration in the flood channel. We're going to take sand out of the south side and fill in the channel to the north side. And this is an illustration of the elevations that we're talking about. You can see that we have--this elevation over here,it varies around the mean low waterline,and we're going to make it to the mean low waterline over here. We do expect this to change with the currents and other things that are occurring over time,but initially we're going to build it to this shape. Okay,I've got about eight changes to conventional wisdom here,and let me just state what they are Page 7 of 69 August 16,2012 as I go through here. First of all,the flood channel is migrating north and is impacting mangroves in the adjacent shoreline. So over the last 30 years that channel has migrated 100 feet,and over the last 150 years it's been hundreds of feet that that channel's moved to the north.And I have some illustrations later. Second of all,the inlet flood shoal is growing in volume. So that big area that we see right now that's encompassed by the flood channel has actually been growing in size,as I said before,for the last 100, 150 years. And Barefoot Beach shoreline is eroding more than Delnor-Wiggins State Park. Twenty years ago we thought Delnor-Wiggins State Park was eroding much more than Barefoot Beach. In fact,Barefoot Beach at that time was more stable. And so we need to change our inlet bypass;and that is,we need to put more sand on Barefoot Beach than we put on Delnor-Wiggins State Park. Again,the net longshore transport is to the north and not to the south in this area.Principally because Sanibel and the shoals off of Sanibel are shadowing this area and it shadow--it takes out a lot of the northwest waves say that hit Naples don't hit around Wiggins Pass. Therefore,the waves that come from the southwest push the sand to the north and they dominate. Recent bypassing was insufficient to the north. We've been bypassing at 50/50 for the last 20 years or so;that is,50 to the north and 50 percent to the south. And we need to be more two-thirds of the sand to the north and one-third of the sand to the south,which is what we are proposing. The rock substrate at the inlet controlling geology is on both sides of the proposed channel with a notch where the existing channel was positioned. And by this I mean is previously it was thought that there was some exposed hard bottom to the south of the channel that was creating controlling geology. We did a seismic survey,which Pll show you,that shows that we have geology on both sides of the pass,and it seems to be holding the pass or wanting to hold the pass towards the center. There is no controlling geology in the flood shoal. We found no hard substrate to control the flow into the--in the flood shoal area. The channel was straight approximately 60 to 80 years ago. I have a map to show that shortly. Some inlet bypassing needs to be placed closer to the inlet. A lot of the erosion has been occurring at that point of Barefoot Beach.And the problem is we've been bypassing a little bit too far to the north and that sand can't work its way back to the south. So we're going to place more sand nearer to the inlet to regrow the ebb shoal and regrow that point at Barefoot Beach. And Barefoot Beach will be rebuilt over a decade,but quicker recovery will acquire a supplemental nourishment. And that's what we propose as a separate item. Straighter channel will include navigation and flushing. One of the things is I guess everybody knows here,the water is kind of murky at certain times of the year,or turbid,and you can't necessarily see the channel. And that inhibits the boaters a lot. If we make the channel straighter, it's more predictable where the channel is,and they'll be able to find the channel and they'll be able to not have as big of a problem as they're having right now. This is just a picture of the geology.Let me just show you here: This is our existent dredging template right there. This yellow line here is our proposed dredging template. And this is a blowup right off shore of the inlet entrance. And what Pm`trying to show here is is that we actually moved our channel to the south in order to avoid to the greatest degree--we actually moved it to the south to minimize the amount of rock hard strait that we're dredging. And what you can see here is this purple area here and here is the highest of the rock substrate. And that's in that six to eight-foot depth area. And by the way,this is not exposed hard bottom,this is hard substrate underneath the sandy surface that we found by seismic survey. The yellow area is actually a lot deeper, 12 to 14 feet,and so we put the channel through in this area here so we're minimizing taking this rock,but keeping the stabilizing mount here and this stabilizing formation down here on either side of the channel. And in fact I think the channel has been stabilized by that over time,and it's just something we found out recently that this is existing and holding it there. Page 8 of 69 August 16, 2012 This next picture here is the channel over the--since 1973 to 2009,what's been going on in the area. And just to show you really quickly here,this is the shoreline in 1973 at Barefoot Beach. And you can see the shoreline today is right here. So in this particular area that's hundreds of feet that we've lost. And then down here at Delnor-Wiggins State Park on the picture I'm showing you here,this is the shoreline 1970's and this is the shoreline today. So basically at Barefoot Beach within 2,000 feet,half a mile of the inlet,there's been a lot of erosion on the Gulf side and at this point down here. And at Delnor-Wiggins State Park they've had general accretion almost everywhere except this little northwest point on Delnor-Wiggins State Park. And so you can actually see the vegetation line too. The vegetation line in the 1970's where Delnor-Wiggins Park was here. And now the vegetation line is here. And this map actually shows where the vegetation line was out here in'73 and it's back here today. So there's been a lot of changes. This also here,this little point here is that.3 acres of mangroves that have been lost over the last couple decades. And there's a lot of stress against there right now. The other thing I wanted to illustrate here,you see this water point down here? This used to be a hydraulic connection here pre-1944,and I have a picture to show you that. So this whole part of the park up here used to be open down to this little tier-shaped water body. And today the access to that water body is through this south channel here. This is a picture showing the changes in bathymetry over the last 30 or 40 years. The red is erosion. The deeper the color of the red is the deeper the erosion. The green is accretion. And the deeper the green the more accretion you have. The biggest thing you can see here is the channel used to be here in the 1970's. The channel is now here. So that's a 100-foot migration to the north. If you go down here towards the inlet,you can see that the channel has migrated to this point here from where it was--correction,it's gone from here to here,and so this part of the channel is migrated farther south. So this migrates north,this is migrated further south. And a lot of what you're seeing in here has to do with the dredging of the inlet. And also,you can see this whole red here is the ebb shoal is deflated during that time frame,which is one of the other objectives we're trying to do. So over time the flood shoal has migrated north,the ebb shoal--the ebb channel has migrated south, and by straightening out the inlet channel,we should be able to alleviate quite a bit of that. We don't expect the channel to stay static after we move it. We expect we're going to have to maintain it in that location,but it's going to be incremental additional effort that's required each dredging cycle to maintain it in a position once we get there. This just shows you a picture of Wiggins Pass in 1929. I wanted to show you here that the pass itself was relatively straight. And at that point in time there was actually a second pass to the north,Little Hickory Pass.And perhaps coastal processes in this zone is that the location of the river coming out has probably flipped back and forth between these two locations with time. I don't know anything beyond say the late 1800's,but that seems to be a possibility. These are pictures from 1944 to 1975. I want to just show you here that this looks fairly straight here,the inlet does. The other thing is I put these red line(sic)here,tangent to this little water body in both locations,just to show you how much more this is increasing here between 44 and 75. And this is kind of the pathway that's been filling the flood shoal up with time. So sand coming from Vanderbilt Beach at Delnor-Wiggins State Park migrates north,rotates into the inlet. It's filled this whole area up over time. And it's filling up the flood shoal here over time,which is pushing this channel to the north. And so that curb in the channel is not due to the hydraulics coming out of Vanderbilt channel,but it's due to the fact that the flood shoal is growing and pushing the channel farther north. And for some reason the hydraulics aren't such that it would go through and,erode a shoal,which I think it's based on tidals. Page 9 of 69 August 16,2012 Let me let Lauren take care of the next two slides. She's our marine biologist on this project. MS. FLOYD: Thank you. Hi,I'm Lauren Floyd. I'm a biologist with Coastal Planning and Engineering. And I just want to go over very quickly the natural resources in the area. This is just a summary of the environmental data submittal that we prepared,which is outside on the table,and we have all the original data in the appendices to that submittal. So just what I wanted to point out on this figure are the natural resources in the pass.So I guess I'll-- all right. So the dots you see here,this is just very good gopher tortoise data that we have. The reason we show this here is part of the justification for this project is the stabilization of the shorelines,which we think indirectly it's just going to stabilize the whole system. So there will be an indirect benefit to that habitat. More immediate in the vicinity of the project,if you look in the interior of the channel here in the north,east and south channels,that's where we find the seagrass resources,as well as some oyster beds. These have been extensively mapped multiple times and we know where they are. The existing dredge template is the same as what we're proposing for this project within the interior,and we are avoiding direct impacts to these resources. When we are dredging back there,we can certainly use turbidity curtains and plan to use turbidity curtains to avoid any indirect impacts from sedimentation and turbidity. Also on this figure,the blue line to the south of the pass,this is the exposed hard bottom resources. Steve talked about the controlling geology around the pass,and he mentioned—that's actually submerged— or buried hard bottom. What we're talking about here with the blue line are exposed hard bottom resources, which I've personally been out on and mapped and do surveys on. So this is where we have resources growing on the hard bottom.And we show this here to show there is not going to be an impact to these resources from this project,but they will be continued to be monitored as part of the larger beach nourishment program for Collier County. And I wanted to just summarize the conservation measures that will be employed during this project. First of all,for sea turtles,we're going to avoid sea turtle nesting season for this project. So we do not anticipate impacts to nesting. Also,construction will adhere to National Marine Fishery Service construction conditions for sea turtles and small tooth sawfish. And all of the fill that would be placed on shore will be beach compatible sand,so there's very strict standards. And anything that's not compatible,as Steve mentioned,will be placed off shore. Manatees: The project will comply with the Florida--with the Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission's standard manatee conditions. As I mentioned,the sea grass and oyster beds,we're avoiding direct impacts.We'll use turbidity curtains and monitor turbidity throughout construction. Snook: Their spawning season coincides with sea turtle nesting season,so we will be avoiding their spawning season. So that works out very well. As I mentioned,hard bottom,we are not going to be impacting the hard bottom with this project,but we will continue monitoring on those resources as part of the larger Collier County beach nourishment project. And shore birds: FWC will put in place the monitoring methods,and those will be followed throughout construction and following construction. So that's all for the natural resources.I'm going to hand it back to Steve now. MR.KEEN: Thanks,Lauren. Next I just want to go into some of the results on the engineering side of the house.This graphic here came out of our modeling report in 2009,and we've actually verified it in two smaller modeling reports since then. What I want to point out is is that we modeled at least four final objectives--I mean alternatives. We actually had many more alternatives than this. And this number two here which we're proposing you can see has the lowest channel infill rate of 8,600 cubic yards per year. And that's why we really went towards that channel. Page 10 of 69 August 16,2012 So you can see that's one-third--this is the existing condition and that's 12,800 cubic yards per year. And this is just a measurement infill rate. This is not an estimate of dredging rates with the current templates or anything else like that. We're just comparing the efficiency of these channels against each other when we're modeling. And so it came out pretty clearly that a new straight channel all the way through like I showed you, that that's one-third better than the existing conditions if we dredged it to the configuration the channel wants to go to right now. And this is over a four-year permit at a time. We also had a couple other alternatives here where we kept the hydraulics the same interior but straightened the channel exterior.And we also let the channel migrate to the south. These are other alternatives that have been discussed. And none of them did any better. So basically there was quite a distinctive--it was quite obvious that that number two was the best one. This is a picture of the existing bathymetry at Wiggins Pass. Humiston and Moore just finished this monitoring report last week. And what I just wanted to show you here is in--out here in the ebb shoal,you can--the dark blue arrow is pointing to the five-foot contour,and the red is pointing to the minus six-foot contour right here. So our controlling depth is 5.5 feet N.A.V.D.out through this channel. Again,remember,this channeled is curved and some boaters have a hard time shooting for this slot and they might shoot a little bit north or a little bit south,so that causes them to see a shallower depth than that. This is the results of our four-year modeling. And in our four-year modeling we end up,the red here is a 6.5-foot contour,and so we're defmitely open to that depth. The dark blue is an eight-foot contour. And so our elevation is actually someplace in between.And we found out the controlling depth's about 6.8 feet coming through here. So what we have here is after 1.2 years with the existing channel,we have five and a half feet out there right now. And with this proposal we're able to maintain about 6.8 feet through four years. And we have a straighter channel that would be easier for the boaters to come out. A lot of inlets have this left to right turn when you come out of the inlet where you kind of follow how the shoal is going. And this inlet,because of the S-turn,you have kind of a double turn that makes it more complicated. This here is just a cost estimate of our project of 84,000 cubic yards with some contingency. And we found out the initial construction price is about$1.7 million. Now that's about double what Gary was saying the annual maintenance is. In our project right now,most of the cost is upfront,and we believe the savings are going to be with the follow-on. This here just shows you a division of how we're going to use the sand through the two first 10 years of the project. Here is our dredge volumes and here's out disposal plan.And we're really lining this up so that we can make sure that number one is we fill that flood shoal and then maybe we come back--excuse me,we fill that flood channel and then we have some sand maybe later on to come back and top that off,and we also divide up the sand between Delnor-Wiggins State Park and Barefoot Beach in an equitable manner. The permit conditions we're going to get from DEP is going to require us in the monitoring report to kind of look at that division of sand on a technical basis and before we dredge it each time to specify how we're going to bypass the sand. We may not,for example,put sand on Delnor-Wiggins Park every time in that ratio,but we defmitely will have catch-ups every couple of years. So initially we're going to put all the sand on Barefoot Beach and then down the road we'll evaluate when we need to put sand on Delnor-Wiggins State Park and allocate it accordingly. So we might take a whole dredging and put all the sand on Delnor-Wiggins State Park or cut it in half the second or third dredging down..' But this is kind of the allocation plan.DEP is going to write a strategic beach management plan for Page 11 of 69 August 16,2012 the path,specifying what we need to do;in a sense the inlet management plan. But we've also produced an inlet management plan and I don't know what's ultimately going to happen to that in regards to the county. The 10-year plan cost comparison I'm showing here. And what I just want to show is over 10 years it doesn't look like the benefit is as strong as it should be. We have here alternative one,which is existing condition.We're going to have to dredge 250,000 cubic yards over the next decade,and that's going to cost approximately$4.4 million. Our alternative,the new one,we're going to only dredge 200,000 cubic yards,so that's 50,000 cubic yards less,and it's going to cost about$4.1 million. So we're going to save$300,000 over a decade. Now, that doesn't sound like a lot. But if you remove the initial construction cost from this cost thing,you're going to get a lot bigger savings. Here I'in showing you the decade savings that I just talked to you about. This is the second decade savings. And in the second decade we're going to save 175,000 cubic yards just based upon what we have in the dredging plan. There's also a modeling results. As a matter of safety and not being--and being conservative,I didn't count all the savings that the model indicated that we should have at the inlet in the way of dredging. And that comes out to 110,000 cubic yards over 20 years,or 55,000 cubic yards over 10 years. So our total savings over 20 years is going to be 285,000 cubic yards,and it's going to be two and a half million dollars. Now,if I included,you know,the model savings in there,that would have been another half a million dollars or so over the first decade. So this project costs more upfront,but it's going to give us a lot of benefits over the years afterwards because of the performance. Thank you. If you have any questions,I'm ready to— CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Paul? COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Yeah,could you talk a little bit about the difference between ebb shoal and flood shoal and how each one is formed and why they're different in different places? MR.KEEN: Yes,sir. Well,this is the--a big picture here.And I think that the division,the throw to the inlet is right about in this location. So it's right about where we come from the interior to the exterior. And generally the flood --flood shoals in the interior and the ebb shoals in the exterior. In the interior,the way this channel,this flood shoal has formed over time is like I was showing you, sand was coming up off this beach here and moved into the inlet and basically has built this land mass up over time and has built this shoal up over time and pushed the inlet to the north. And most flood shoals build from the sand coming from the Gulf or coming from off shore into the inlet. And there's a number of different ways you can see on the west coast that they form. In this particular one it seems to be dominated by sand coming up,from,the south,moving into the inlet and then building that shoal. And since the net transport is goirig from north to south,you know,that's pretty much what you're expecting. I'm not saying that sand from the north doesn't come into the inlet and contribute to that. I think that --but the major effect is coming from the south. In the ebb shoal,it's principally formed by sand coming either from the north or south,and in this case pretty much both. And what happens is is the channel wants to form down the center and the shoals form off to either side of where that natural channel wants to go.And so it needs sand in order to feed itself. And so it's forming from sand coming off the long shore transport from this two areas. And some of the sand actually moves into the inlet on one tide cycle and then back out at another tide cycle to the ebb shoal. So I think that's the principal divisions. I could look at more pictures and go in more details if you're interested,but-- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I do,Mark. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Go ahead,Brad. Page 12 of 69 August 16,2012 COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Yeah,on option two you're going to be removing some of the limestone. What depth are you at with=- MR.KEEN: Let me see. The amount of limestone I think we're removing is in the neighborhood of say one to two feet. And it's just in that--let me find that picture again here. It's just in that little small area--this one here. You can see right here,right here is where we're proposing to move the limestone right here. And the yellow area here is 12 to 14 feet,and the purple area is 10 to 12 feet. So it's right in this area. And literally,based upon our dredge depth it's in the range of one to two feet. And some of that is in our over-dredge area. And so it's just that piece between here and here,and this area here is where we're targeting. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: All right. So that will open that whole area up then? I mean,what depth was the limestone cut down to? MR.KEEN: The depth--it's going to be cut down to up to minus 13 feet. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. All right,thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody else? Phil? COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: Just one. Your models and so forth have made projections over a 20-year period,I believe,one of the last slides showed. And I may have missed it in here. But how often are you going to monitor the results versus your--actual results versus your modeling,make adjustments during that quote,unquote 20-year period? MR.KEEN: There's--first of all,DEP is going to require us to have a physical monitoring plan. And so far in the physical monitoring plan we are going to take velocity measurements one year after construction at the major channels in the area there. Number two is DEP is going to require us to report on the progress of the performance of this project in those annual monitoring reports. So usually in the past we've just kind of report on the performance,that is,how much is in fill,how much--you know,where's the erosion,where's the accretion. But there's going to be more of a requirement to talk about how the bypassing is working,are we putting enough to the north or to the south,and to address some of the issues about the inlet performance. Now,right now there is no requirement to re-model. But if the inlet is not going according to plan,I believe that DEP may come down or the county may elect to rerun the models and check it how it's going with the performance of the project itself. COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: And that's really the heart of my question. I mean,models are models and humans are humans and nature is nature,and some things may change over this period of time, and are you required or are you committing to make modifications as the results dictate? MR.KEEN: I think that the way--I can't speak for what the county is going to do on their own,but I can tell you that DEP,if they believe this is not working close enough to projections,what(sic)may require some changes,and I'll-- MR.McALPIN: If I could,Phil,we're going to monitor on a yearly basis. We monitor to depth of that pass on a yearly basis. What Steve has outlined here is that we believe based on the modeling we're going to get an infill rate of 50,000 cubic yards over four years. So we're going to have a major renourishment every four years. We have included in this,we don't expect it but from a--from being conservative,every two years we think we have the capability to go in and do a small dredge at the mouth to remove any sand at the mouth. If we get to a situation in four years from now where we're not getting--thinking we're not getting the results at that point in time,we'll design that next project. We'll model that next project,that next major dredge, we'll model that and we'll incorporate whatever those results tell us into the next major dredging event that we have. So this is going to be a dynamic system.We know we're going to have to maintain it.There's no way we're going to get away from not maintaining this inlet. We think it's going to be four years,but we have the capability to do it,to do a small dredge in between,or a major dredge. So it's going to be--we're constantly Page 13 of 69 August 16,2012 going to be shifting this thing and evaluating what we're looking at to minimize the damage and to improve navigation and make this thing stable. Two points that Steve didn't mention.We're always going to be at a three-foot draft vessel. Three-foot draft vessel is when you add everything up is about eight and a half foot dredge depth. So we're going to try to maintain to that three-foot draft vessel in this whole--in this scenario as we move forward. Thank you. MR.KEEN: And just one thing to add to him is Pm permitting flexibility in this project. I'm permitting flexibility in that we have a little bit of room to move the disposal area on Barefoot Beach north or south. And we've also put in a little bit of flexibility to allow the channel to migrate some and not have to dredge it. One of the say--see,there's two big savings in this project. One is improved hydraulics are going to make it infill less.But the other savings is by getting our design channel to be in the same location as where the national channel wants to go,then we're going to have--we'd be able to dredge less in the future. And so we put in a 50-foot migration limit into the flood channel and the ebb channel so that if the channel only migrates 40 feet we don't have to re-dredge it necessarily just because it's out of some fixed channel limits that don't necessarily reflect nature. COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: Could you put up your slide you had illustrating savings,please. I'm looking for the one where you said it's going to be more expensive up front but over time it's going to save. MR.KEEN: I think if you look at this one right here,this shows you,this is our implementation, $1.7 million. And then our dredging costs go down to about--I have 887 down here for the four-year dredging. That's similar to what Gary was saying for the 750. COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: Gary mentioned if situations look like we need to re-model,you will run a new model at some period of time,maybe four years out or whatever. Those model runs are going to cost money.Are those projected costs or potential costs included in here? MR.KEEN: I didn't--I was looking at the monitoring as being a fixed cost,whatever alternative we did-- COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: So you're not going to-- MR.KEEN: I didn't include that in there. COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: --actually run—monitoring does not include re-modeling, quote,unquote. MR.KEEN: Let me just look at this. COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: Where I'm going with this is there are significant savings associated with your proposal,and I'm looking for contingencies,cost contingencies, if you will,built into your projections here that would say if our models in nature turn out to be not quite in synch,we're going to have to incur some cost to remodel,we're going to perhaps alter our plan. And I quite frankly don't see any contingencies for that in these cost projections. MR.McALPIN: Well,I think,Phil,that we have a contingency for the intermediate dredging. We say that we're going to--Steve,that slide that shows the cost? MR.KEEN: Right here. COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: I see that. I see the interim dredging. MR.McALPIN: We see this right in here.We don't know if we're going to have to spend this. The model said that we would get every four years. We threw'this in as a contingency right in through there. Typically what we look at when we came in for a complete engineering package in terms of engineering associated with,we're in the range of$400,000 if we had to model it. COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: Right. MR.McALPIN: We would be in that range.But we're going to have to do that for these big--these are construction cost numbers that we put in here. I didn't put any engineering associated with that. What Page 14 of 69 .. i August 16,2012 we're going to have to have in any event the engineering associated with--if we do it every two years,we still have to have the engineering associated with that too. So I kind of look at the engineering maybe washing out on this thing. And what we wanted to try to do was show what the big differential was. We could tweak this if you wanted to,but we think we've been very conservative in terms of what the costs were,because we've thrown the intermediate dredging in there and we don't know if we're going to have to do that or not. COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: Yeah. Okay,I'll accept that. It's just that when you do projections of savings over a 20-year period as part of your project proposal without some significant,my words,contingencies,it just raises questions in my mind as to-- MR.KEEN: And can I just mention two things? In this initial construction cost,I do have a contingency of volume and percent here. And then in the 50,000 that's going to be the major dredging,this is the one we actually think our projection might bring that down to like 35,000 over four years. And I did not claim that. So there's some yardage in there that cost-wise I did not claim from a cost point of view,but just to be on the conservative side. MR.McALPIN: Phil,I think what we were trying to get with the 20-year projection,not to say that those numbers are going to be valid for 20 years,but if we do the initial construction and we maintain it, okay,we've incurred those costs. And then as we go out certainly over 10 years,we're starting to save money. And as we go further out,that we would save more money at that point in time. Because we've already incurred the fixed costs to do the original one. 1 think that's the message that we're trying to get across. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay,are there any other questions? Paul? COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Yes,one of your first slides said something about stabilizing the hard substrate. Could you elaborate on that? And also,this is kind of a related problem. It said in the report: Each time the channel is dredged the ebb shoal has rapidly refilled. How will it be different this time? MR.KEEN: Just to show you on this slide here is the--in the Nineties there was this piece of hard substrate that everybody knew of that was right off this point that came--periodically came visible. And I think CEC noted it in the early Nineties. And that's been what everybody's been fixated on since then. When we went and did our seismic,we found out that that little piece of hard substrate was actually part of a more massive piece of buried,you know,rock--foundation rock here,and that it extended out across the inlet in this vicinity right here. So we actually have a nice piece of substrate here,a nice piece of substrate here,and a little bit of a notch in the center. And so we're kind of caught right--so in a sense the channel,if we have the hydraulics right,will want to stay in that notch. Now,right now because our hydraulics are kind of a little bit bad the channel's pushing out of that against Delnor-Wiggins to some degree,and kind of-- it's not as stable as it could be. So if we line it up,we can take advantage of that. And I think that's what we're talking about. The second question you were asking was--what was that again? COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: It said in the report that each time the channel is dredged the ebb shoal has rapidly refilled. And how will it be different this time? MR.KEEN: Two things. First of all,like I said before is if we straighten up the hydraulics,then the hydraulics will be working with us to keep the channel more straight and actually deeper than we're currently allowed to do that. And so the second part of that is is that if we'align the channel where it wants to go naturally,then we're not going to have to re-dredge,you know,just to move the channel right or left of--until where our permitted cross-sections are. So it's those two things that are going to reduce our dredging amount. Now,the thing is,the channel's still going to refill. But by aligning those two things up there,we're going to be able to maintain a deeper depth over a longer period of time. And so we can't--we can't Page 15 of 69 August 16,2012 completely defeat nature,but we can kind of align nature so that it's not working against us totally. And that's what we've done. We've pushed back the infill rate and we're using the hydraulics to keep the channel open and we're aligning the channel so we don't have to dredge sand that's outside the channel limits in a sense. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody else? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay,let's start with your Corps permit. Oh,no,you're just starting on me now. I let everybody else go first. I usually have some oddball questions so I save them. Hopefully I think during a presentation they get answered. Sometimes not. Your Corps permit,the one that was included in the packet,was for just less than 50,000 cubic yards and I believe it was from the earlier dredging project,the RAI's I've seen. You don't have a Corps permit yet; is that correct? MR.KEEN: No,sir. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No,that's not correct or no,you don't have a Corps permit? MR.KEEN: We do not have a Corps permit;it's still in process. And basically right now we're waiting for Fish and Wildlife Service to decide whether they need a biological opinion or not. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: In a report that was titled Wiggins Pass Maintenance Dredging and Navigation Improvement Project,Collier County,Florida,Environmental Data 1.0 Introduction by Coastal Planning and Engineering,it was in the earlier part of our packet,just after the staff report. There's a table on Page 3,Wiggins Pass Channel Dimensions. MR.KEEN: Yes,sir. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. In your slide you showed Station 13 with a cross-section depth of 14 feet but yet the lowest depth you show in this Wiggins Pass channel dimension is negative 12 feet. And I heard you mention deeper depths than that in response to I think Brad's question. How did you get the negative 12 on the table now is 14--back there. Right there. You're actually over 14 feet. Got to go back one. Well,it's easier-- MR.KEEN: This is the flood shoal. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. But you're going to be cutting deeper than 12 feet? MR.KEEN: I think our cut depth is 12,our over-dredge is 13. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. How did you arrive at a need for a cut depth of 12? MR.KEEN: It worked in the model. And we did not optimize that,per se,but that depth was coming out. Two,we've also been doing the monitoring reports for the inlet dredging for the last couple of years and I've noticed some difficulty if we don't get down to the 12-foot depth. So I've used some observational stuff from the dredging of the pass. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: In the observational stuff,the difficulty was in alignment that you're now putting in today,or in the previous alignments? MR.KEEN: It's in the previous alignment. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So you don't know if today's alignment would keep it cleaner at a shallower depth? I mean if the previous alignment was in basically an S curve,your rate of flow would be reduced because of the travel that you'd have to get--the water would have to go in to make that curve. So the cut of the material may not be as severe and therefore could pile up easier. With this particular model you're going to a straight shot,which means you're going to have a quicker flow. So you still think you're going to have the same sediment buildup at the rate that you had on a much slower--on a reduced flow than you'd have on an S curve? MR.KEEN: Well,I don't think the sediment buildup is going to be as big. The thing about the 12 foot is I picked a conservative depth. And I picked that depth because I did Page 16 of 69 August 16,2012 not want to take the risk of going shallower. The idea of not cutting the rock at all did come to my mind,but the problem is is in the last couple of years the dredge has hit rock during their dredging cycle of the inlet. And I realize the alignment's somewhat different. We also have that condition in Doctors Pass right now. And I did not feel comfortable leaving out dredging that extra foot to notch that channel into that center location. And when we ran our models,we were getting good performance out of models at that depth. And I can't remember what other runs we did in 2009;we did about 14, 15 different runs. But it's just that I know this depth's going to work. And I'm not that confident that a shallower depth would give us the performance we're looking for in this particular case. And the reason I wanted to go to this bigger depth has to do with also the interior here in that these hard bottoms have been limiting the flow in the inlet quite a bit. So if our limiting--our flow is being incurred by this hard bottom or some other constraint,then the pass does not have the ability to reach its natural size. Just to give you an example,I've worked on a number of east coast inlets where they're constrained by hard sides and hard bottoms.Haulover Inlet is one of the them, South Lake Worth Inlet is the other one of them. And I didn't want to,you know,constrain that. So we did look at a lot of alternatives.I don't remember if we actually optimized the depths at this time. But I felt uncomfortable with going with a shallower depth there. We did I think knock a foot off of what was there before,but I think that was the limit that we went. We did narrow the dredge cut quite a bit from what was the--what we had traditionally. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So we started out we have a three-foot draft limitation on the boats that use Wiggins Pass,and this board has been careful to make sure all the approved docks had always that notation. Your previous presentation said that that needs a depth--a dredge of depth to 8.5 feet but yet we're going to 14 plus feet. So what happened? Why do we need the six additional feet? Is it purely to avoid future maintenance costs of Wiggins Pass;is that where it's coming from? MR.KEEN: That's a major--it's purely to--let me go to--this is our run after five years. You can see that we're saying--we're at 6.8 feet. So after four years we're not completely meeting that depth that you were talking about that we need,the eight-foot depth. And so it's not perfect. I don't know if he could really get to the eight-foot depth without a lot of effort or dredging a lot more frequently,you know. But we're starting to get into the area where boats can navigate in a reasonable fashion. At five and a half feet that we have right now boats are having difficulty. But at 6.8 feet after four years,that's a great improvement over what we're talking about today. And when we talk about a navigation depth,that eight feet you were talking about,this is after four years,right before we started dredging again is what our target is. And most inlets they have a hard time holding that navigation depth for the length of the dredge cycle. And we're no different than a lot of the other inlets in that particular mode here. So what we're trying to do is we want good navigation throughout the time cycle that we're trying to get. And yes,we're trying to get our dredging to a four-year cycle now and not have to come back every two years or actually one and a half if we really pushed it. And people are clamoring to have the inlet dredged again right now. And so that's what we're trying to do. So we have to dredge it deeper in order so that four years out we have an adequate navigation depth. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. How do you determine an adequate navigation depth? MR.KEEN: Well,by the book it's what Gary was saying,in that eight-foot range. And the Corps of Engineers and a number of other professional organizations have come up with a way of calculating that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Why do you need eight feet for a three-foot draft boat? MR.KEEN: Because the prescribed method is that you take three feet and you do that at mean low low water. So mean low low water is about two,so that brings you down to minus five feet. And then you Page 17 of 69 August 16,2012 have compensation for wave height,so you put in half the wave height,which is about two foot. And there's one or two other factors you add on. Boat--I already added the boat draft there. Oh,squat. Squat on the boat and over-dredge are safety factors. So when you add it all together, you're getting up in that eight-foot range. And so basically mean low low water is at approximately minus two feet. And that's where you calculate all these depths from. And that's why you get the eight feet pretty quickly. And boaters know that if they have low elevations,they might have to wait till the higher tides go out. But you don't want to use that as your design condition. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. So in the situation with the current S curve you have a sediment buildup that is dictated somewhat by the velocity of the water going through the channel. In the new inlet configuration you're proposing,a straight channel theoretically you would expect the water to be able to move at a higher velocity,during a low tide event especially. Have you done any volumetric analysis,cross-sectional analysis of the three tributaries leading into this inlet? MR.KEEN: I've looked at them,yes. And I know what percentage of the tidal flow is pretty much going through them. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. But on a peak outgoing tide,have you determined the volumes that are coming out of each one,three tributaries contributing to the main inlet? MR.KEEN: Yes,sir. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I didn't see that in the packet. Do you know where it is? MR.KEEN: Yes,sir,it's in the--in our engineering report,which is--I didn't know if that was in your packet. And it's approximately,off the top of my head,50 percent is coming straight from the Cocohatchee River and about 25 percent from the other two. And there's a curve in there showing the split of the currents between the three inlets--between the three waterways that come into the main channel. And that's one of the reasons why DEP is going to have us put the tie gauges out there and measure it again is to see how much that's changed after we reconfigure the inlet. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Did you do this by a cross-section of the actual inlet coming in? I mean,you've got--for example,the channel to the southeast,that's a manmade channel. MR.KEEN: Yes,sir. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: It's pretty much of a rectangle. MR.KEEN: Yes,sir. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So if you were to,supply me with that information,I would see that that's a cross-section you took the volume on? MR.KEEN: Yes,sir. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Could you send that email to Gary and he could send it on to the Board so we could have that? MR.KEEN: Yes,sir. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay,thank you. MR.KEEN: Basically I'd have to dig it out,because all the information leading to that was not in the report. But we did take measurements on the side channels,we did calculate the flow through the side channels with our model,do know the tidal prism coming out of each one of the inlets,and we do know the cross-sections there. CHAIRMAN S"IRAIN: When can you dig this out and send this to us? MR.KEEN: I can dig out at least most of that information probably in the next week. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. So in the next week or two we can expect that information,which would be plenty of time before any other meeting's held on this. If you could put on the slide that you had from 1973 to 2009. 19--yeah,see,you had one there that's 1973 to 2009 that showed the--there it is. Now,that shows this,I'll call it,an S-curve for sake of any--for a simpler term.The channel's Page 18 of 69 August 16,2012 coming in and the S-curve moving to the north up against the mangroves going out. Now,the other slide you showed,'44 to 1975,this doesn't show that S-curve.Especially in the earlier '44,you'll notice that's straight out or appears to be straight out. And the latter one,I don't know what tide event it was taken out,but it may have been taken at a high tide where you wouldn't necessarily have seen the shoals from this high altitude. Ray,could you put that US--GS map I found,it's 1952? Actually, 1951. If you notice,in this particular one it would have been taken at a lower tide. It again shows that S-curve more prominent. But that was before Turkey Bay and Vanderbilt Lagoon were dredged all the way out to Wiggins Pass. And the reason I was concerned about the volume is you've got a volume of water coming out of a manmade very straight canal. At low tide event it's going to be at its maximum velocity. It's aiming right for that mangrove shoreline to the north where the S-curve goes where you're proposing to put your excess material and move the channel to the south.You're actually saying that the Turkey Bay inlet going to the north is to take a sharp right not even--even greater than a 90-degree turn to go out the channel. And I'm not sure the flows coming from the other tributaries are going to be strong enough to take control of that water coming out of Turkey Bay so that we don't have a recurrence of what you just now have. And the reason that's important is because your report in the CD,as well as the report that was in our packet,had the following--there was two of them,two different ones.They had a similar statement. A navigation channel will be most stable if it can be designed to assume the natural alignment. Well,the'44 to'75 pictures you showed didn't give you everything. This one shows the natural alignment similar to what we have today. And with Turkey Bay influencing that alignment,I don't know how you're going to hold that straight channel. And that's why I'm trying to find out why you're so confident that that channel is going to be held with the volumes coming out of Turkey Bay and Vanderbilt Lagoon. MR.KEEN: Let me bring--okay,I had the same difficulty you have. A couple of years ago I actually believed exactly what you did about the Vanderbilt,the channel and the flow coming out of Turkey Bay. It's easy to see that channel and the relationship to the S-curve and try to draw the conclusion that one is causing the other. And it was only through one of our oceanographers and modelers who kind of disabused me of that idea a couple of years ago. And if you really look at the flows--and by the way,I looked at this question a lot,because that's exactly the same issue I was having. And if that's true,then the difficulty you're talking about is something that can come up. And what kind of got me away from this is a couple different things. Number one is we've measured volumetric change in that flood shoal over time. And it's grown larger. Two,we can see the flood shoal is actually expanding to the north and to the east. And we've had to dredge that channel to Vanderbilt and back to the yacht area there twice in the last 20 years because sand is pushed back into that area. We need to dredge that area again now as it's going on. And two,when you look at the hydraulics there,it's always come out that the Cocohatchee Rive has had the biggest flow by over double. And I can show you some of the results we have in that regards. And the other thing is,the biggest problem we have with the flows to some degree is that the tide range here goes to a very low in part of the month and very high part in the other part of the month,so we don't have a dominant average throughout the month to really shape the inlet like maybe a more typical even tidal of flow inlet would happen. And so I think that curve,I've come to believe,is more caused by the flood shoal expanding and pushing that channel to the north than it is from Vanderbilt Lagoon coming around and be dominating the flow. And the Cocohatchee River also gets a big flow during the tropical weather season when the weir doesn't block all the flow from coming to the channel. And it can be up to a significant percentage of the tidal prism,say one-third of the tidal prism or more during some of the bigger storms. And so I think from that point of view,that channel to the east dominates the flow.And it just doesn't Page 19 of 69 August 16,2012 look like it dominates the flow. And as I said before,it took me a while to convenience myself that that was true. You know,for the same reason I think that you're looking at it and thinking it. And I think when I send you some of these measurements we have of the three channels—I mean,as far back as the early 1990's,CEC's measured the currents and the three channels there and it's always been the east channel dominates,and the other two channels are much smaller tidal prism-wise and hydraulic-wise. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. So the'writeup of your analysis of the hydraulics from those three channels will include that information of you guys—I mean,you've analyzed the amount of flow needed from the river to offset the incoming flows from the north and south of the other two tributaries so that there's enough water flowing out it can knock the impact of those other two off so that they don't move like you're proposing-- MR.KEEN: I think that it--even not even in the,you know,tropical weather season,there's enough flow coming from the east to dominate the north and south channels. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. MR.KEEN: And I'll provide you that information. And I'll give the information to Gary and let him forward it to-- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's the best way to do it,yeah. And your--now all this stuff that you've done,you're guaranteeing this channel isn't going to move again,right? MR.KEEN: Actually,we have--we've said the channel is going to migrate. But we know that channel migrated 100 feet to the north from the 1970's to the 1990's. So that comes out to what,two or three feet a year. Periodic maintenance dredging can control that type of migration without any difficulty at all. So every time we go in for a major dredging,if it's migrated too far to the north we can bring it back to the straight and level with only a little bit of extra dredging. In fact,we plan to let it migrate up to 50 feet and then bring it back periodically when we need to. We're going to plan to do that for the ebb and the flood shoal and that's going to reduce our cumulative volumes over time. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: How do you discount the statements made in two engineering reports that were in our book that I read to you,a navigational channel will be most stable if it can be designed to assume the natural alignment? Because the natural alignment,from historic photos and even you had put a range from 1973 to 2009,all of which showed the more or less S-curve configuration. How are you justifying that a straight channel is better now than the natural alignment appeared to be over a series of historic photos we have? MR.KEEN: Well,I think number one is this inlet has been continuously migrating.Now,the fooling factor here,and it's fooled me for times two,has been if you look at the inlet outlet,that's been fairly stable for the last 150 years. So if you look at right where the inlet comes into the Gulf,that's stable.But if you look back where that little tier-shaped lake is,or pond is here,and you look at where the shoreline is here, that has migrated hundreds of feet,I mean that shoreline there. And so what's fooling us is that the flood channel has been migrating for 150 years that I know of, maybe--the earliest map I have is like that 1870 or whatever shoreline. But from that period forward,you can always see that that south bank has been migrating north,and you assume the channel has with it. The second fact here is that we actually took vibracores in the inlet and we took our vibracores in the inlet. You've got white sand on top and you've got black sand on the bottom.And it corresponded almost exactly with what you'd probably expect,you know,the channel depth to have been before it filled in with sand from these processes I've been talking about. So the flood shoal,even though you saw that in this earlier map of yours,I think it was much straighter before that period of time.That's why I said going back to like the 1929 map here,you can see the channel looks fairly straight here. And we have that little island in that little,you know,baylet there that's always been in all those photographs until it pretty much got shoaled in in the 1960's or so. Page 20 of 69 August 16,2012 And so in looking at that,the channel has been straighter in the past. And I'm not trying to force the channel to go to a position that it wasn't in before. We are bimming the channel a little bit in the center,and it's not 100 percent straight. But I think that from what all the information we have,we're putting the channel back in the location that it has been before,and it might have been 80 years ago or 100 years ago or something of that nature. The problem is this inlet's always been dynamics and always been moving in a direction,and we're just trying to bring it back to an earlier period and then hold it in that particular location. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay,well,just that statement bothered me,because the analysis to show that the S-curve was not the natural alignment wasn't sufficient in the documentation that I read or photos that I saw,and that was a concern. But I understand your position,so we can move on. In your responses to the RAI,and it's on Page 28,you had a--and I know--I'm not expecting you to have this in front of you,so I'm going to read it. It was.15 to your 33-A question: The County is hesitant to agree to a mitigation or contingency plan similar to Stump Pass. Great statement. You probably knew what it meant and so did DEP. But for us reading it,I don't think any of us know what Stump Pass is or what we've seen. Can you send that to us too? MR.KEEN: I think I can explain it in two sentences. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay,that might be just as well. MR.KEEN: Basically at Stump Pass they're spending a million or more dollars to mitigate something on parks land. And the park service down here knows what was going on at Stump Pass and they wanted to get monetary or other guarantees that we didn't think was justified for Delnor-Wiggins State Park. They wanted us basically to guarantee a nourishment project on their beach using the white sand that's 33 miles away,and we didn't think that level of mitigation was required. And so what we said is we didn't want to do a Stump Pass mitigation,because the level of problem at Delnor-Wiggins Park,if there is one,is much,much smaller than the Stump Pass situation and they shouldn't --we shouldn't need to go to that level of guarantees by the county. By the way,DEP will still hold us to,you know,'iving an adequate amount of sand to both parks. And so we're not off the hook,but we don't have a promissory note in a sense as part of the plan guaranteeing the park service shoreline and the way it is today forever. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. MR.KEEN: And if you want me to-- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I don't need that. MR.KEEN: I don't know if I have a particular document. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's find. I just wanted to--I didn't understand what it was.I thought it was something more to do with the dredging aspects of the project. I understand now it isn't,so that's fine. And that's all the questions I have. Just a comment. I had mentioned to staff earlier that this ST permit review has its limitations for this board. One of the things is,that the financial parts of it are not necessarily part of our consideration. But you introduced them into the picture today,which I didn't see those in our book. So without those,I sure haven't had a chance to chew on them a little bit. Not that I wanted to,but because you introduced them,it kind of opened the door. The only thing I'm going to mention is that whatever action's taken today,I'm going to try to see that we exclude any reference to the financial parts of it, because I don't think we've had time to study that,nor was that part of our purview.You guys by bringing it up unfortunately opened the door,and shouldn't have done that,but-- MR.KEEN: I thought the engineering report was part of a reference to your package and-- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I didn't see the-- MR.KEEN: --and all the costs are in the back of the engineering report. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: They may have been. I could have--there's been what,300,400 pages? So yeah,it could have been missed. MR.McALPIN: We had a request to provide some financial information. That's why it is included Page 21 of 69 August 16,2012 in the presentation. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay,was that from staff? MR. McALPIN: I believe that was from-- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And if it is,that's -I just need to know why you would have-- MR. LENBERGER: For the record-- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: --suggested that for this Board. MR.LENBERGER: --Stephen Lenberger. It was a request I had with Commissioner Ebert. She was interested in some of the financial aspects, so-- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. You might want to address things that aren't part of our purview to the individual board members so that we don't get off on tangents on things that aren't under our review. Thank you. Okay,now,do we have any other staff people who are going to be talking on this issue? MR.LENBERGER: No,I believe that concludes our presentation. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I have questions. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Go ahead,Brad. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Yeah,and it's from the prior presenter. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: From Coastal. MR.KEEN: Yes,sir. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: In your modeling,have you studied what the condition of this inlet would be after different kinds of storms,hurricanes,stuff like that? MR.KEEN: I think we did run a storm or two. And in my memory there wasn't a big difference other than storms move a lot of things around quite a bit. One thing we do,when we modeled with this Del 3-D model with storms,we usually just do the storm and maybe a little bit afterwards,as opposed to running,you know,like a four-year event or longer than we do with the other ones. And it didn't present anything that we weren't expecting,because I remember it right now. And I'd have to go back and refresh my memory in particular. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. But the situation is you had four designs. Did any design do better protecting the inlet from storms than the others? MR.KEEN: Usually we just run the existing condition and the selected condition with storms if we do that at all. And I know that DEP is changing their standard on that,but I don't remember particularly what we did in that regard right now. Actually,the number of alternatives we ran was like 14,20 or something like that in that 2009 period. And I don't remember all of them right now off the top of my head. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay,thanks. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Paul? COMMISSIONER MONEY: I have a question.When I go to the park and I stand at that inlet,I see that when the boats pass,the large boats,that they create a lot of waves.And in your engineering report you don't mention anything about what the stress on the shoreline is that is boat induced. Is there any significant stress when large boats pass and you can just see the big waves shaking the mangroves and hitting the shoreline on both sides? MR.KEEN: I think that the currents that are already existing in the inlet,especially at the storm levels,probably dominate. And unless there's a particular reason to believe that boat wakes are causing additional studies,we usually don't look at them. And that's because usually the waves and the currents that are naturally occurring,especially at spring tide or during storms,just dominate so much more. All I could think is that maybe they facilitate the shoreline adjustment that's going on in regards to the erosion. Page 22 of 69 August 16,2012 But if you look at the profiles against the north bank,they're very steep right now.And so if the boats were really causing a lot of problems there,I would expect them to be more flattened than what we're seeing them during our surveys. And so we didn't look at that in particular. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay,anybody else? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: We're going to go to the public,but let's take a break first. We'll come back at 10:40 and resume the meeting at that time. (Recess.) (At which time,Commissioner Ahren is absent for the remainder of the day.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay,if everybody will please take their seats,we'll resume the meeting. When we left off we were finishing with a presentation by the staff and the professionals hired. We're now going to go into the public speakers. We'll start with those that are registered and then P11 ask for any general speakers who may not have registered. Some of you I believe were sworn in. If you weren't,when you come up to the podium please let us know so you can be sworn in at that time. Ray,you want to--and use either podium,whatever's closest to you,as Ray calls you one at a time. MR.BELLOWS: Doug Fee. MR.FEE: If I may? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Doug,we're not going to be able to read this. Oh,so you like the term S-curve too,huh? MR.FEE: Yes,of course. Good morning. For the record,Doug Fee.I've lived up in the Wiggins Pass area for 13 years. I've handed out some information to each of you that I wanted to put into the record.All of the information provided has been introduced several'times during prior meetings. I appreciate being able to speak to you today. I also appreciate each of you serving the community and volunteering your time to planning issues. I know how much time it takes to study and understand the issues. I actually was given the book by Bill Vonier,the Wiggins Pass Book. He's not here today. So I understand the volumes of information you were given. I did read it to some degree. And the information that I had provided,I would like to try to point out a few items. First of all,the zoning map,which looks like this,it's the longer--you will notice that there's ST lands,that is the blue hatch,here. And one thing I wanted to point out on the zoning map is the ST overlay also covers water. It's not just the lands but it's also submerged lands. Both north and south of the pass you also have GMP language in the CCME,goal 10,which I give you a copy of goal 10. If you have not read it,obviously in Section 10.3.1.5,which I'm just going to read this,it says: All new development proposed on undeveloped coastal barrier systems shall be reviewed through the county existing special treatment zoning overlay district. Objective 10.3 and its accompanying policies shall serve as criteria for such review. Okay,so you want to read goal 10. I would also point out Policy No. 10.4.3,which is on the next page,and it says:Collier County shall prohibit activities which result in man-induced shoreline erosion beyond the natural beach erosion cycle or that would deteriorate the beach and dune system. Now,it further goes on to say: Implementation of this policy will be based upon available scientific coastal engineering literature studies that have established benchmarks. Okay. So I wanted to point out some of--there are--also on this map you will notice it's conservation district. That is the zoning.And I wanted to real quick read you,it says:The conservation district,the purpose and intent of the conservation district is to conserve,protect and maintain vital natural resource lands within unincorporated Collier County that are owned primarily by the public. And it further goes on to say: All proposals for development in the CON district must be subject to rigorous review to ensure that the impacts of the development do not destroy or unacceptably degrade the Page 23 of 69 August 16,2012 inherent functional values. The CON district does cover the Wiggins Pass and Barefoot Beach areas,okay. Development. You wonder why--this is part of the water,the dredging--why are you hearing this. Well,because your codes say this is development. In your codes,and let me just find that,the definition of development,it says: The carrying out of any building activity or mining operation,the making of any material change in the use or appearance of any structure or land,okay. And it also goes further to say in C: Alteration of a shore or bank of a seacoast,river,stream is included in coastal construction. So you have a construction project here.While it appears to be under the water,it is still part of this ST meeting and it is a development. I would ask you each to look at the minute detail of the construction that's being proposed. There's a lot of information I know you've been given. But you need to understand where the equipment's going to be located,what is going to be done. You're creating a dike,you're removing sand,you're removing maybe layers of limestone. Okay,I belabored that point. The next point I want to make is there's a deed restriction in the lease or in the land on the south side of the pass. And very quickly here,I will find it,okay,in the park having--the land is owned by the state. But the parks have leases with the Bureau of Land.And there is a legal description on this land.And in the legal description it says: This conveyance is subject to a condition and restriction that is strip of land 200 feet in width running across the entire width of the above described land from the Gulf shore east to the side westerly of the agreed boundary line,lying immediately south of Wiggins Pass along the north side of the land. Described and forming part shall not nor shall any part of said 200 feet in width be built upon by any buildings or construction whatever. And this is perpetually running with the land,okay? Now,why is that important? You'll find in your--if you read your information,the state makes a comment that there is this deed restriction. It also states that in its review it doesn't feel that this area that the project involves is in the 200 feet. And I believe that it is in the 200 feet,okay. So you may be prohibited by the very deed restriction in the legal description,okay. And I have an email from the state that says,as per the restriction in the legal description of the lease, it is still valid,nothing has changed. So the state's admitting that you have this deed restriction. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Didn't you just say though that the state didn't think we were in the deed restriction but you think we are? So if the state's admitting that we have the deed restriction,does that mean they're now believing we are in the deed restriction? MR.FEE: The state has stated to me and to the county in emails that it does not feel that the project will encroach into the 200 feet. But I believe that--and I have a map,it's provided by the state. I didn't bring it with me. But the crosshatching of that 200 feet does not include the S-curve area. It comes to the mean high water. The question becomes if you look at the construction detail of what they're going to do,are they going to do construction on the land or is it all going to occur in the water?Okay. I also wanted to point out,I provided you with a legal letter. It's a three-page document. It's from Mimi Wolok. I've put that in the record a few times. Obviously you're not going to have time to read it. But I wanted it in the record. You do have OFW,which are Outstanding Florida Waters. You have turbidity issues. Basically I understand what Commissioner Mark Strain was saying as far as the economics.Now, you will hear from others that-- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Me and economics? What do you mean? MR.FEE: The financial part of this. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Because I'm Mark Strain. MR.FEE: I'm sorry. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You're talking to me,so I was assuming you meant me,Doug. MR.FEE: Mark,you made a comment earlier saying that you have to be careful to not just consider the financial part of this. While that is a factor,you can't base what you're going to do,I believe,on just the Page 24 of 69 August 16,2012 financial matters,you have to look at the-- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. MR.FEE: --base loss. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah,the financial is not an issue for an SD permit application that this board reviews. MR.FEE: Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So the fact that they presented it opened the door,but it doesn't mean we have to base our decisions on it. MR.FEE: Okay. And the reason why I raise that in several meetings,that has come up. And I understand that there are financial matters to this. I am a boater,and you have to think of the safety,you have to think of the economics. But right now you have to look at your Land Development Code,your Growth Management Plan. The only other comment I'd like to make is earlier there were letters from the state,DEP,Bureau of Land Management,parks. I say earlier,couple of years ago,year and a half ago. In pre-meetings there were concerns by the state on what the effect this project would have on Delnor-Wiggins,which is the south side. They were concerned that this project may erode that area. And there are documents that state this. Now,Coastal Zone Management will stand up here and say we've ironed out all the details and we're going to be issued the permit. But I can tell you that the state in prior correspondence to the county had a doubt as to whether or not this project would continue to erode or—and so you have to be careful with your local laws that say don't do anything manmade that's going to create more erosion in this issue. And if you have a doubt,just say no.Because you may be sitting here 10 years from now saying what happened with Wiggins Pass,and this I believe is the first time you've really had to weigh in on this type of project. Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Any questions? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Doug,your letter represents a group called Wiggins Pass Conservancy,Inc. I haven't heard them. Are they a new group or-- MR.FEE: They've been formed for,I don't know,five or six years. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Have they? Okay. Is that the old Estuary group? MR.FEE: I was on that group,the Estuary Conservation Association. They changed their name,I don't know what year it was,maybe 10 years ago,and-- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Didn't they change it to this,this name you've got now,Wiggins Pass Conservancy,Inc.? MR.FEE: They changed it to the Estuary Conservation Association. I was on that board when they did that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. MR.FEE: Later on we formed the Wiggins Pass Conservancy through the State of Florida. So not to be conflicted with the ECA. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The State of Florida seems to show that the Wiggins Pass Conservancy, Inc.had a name change from the Estuary Conservation Association that you just mentioned. So it looks like this is that estuary group that's evolved over time. MR.FEE: What I will tell you is I'm an accountant,which has no bearing on this meeting,but I have incorporated so many entities just as an accountant. And the state will not allow you to incorporate an entity if that entity name has been used in a prior five-year period. So after five years if an entity had that name, that name becomes available to any and all people. So whether they did a name change or not,the State of Florida did the name change but the fact that there was no use of that name then opened up the name to another group. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I was just curious who this group is. I know you,I don't know the others. So thank you. Page 25 of 69 August 16,2012 MR.FEE: Thanks. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Mark,I have a question. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Go ahead,Brad. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Doug,I have a question. And,you know,you show up in all if these stakeholder meetings and stuff. What's your opinion on the situation here? MR.FEE: Well,you have a tough decision.You are the Planning Commission so you have to look at your Growth Management Plan and your Land Development Code,which is difficult,because if you only look at some of the language it steers you to not do this,okay. I asked Joe Moreland here before we were speaking,do you have a coin? And he said no.The reason why I needed the coin is because I could stand here and flip the coin. I don't have an answer whether it's going to work or not. I'm a citizen who follows these meetings;I go to the meetings. I don't go to all meetings. I have lived in the area,been on,you know,different community--and so to answer your question,I have my doubts that this will actually work. And so then when you throw in the financials of it,if we've spent$8 million in the past and we're going to spend$6 million in the future,there's a part of me that's standing here saying time out,what is actually going to work. And,you know,when you put a dike against an S-curve that is natural,how long is the dike going to stay there? You know,are we going to find that that material just--I don't know. Anyways,thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay,next speaker,Ray? MR.BELLOWS: Joe Moreland. MR.MORELAND: Good morning. I am Joe Moreland. In the way of disclosure,I am a member of the Coastal Advisory Committee. And in that capacity,I was appointed as the chairman of a sub-committee which was overseeing the Wiggins Pass issues that you've got before you today. Additionally,I--when I walked in here,I thought I was the president and had been for almost six years of the Estuary Conservation Association,Incorporated,a nonprofit organization within the State of Florida who has a charter bylaws,all of which pertain to the Wiggins Pass estuarial waters and the flood plain of it. That's where our efforts are. I've been involved intimately in this process since essentially day one. And you might think from what I have read off to you here of the things I'm involved with,yes,indeed,they've all been focused on the Wiggins Pass,its estuary,its economic implications,its environmental implications and its boater safety implications,all of which have been assumed either directly or by law by the County of Collier to undertake the best interest of both man and nature in the preservation,the maintenance,and I dare say I add the word enhancement of those estuarial waters and their tangent lands. The testimony that you just heard raised the question of--which frankly I'm a little dazzled by. We've certainly not had a chance to get it and I couldn't quite follow the total logic in it. But having at one point been an attorney heavily involved in environmental law at the federal level and drafting the Clean Air/Clear Water Act,and in being heavily involved in the writing of the administrative federal regs which implemented those two acts,one of the big things that always came up is that old legal reference de minimis non curat lex,that sometimes in a public hearing and sometimes in the presentation of the case somebody latches onto something that's that big in an issue that is that big. And it's a perfectly legitimate thing to look at that and recognize,after you've applied your own thought processes to it,that that is so de minimis that the law will not recognize it. Now I'm not urging that that be done. I haven't seen this. But this has popped up,what you've just heard this morning. I'm going to pass that,because in my own intuitive judgment that is a de minimis non curat lex thing that has been examined and scrutinized by all. It is essentially as presented as an issue to you,it is a legal question. And I am not the person to resolve that question. But that's certainly my personal and retired professional opinion. I know you brought up the money part,and I quite agree,Mr.Chairman,on your comments there. Page 26 of 69 August 16,2012 But I think that there has to also be a holistic view by each of us and all of us as we address these issues that do tend to put man in opposition to nature. And we certainly have a number of people who thrive on pursuing that in a way that the two must collide and there must be a winner and there must be a loser. I don't believe that. And my experience is that with a degree of common sense and adherence to the law and an awareness of what is the best interest for the community,and at sometimes cost savings,that indeed both can be fully satisfied,if not totally and completely 100 percent,then essentially at least down to the de minimis point for the decision-maker who is truly and legitimately confronted with a choice that is that,that narrow. Now,what about Wiggins Pass? Let's look at the environmental side of that. Wiggins Pass and the estuarial waters that flow are getting worse. One of the things that really needs to be done and we are looking at it--as ECA I'm speaking now,Estuary Conservation Association,Incorporated. Water quality. The need for protection of the flora and the fauna,all of which has to do with water quality,all of which has to do with erosion and so forth. If you look at the Barefoot Beach area we're talking about that comes up here,you see all these big mangrove trees falling over into the water. Clearly something needs to be done on that. This project isn't going to address that directly,but it will be providing an ancillary support for mother nature,not for man. The water quality--the question of whether or not the ebb and flow and the flushing of the waters to any degree that would tend to enhance water quality and erosion control,there are those who are might say no,it won't,there will be those who say it will be de minimis. There are those who think it has some sincere potential to it. Clearly the Water Turkey Bay and these areas that Turkey Bay is not flushing because man has gone in and barred it off from going down,a big mistake environmentally. That's where the guns should have come out. The guns shouldn't be out for this. But let's move on to two other things that really have a lot to do with our environment,and in fact in an economic sense they have a lot to do with the ability of the county to protect mother nature in the days to come,and that has to do with the financial resources of this county and the continuance of them in desperate times to do enhancement for mother nature. You've got a community that is a riparian property owner community around the Wiggins Pass estuarial system is that worth well above a billion dollars in property assessment,hundreds of thousands of dollars to the county in tax,tourist attractions,bringing the snow birds down. I point one example,which is the Aqua,the new multi million dollar high-rise. But it's been built, and it is attracting a lot of people. But I am here to tell you that being involved with that--with them and having them on the Board of the Estuary Conservation Association,that I speak of what I know. They are losing sales for no other reason than the fact that Wiggins Pass is unpredictable. We have to deal with reality here.Wiggins Pass area,as all areas similarly,are boating communities. Like it or not,they are. There is presently a notice to mariners by the Coast Guard warning people about Wiggins Pass. It was about a year ago that I was privy to the republication of the every two-year book on Gulf Coast Boaters Guide,by that or some other name,in which they were planning to mark that as Wiggins Pass as being dangerous and non-navigable. We were able to persuade them to hold off on doing that and to rely on things as they have been rather than to make a statement like that,which would be,let's just call it,bad publicity. I go back to the sale of these condos and all. They fall through for that very reason.Because that is denying District 2 of Collier County of potential residents. The three-foot boat. DCA and the Pelican Isle Yacht Club initiated that all slips that are sold--and I want to keep you in mind too,I digress,in a moment. There are 1,700 wet slips at the Cocohatchee Wiggins Pass Estuary, 1,700 of them. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr.Moreland-- MR.MORELAND: You've also got--I'm running out of time. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah,if you--I mean,we're not going to stop you,just kind of start getting towards a conclusion,we'll be finished up. Page 27 of 69 August 16,2012 MR.MORELAND: Okay. Well,I'll certainly stop for a lunch break. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well,we try to provide everybody an opportunity,but we've got to have some limitations,so sorry. MR.MORELAND: I was just hoping to cover them all. No,I apologize,I am a rather windy devil. But that was clever,you got me off my train of thought. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I didn't mean to,sorry. MR.MORELAND: That's not going to help your cause. Anyway,I think your point is well made.You know what I'm saying,you know the trend I'm on,you know why I'm saying it. We've got a lot of support for this. Speaking for our organization,we want to move off from this issue and get into building oyster beds and getting seagrass out there,but this is consuming everybody's time and efforts. And I want to tell you one other thing,and it's a sense of a political sense. Nothing to do with the election. But my acquaintances from various capacities within that community that I occupy,they are getting downright totally frustrated and ready to give up.They're moving out. Their boats are moving out. They are leaving that. And slips will not sell. And some of those slips are very expensive,a couple hundred thousand bucks,and they're down to next to nothing. I think my time is up. I appreciate your listening to me and forbearing. And I share with Doug the appreciation for the task that you all perform. It's one of the most important ones I think that the county has. Thank you,sir,and I hope you seek clarity in this. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: We have one question for you,sir. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Yeah. In the Aqua the concern,is the problem with the navigability or is the problem with the depth that's allowed in that area? MR.MORELAND: The two are very hard to--well,it's navigability,obviously,but that's--depth is the principal thing. We have--this--we are making a major effort to ensure that anybody who puts a boat into that arena there signs an acknowledgment that that channel now and forever will be maintained at a three-foot depth navigation under the formula that Steve and Gary pointed out,the eight or so foot,which is a Coast Guard standard of how you arrive at what it is. The problem we have is the channel meanders out there. It is a foul weather haven where boats come in quickly to get in out of the storm,and it's designated that in the charts. And they come in and hit a sand bar there that may not have been there when they left,or the tide came down just enough that it's there now. Over the last season when they were there it wasn't there. And we're always working with--to try to put in temporary stuff,da da da da. But the answer is,it's the total ambiguity for planning purposes of what is that pass going to be like after we buy a slip.After we buy it can we get our boat in and out and when can we do it? Most of those boaters are willing to do high tide/low tide considerations. But a meandering pass is a different thing. And oftentimes--well,there's many anecdotal situations. Thank you,that was a lot of words. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you,sir. Oh,Tom? MR.EASTMAN: So you're for the dredging project? MR.MORELAND: Yes. As we say in West Virginia,indubitably. I'm glad you got that on the record. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you,sir. Next speaker,Ray? MR.BELLOWS: Dick Lydon. MR.LYDON: Morning. Usually when I come down here for a 9:00 meeting I wind up at 4:00 in the afternoon making some comments. But it's nice to be here. I will not take a lot of your time. Page 28 of 69 August 16,2012 My name is Dick Lydon. I am a resident of Vanderbilt Beach. I bought a home there in 1976,and at that time I contributed to the Wiggins Pass Conservancy,now the ECA. And then we had our dredging fund, that was long before TDC came into play. And the reason we were concerned and are still concerned about Wiggins Pass is it directly relates to the property values in Vanderbilt Beach. The tourist tax was passed with some amount of consternation by the hoteliers. But somehow or another I became a member of the city/county beach committee,and then the chair of that city/county beach committee,and worked on the fair distribution of TDC monies. We had a lot of fun with museums and beaches and all that other good stuff,but we did manage to do some work in inlet management. One of the things that was accomplished while I was chairman,which I have taken some heat about from various and sundry people,was exactly what we're talking about today,straightening the Turkey Bay area. Turkey Bay had a very wide turn. And when I came down here it was kind of easy,they were keeping that long winding thing open for their commercial fishermen by hooking onto an automobile engine when they went out in the morning and dragging it through the pass through Turkey Bay,and then unhooking it. And when they came back in in the evening they hooked on again,and that managed to keep the sand fairly close and they could get in and out. Then we came along and in 1995,'96 we dredged Turkey Bay and south channel. We made it a straight channel. And everybody said you're nuts. You can't dredge that to a straight channel,it will fill in in a year. As I went out a couple of weeks ago in my boat, 16 years later, I've still got my three-foot boat running through there in good shape. So straightening out makes some serious sense. And actually,during the days when I was on the beach committee,we tried to get DEP to let us saw off the north end of Delnor-Wiggins Pass,that big sand bar in there,but never,never could get them to do that. The other thing they kept saying at that time,that's too far back,we can't use TDC money to do that. Which I always thought was kind of funny. We finally straightened the south channel in Turkey Bay and it's working fine. We are supported in this request by The Conservancy of Southwest Florida. They have--and Nicole and I have had our days in court on various and sundry issues,but I think they believe,as I do,that this is the time to do this. Moving forward now will accomplish three major goals: One,it will maintain a navigability and boating safety in Wiggins Pass;it will protect the property owners'value in Vanderbilt Beach and the other inland areas that depend on access to the Gulf;'and it will assist in the efforts of ECA and others to maintain and enhance in land water quality. One other comment that was made. I believe the Chairman indicated that maybe that south channel straightening had something to do with the erosion on the north side of the pass.I can tell you that our water quality in Vanderbilt Beach,which has been going on for some 15 years,did not show any change in water quality in the south end of Vanderbilt Beach.It still takes 26 days to turn the water around in Vanderbilt Beach. I'd like to thank you,ladies and gentlemen,for listening,and I would ask that you positively vote for this project. Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. Next speaker,Ray? MR.BELLOWS: Nicole Johnson. MS.JOHNSON: I will have to admit on the record to being a few minutes late and I need to be sworn in. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's one reason I said if you come up,make sure you're sworn in. So I saw you come in late. Would you mind swearing her in. (Speaker was duly sworn.) Page 29 of 69 August 16,2012 MS.JOHNSON: Thank you. Good morning.For the record,Nicole Johnson here on behalf of The Conservancy of Southwest Florida. The Conservancy sent you,the feedback I got,was a rather lengthy letter on this subject. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No,22 pages. That ain't lengthy,that's like a whole book. MS.JOHNSON: Attachments. The attachments made it lengthy. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: I don't mind it,Nicole. MS.JOHNSON: And I think the bottom line of that letter is that this is a project that has been ongoing for many years,there's a lot of history involved in it. And that's why I wanted to give you that amount of detail. I know that that isn't necessarily all part of the basis for your decision today for consistency with the comp.plan and the LDC,but I think it is important because it provides that structure upon which your decision will be made. So I wanted to give you all that information and to let you know that The Conservancy has been involved in the Wiggins Pass estuary system and the designation of Outstanding Florida Waters in that area,and we became very involved in this new dredge template,the new dredging permit back in the 2007/2008 time frame because there was a lot of discussion about how it moves forward and will there be structures involved. The Conservancy does believe that what is before you today is the most compatible solution,with the two conditions that have been attached to your staff report which condition that sea turtle nesting season will not have any dredging,it will be avoided,and that the dredging project and the inlet management plan in whatever form that moves forward will be for a maximum three-foot draft boat. We don't like dredging. I want that on the record. We don't like the concept of dredging. There are always environmental impacts with dredging. But the Wiggins Pass system has been determined to be a managed pass;it is a navigable pass. And therefore in looking at solutions for Wiggins Pass,you have to balance safety,you have to balance the economics and you have to have the environmental as really from The Conservancy's viewpoint the capstone of it all. So how do we do all of this in the most environmentally compatible manner? The alternatives: Status quo. The status quo is dredging very,very often,every two years and sometimes more often than that. There are a lot of environmental problems with that. Dredging creates stirring up of the bottom, impacts to seagrass,and with the status quo you have that sharp S-curve,which is eroding Barefoot Beach to the north. So The Conservancy wasn't comfortable with just staying in that status quo track. The other issue and consideration which in 2007 the county was moving towards was putting structures in. And The Conservancy was very quick to point out that structures were inconsistent with the CCME Policy 10.5.8 which prohibits shoreline armoring processes and encourages nonstructural methods for stabilization of beaches and dunes. So it was from that policy that I think the community came together and said let's take a look and see if we can fmd a nonstructural solution. A working group was formed and I think that that is often the best way to get different viewpoints together at the table to try to come up with some sort of consensus, collaboration. It doesn't always work but in this case I did. A lot of problems with structures. I put information in our letter to you so I'm not going to go into detail over that. But the bottom line was that through the modeling it was determined that the pass could be managed non-structurally. On the opposite side of that it meant straightening the channel,and we certainly did have a lot of concerns about taking what was an S-curve that was naturally there and straightening it and what would be the problems and the implications of that There's been a lot of discussion today on this that I think helps to provide the background for why through the modeling it seems that the straightening of the channel will work,the sand manipulation will work.Dr.Orrin Pilkey,who is a beach dynamics expert from Duke University,he actually came down to Collier County in I think 2008,took a look at the pass. We did have him take a look at the county's proposal; not in depth,but his initial reaction was he thinks that that's something that could work as we move forward. So the bottom line from The Conservancy's perspective,we believe that this is the most compatible Page 30 of 69 August 16,2012 alternative. We're comfortable with it. We believe it should move forward. We think it's an exciting opportunity for Florida. In Florida we tend to put in structures and jetties and T-groins. This will be one of the first tries in Florida to manipulate the sand,to do a soft engineering alternative. And I think that that's really groundbreaking,and the county should be congratulated for going this route. So bottom line,we do support this with the two conditions that have been attached to your staff report. And I appreciate your indulgence in the 22-page letter. And if you have any questions,I'd be happy to answer them. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Any questions? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you,Nicole. MS.JOHNSON: Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Appreciate it. Anybody else,Ray? MR.BELLOWS: No other speakers. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody in the public who has not spoken that would like to speak? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay,is there any comments to close out by the--I guess the applicant or staff? MR.McALPIN: We have no comments unless there are questions. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay,anybody else on the Planning Commission? Paul? COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Will you do the dredging only on the outgoing tide,or will you do it on both tides? MR.McALPIN: We'll do it on both tides.We'll monitor the turbidity. We have strict turbidity guidelines that we'll have to monitor by. If we reach the turbidity limits we'll shut down the dredging. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody else? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay,we'll close the public hearing and entertain a motion.Anybody? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I'll make it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Go ahead,Brad. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I move we forward Petition STPL20120000168,the Wiggins Pass maintenance,with a recommendation of approval. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Is there a second? COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Second. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: I'll second it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay,seconded by Paul,motion made by Brad. Discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I'd like to ask the motion maker and the second to consider two things: One is that we accept staff recommendations,and two is that we've taken no position on the financial aspects of this project. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I agree. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Paul,is that okay with you? COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody else? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: With that,we'll call for the--in those in favor,signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Aye. COMMISSIONER KLEIN: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye. Page 31 of 69 August 16,2012 COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Aye. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Aye. COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: Aye. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Any opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion carries 7-0. Thank you all very much and we will-- MR.McALPIN: Thank you,Mr.Chair,thank you,board members. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: ***Okay,next item up is a report under new business by Dan Summers. And we are going to take a lunch break,but I'd like to finish this up first,because I know Dan,it's his busy season. Not that any season isn't busy for him,but hurricane season is a particular element. So this is a presentation of the Collier County Inventory and Shelter Space Availability by Emergency Management. It's a result of questions raised by this commission during the last AUIR. So with that in mind--Michael,are you making the presentation? MR.BOSI: Thank you,Chair. Mike Bosi,Interim Director of Planning and Zoning. Just going to provide the brief introduction to give you a little context. Within the memo that was provided within the material of your agenda packet,it was indicated last January during the EAR review of the CCME element of the Growth Management Plan,the Planning Commission had asked to see the available inventory of shelter space. We've worked with emergency management. They put together the information of the inventory. And as you know,Dan is here to be able to address individual specific questions that you may have in relationship to the inventory. And I'll be here for any questions you may have related to the Growth Management Plan implications and the policies and some of the discussions as they may go related to that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And thank you. It is the EAR,not the AUIR. So I got my acronyms mixed up. MR.BOSI: AUIR is next month. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. I was thinking about the last one. And you and I have had some comments and questions going back and forth,because I had a lot of issues that we spoke about on the phone.And sometime before this is over I'd like your acknowledgment that Policy 12.1.3 could have some verbiage changes that will resolve most of the issues. MR.BOSI: I do. And I actually have some calculations that would further justify the type of changes that we had spoke about. At the end of the discussion point I'll address that with the full Planning Commission. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Then that will save me a lot of going into detail I don't need to get into then. Thank you. MR.BOSI: Sure. And with that,Mr.Dan Summers. MR. SUMMERS: Mr.Chairman?Commissioners,good morning. Dan Summers,Director of the Collier County Bureau of Emergency Services and Emergency Management. And yes,sir,we are doing a great job okeeping the hurricanes out of the Gulf for now. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Keep it up,Dan. MR. SUMMERS: So we'll work on that and take credit where credit's due. Mr.Chairman,you and I,we did have some considerations and some discussions related to the sheltering. And I think I'd like to just recap a couple of key points if I may,sir,in this process. In the policy which we had some discussion on related to the shelter space and the lofty goals associated with additional shelter space,let me give the Commission just a short piece of history on this. In that--following the number of the hurricanes in Florida,we always look at what is proposed shelter deficiency.And you've got multiple counties in Florida that have what is reported as a shelter deficiency for Page 32 of 69 August 16,2012 space. However,those calculations for what is defined as a deficiency of space is strictly taken off of behavioral surveys and studies.It is not empirical data. In other words,these are all planning assumptions associated with shelter space issues. So when we were in our construction boom and under heavy regulatory pressure or guidance pressure under DCA and the Florida Division of Emergency Management,there was a goal,or there was a standard requested,that counties that were seeing exponential growth try to put goals for capturing additional shelter space. And predating my arrival here,I think there were a goal of going to somewhere from 30,000 to 45,000 shelter spaces. Well,that looked good and that seemed like a reasonably achievable planning standard,and that looked good in our construction heydey. And then as you know,as our construction and growth stopped,we're not building public schools and don't have anything on the horizon that I'm aware of any time in the near future like another high school,another middle school further out in the Estates that would have helped us meet this planning goal. So--and we've sort of rolled this issue down over the years thinking okay,well things will pick up, we'll have other construction sheltering opportunities,and that has not taken place. So as you mentioned to Mr.Bosi,I think it's important that we just--that this is not going to fit. This goal standard to try to add more shelter space right now is not going to fit and we might want to push the year out maybe five years or so to see if we can in fact catch up with shelter space as it relates to additional construction. Having said that,it's also important to realize that our message is always that sheltering,public sheltering is,if you will,we call it it's the lifeboat,not the Love Boat. It is--public shelter is that of last resort. Family,friends,hotels well inland should be your primary focus for sheltering inland. Our philosophy is we want you to hide from the wind,we want you to run from the water.So we push you well inland to get away from the water and take cover during the wind. So that is our philosophy in terms of moving people inland. But sheltering again is that of last resort. Now,we take that program very seriously,particularly for mobile home residents and frail and elderly that either can't handle the travel distances or have limited resources for out-of-county evacuation. So that's kind of our planning and operational posture associated with that. I think the other thing to mention is that with'the sheltering environment,we have a couple limitations. Number one,Emergency Management is not a regulatory body as it relates to the construction of new schools.General statute sets forth the regulations for the construction of the school buildings with the enhanced hurricane protection requirements,et cetera. I have no authority to overrule those,I only have permission to grant an exception for a facility if it's deemed that it's not going to be used or in some cases newer construction techniques where we might be asked to make a waiver on a roof deck or something like that where value engineering is an absolute necessity in order to get the building done. So we have had some of that discussion in the past,but that's--but that is really the extent of my waiver or strength in that sheltering program. I am a consumer of the public school buildings. I'm not a regulator;I don't bring money to fund those buildings. And the statutory requirements for those constructions are part of the Florida Building Code, and I'm not a regulatory body to that. Now,I have great cooperation from Collier County district schools. They've just been a phenomenal partner. They have included us in all their discussions. We've worked—we are a broker in some cases for mitigation grant opportunities. And if they have a renovation or a construction project and we can complement that with grant funds for improved envelope protection of those buildings such as windows and doors or shutters and that type of thing,we've tried to augment that. Worked very well with them,very cooperatively in that process. The other thing I think—the other point to make you aware here is that really,our industry is sort of --well,your planning requirements here specifically mention hurricane. We do a lot of our shelter planning Page 33 of 69 August 16,2012 in what we term all hazard. And again,really the two that generate evacuation here for us would be obviously the hurricane threat or the wildfire threat. So just so you know,we inventory shelters in a multi-hazard perspective. The other teaching point or point I want to share with you is that these are planning assumptions that we use. And operationally,this is not about accolades,but just know that every storm has different characteristics. It's wind speed,it's direction--it's forward motion,speed of forward motion,storm surge and the angle of approach. And so each one of those storms,we sort of model,look at that,confer with Hurricane Center and do our sheltering based on what we think is the best estimate. And usually we round up another storm category,just to be on the safe side. So we do that and make our sheltering posture accordingly. And so,you know,that pushes us,even with the new storm surge map inundation discussion,that planning document--and again,not an operational document but a planning document--that,you know, we'll do our filling of shelters well inland and do everything within our power to make everyone safe. Last but not least,the--a lot of the state planning,a lot of the discussion here where we talk about let's call it gross and net shelter square footage. For state planning purposes we can count roughly 20 square feet per person. Well,if you think about that in the gross settle shelter space,that puts an awful lot of people in a building with a high density and can make that very uncomfortable with limited things such as power and air conditioning,et cetera. So while we are allowed to use a 20-square foot multiplier,we wouldn't want to do that and we'll typically use a 40 square foot multiplier in terms of where we want to put capacity. The buildings: We don't certify any buildings,and I don't think anybody does certify a building that's a shelter. Nothing is perfect,nothing is hurricane proof. Our process is is it suitable for sheltering. And that is our approach as it relates to what is most suitable. And again,my job there is to evaluate risk. Are you better off in a shelter in Immokalee or out in Palmetto Ridge area of Big Corkscrew? Are you better off sheltering there than you are if you're a mobile home resident in East Naples,and the answer certainly is yes. So we want to make sure that we let folks know we're providing you the best safe haven,the least risk that we have with the available inventory,because we know for example mobile home is not where we want you to be during a significant storm. So I just wanted to make sure that you understood the framework of which we address that and how difficult it is with all of those variables and all those things that we do,that it is in fact a tough fit. And to give this particular--our goal here,you know,to make sure that one is a guarantee of the other. So we have those planning concepts,we have that mode of operation,and we have these lofty goals here. And I think those,as we discussed briefly,that those goals ought to be extended. I don't want to lose sight of not gaining additional shelter opportunity if new construction venues open up. But I think honestly we don't have a realistic expectation where we are today. Thank you,sir. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody have any questions? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I do. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Go ahead,Brad. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: All the shelters on the list,do they meet the Category 4 of the Building Code? MR.SUMMERS: Sir,here's--let me tell you what we know and don't know. And I have no way of determining what they--and nor am I required statutorily to know that. And that sounds like a flippant answer,but let me clarify. There are--number one,the school districts are--it is suggested that they report to us what those building standards were or any certificate at the time of completion.The bulk of the facilities that I use and are looking at are post 2004,which I believe was the ASCE standard,and I don't pretend by any stretch to be an expect on code. Do they meet Category 4 or 3? The answer is no. In most cases they will probably be in the 115 mile an hour range. And with newer construction and new enhanced--the Hurricane Enhancement Code is Page 34 of 69 August 16,2012 the Florida Building Code plus 40 miles per hour. And again,there's certain protection factors,and as you well know there's a whole matrix of discussion there that,you know,the newer construction is Florida Building Code plus 40 miles per hour,and in most cases plus or minus 10 miles an hour,and a majority of the shelters we've met that if they were built post 2004. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: But the Building Department has that information. And it's not category based on storm,it's--you know,there's different ways in which they rank,structural loading,based upon the use of the building. MR.SUMMERS: That's correct. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: So that information is available on every permit. MR.SUMMERS: Well,and that would be helpful for us to have,no doubt. But when we--our database that we work from comes from--primarily what we work with is the state. And we also,we promote to you all,to the public a large roster of shelters. Because we want the public to be aware in a multi-hazard environment of all the candidate shelters,whether it's hurricane landfall,exiting hurricane, which would open up more shelters,or the wildfire event. But when we do operate,we tell the public based on the characteristics of the storm these are the specific lists of shelters that will be available for this specific arriving hurricane. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. But-- MR. SUMMERS: I'm not sure I answered your question. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Well,I mean,the answer would be yes,we have a list of what categorist these are built under than the Building Code to make sure that they're all category four,which is what's required for a shelter. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I might be able to help,Brad,with the statute. Dan and I--the same concern you brought up is one that we had an off-the-record discussion on to help with today's meeting.The list that he provided had a lot of schools in there that I know are much older than the new codes. So I got in contact with the facilities people over at the school system. They provided me with a list of schools that they feel are up to all the new standards,and they're yet to look at the ones for the other locations. Now,that involving two things: It involves a section of Florida statute,but I also read to you the part of the email regarding the schools that are acceptable. And there's Palm Ridge High(sic),Golden Gate High, Gulf Coast High,Immokalee High,Immokalee Middle,North Naples Middle,Cypress Palm Middle, Corkscrew Middle,Immokalee Tech Center and sections of LWIT,which I believe is Lorenzo Walker Institute of Technology. Those are all on Dan's list. But the list has this multi-hazard facility use. So they're not all necessarily hurricane space,which is why we need to change the language in Policy 12.1.3 so it doesn't elude(sic)that these are all hurricane shelters. In Section 10.13.372 of the Florida statutes it's under Educational Facilities as Emergency Shelters. Let me read this because it might answer your question completely: The Department of Education shall,in consultation with boards and county and state emergency management offices,include within the standards to be developed under this subsection public shelter design criteria to be incorporated into the Florida Building Code.The new criteria must be designed to ensure that appropriate educational facilities can serve as public shelters for emergency management purposes. Then it goes on to talk about the effective day of inclusion. And it says there are exemptions,and those exemptions would be identified based on their hurricane category. So some of the schools like Naples High is an old building and it's in a higher--a lower category storm location. It may not be appropriate for a shelter for Hurricane 4,but it might be for a fire or some other MR.SUMMERS: Right,or on exiting storm event. So-- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: But my point is'old buildings too had to meet certain requirements Page 35 of 69 August 16,2012 for sheltering. This wind loading--you know,essentially what you're going to come up with this category is just give you different numbers for your equations of your structural design,which has been in the code for quite a while. So,I mean,I think what would be good maybe is if you do actually try to get to the building department or the school board,look on their structural plans and it will give you what category these buildings were built under.And if they're built under the shelter categories,you're in. MR. SUMMERS: Right. Yes,sir. And we'll go back and do an additional reference to that. But even as we--we involve the school district on a per storm basis as to the most suitable facilities,dynamics of the storm,what's going on,is this a weekend scenario in the county,is this a weekday school in session,et cetera. So we do go through that evaluation process. And again,you know,Building Code notwithstanding, as I measure risk,you know,I still know that those folks in mobile homes,as an example,are far better off even in an older school building. And one other point I want to mention,that we're--while you may don't always--people are lulled into the thought that we're going to put you in the gym as a dormitory style housing environment for sheltering.Well,that may be fine until we start seeing higher wind loads. If we start seeing higher--I'm sorry,higher wind speeds. If we see higher wind speeds I'm going to move these people to interior hallways and corridors and let them take a tornadic posture during the period. So you know,and again,I do think that will be very successful,very safe,pretty much standard procedure,if you will,for all of the Florida hurricane prone counties to make use of these structures. And I think we've got very good quality structures here in the county from which to work with. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody else? COMMISSIONER EBERT: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Diane? COMMISSIONER EBERT: I have a question for Dan. MR. SUMMERS: Yes,ma'am. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Has the new FEMA flood maps thrown in a lot of problems for Collier County? MR. SUMMERS: Yes,ma'am, it has. And it is part of our planning scenario and all of that discussions,one of the things that we have gone back and done is sort of reevaluated finished floor elevation as a component of our shelter discussion,as opposed to the flood inundation map. So where we may be seeing discussion of potential flooding,for example let's just take a parking lot of high school X. Well,I really--it doesn't bother me if there's eight inches of water in the parking lot as long as the floor is dry if we're up another,eight inches or another foot at finish floor elevation. And these have not been formal surveys,but we've used technical resources to go out and look at that. So we're paying attention not only to surge,flood,wind,and I'm also reviewing finished floor elevations to make sure. And again,we're back to evaluating risk.We might have a wet parking lot but we've got dry folks and that's okay. COMMISSIONER EBERT: I also noticed that the American Red Cross will only staff the shelters in the Immokalee area. Is that because of what they consider storm surge? MR.SUMMERS: Ma'am,that's a great question and it's a very sensitive issue with emergency managers statewide--well,nationwide. And,you know,this--honestly,I think their national decision here was silly and embarrassing. I think they have done that only because of the one Hurricane Hugo incident in McClellanville where a storm surge affected one of their schools. Five feet of surge impacted the school with a small number of folks there. And as a result they've sort of retreated in that process. And we're very disappointed. Emergency managers,professional emergency managers can make better operational decisions with that. Page 36 of 69 August 16,2012 That said,and I will tell you that's a national issue,that's probably not one that our chapters agree with. Because they very successfully worked with us and have been great partners since day one. So it is an impact to us. We are working through that by using more agencies,more volunteers in that shelter management,more assistance than we've asked for in the past from the school district. However, Red Cross will still be there if it is an exiting storm and they will certainly take over shelter operations once the storm has passed. So we're--nationwide we're discussing that policy in a very fun matter with Red Cross nationally. Because,you know,technology and information is far different today than it was during Hurricane Hugo. COMMISSIONER EBERT: And I agree with you.I think you should. The American Red Cross to me has been--the Salvation Army to me is doing more than the Red Cross. I mean,they're kind of getting a little uppity in some of their things. And when I read this in here,that really upset me that they would only go out in the Immokalee area because of the storm surge and--you know. MR.SUMMERS: Yes,ma'am. I don't want to discount the efforts of the volunteers and-- COMMISSIONER EBERT: No,no. MR. SUMMERS: --the partners here locally. They are equally frustrated that this is a national policy issue. And frankly I just--editorially speaking,I think there was an insurance underwriter somewhere that just said hey,let's just not do this. And I don't think that's the level of service that our local Red Cross wants to provide,number one.And number two,I've seen--communicated with the volunteers from Red Cross that said,you know what,we'll put on a different T-shirt during that period of time and we'll help out and then afterwards we'll put on a different T-shirt if necessary to help out. So don't let that cripple the spirit and the partnership of our local agencies. Just know this is a frustration with the national Red Cross. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Okay,so it's--okay,very good. MR.SUMMERS: But we'll get through it.Great people in this community,ma'am,that partner together and we're very proud of that relationship and very appreciative of their services. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay,thank you for the follow-up. MR. SUMMERS: Thank you,sir. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And we'll look forward to the next EAR,I guess. MR.SUMMERS: Okay,very good. Did you want to move forward with changing the date? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well,I wanted to talk to Mike about that-- MR. SUMMERS: Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: --in regards--we can't do it because this isn't a GMP hearing. MR.SUMMERS: Understood. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But we can provide Mike with enough support that when it comes back at the earliest possible date,the language can get corrected,we can suggest some things now. What date were you thinking of? MR.SUMMERS: I'd like to go five years out. Pd like to add five. I'll leave that up to Mike. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. MR.SUMMERS: And let me also just mention that we heard yesterday that State Emergency Management is doing a massive overhaul of rule making. So we may--that is planned for the next legislative review. And we hope to get some data today. But we suspect some of these sheltering issues may actually get legislative overhaul in the next session. I'll keep you posted. Thank you again for your interest and time. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Yeah,Mark,I have a quick question. Dan,I'm sorry I didn't think of this earlier,but is there any national standard as to ratio for population coastal communities as to what kind of shelter space should be provided? MR. SUMMERS: There have been some formulas. We typically I believe--there's been Page 37 of 69 August 16,2012 questionnaires post-storm that have asked people about evacuation behavior and shelters,and that's one number. And then there's another number that said nationally kind of what we have seen per jurisdiction. However,Katrina in New Orleans being the exception.You know,we typically will look at five to eight percent of the population might take public shelter. The rest,you know,typically with family or friends well inland. And again,just to go back and look at either Charley or Wilma,our largest number out there was only about 9,500. 9,500 to 10,000. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And these numbers are quite a bit higher. MR. SUMMERS: These are quite a bit higher. And so we have--as emergency managers on the ground,we very much question the state guidance and the planning associated with shelter capacity desires. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER:"Thank you. MR. SUMMERS: Thank you,sir. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. Mike? And I think that the policy that is addressing this issue is 12.1.3 under goal 12;is that correct? MR.BOSI: Mike Bosi again with Comprehensive Planning. Yes,Mr.Chair,that's correct. 12.1.3. And I'm happy that Commissioner Schiffer brought up the ratio,because it's the most important factor related to that individual policy. When that policy went in,it was adopted in 2007,January of 2007. So it was based upon the 2006 population projections. Looking back at the 2006 population projections,at the time for 2006 the estimate was 335,000 people. So the 32,000 people for sheltering basically was about 9.5 percent of our population,9.7,right around there. So just under 10 percent. And then the goal where they extended out to 2010,the population that we projected in 2006,we projected that 416,000 people--this is all permanent population. 416,000 people would be living there. And at that time the goal was to get to 45,000 people for shelters. That increased the percentage to right around 10-and-a-half percent. Going forward,we had suggested a modification that by 2012 we will have the 32,000 capacity within our inventory. We've shown that we have. But the population right now is only 328,000,estimated permanent population from April of 2012. Actually,7,000 people less than what we had estimated in 2006. That would actually give us about a 10.5 percent of our population being able to house in shelters. Looking at our permanent populations,when would we get to that 416,000 that we had said was that next iteration for that ratio? It won't be till 2029 until we reach that population level. So extending the year beyond 2015, I'm not suggesting to 2029,but if you want to keep maintaining consistent with that 10 percent ratio,you're anywhere between the 2023 to 2027 and you're still within a percentage or a percentage and a half of that 10 percent ratio to extend out. Which coincides with the school district's plans for new school construction is not until 2021 until we have that first new school educational plan on the books. So extending it out would be appropriate at the time that--on October 30th and 31st is the EAR-based adoption hearings for the Planning Commission. At that time I'll develop a short little data and analysis page,just a math ratio that I just described here,that would be the justification that we would need in case,you know,DEO was looking at it and said well,why did you extend it from 2015 originally at transmittal but extend it out to 2025,whatever the Planning Commission,whatever Dan and his folks are comfortable with. We'll have the ratio,we'll have the data that shows that we're only staying consistent with the ratio that we had maintained in the original policy. And that's what we'll present to you at the October 30th meeting. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Would you consider changing the category of shelter to multi-hazard shelter space to make sure we've covered all the bases? Page 38 of 69 August 16,2012 MR.BOSI: Most certainly. I think that that discussion point was something that we'll definitely have that modification to have a truer reflection of what the intent of that policy is to capture. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well,we can look forward to a GMP round coming up then. So thank you. Anything else? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I have a question. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Go ahead,Brad. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Couldn't you come up with a better methodology where you really look at the different regions of the evacuation stages and the non-seasonal population. And for example,you know we could have the population of the county but what's important is what population of the county is going to have to migrate out of these storm areas. So couldn't we,or shouldn't we be doing it that way rather than just coming up with 10 percent? MR.BOSI: Well,I guess--I mean,that type of analysis,you would look at the number of structures that are within,you know,your Category 1,Category 2,Category 3. And if you really wanted to be specific about it,you're probably going to have to do some socioeconomic demographics information to say as a realistic expectation of how many of these individuals will have the--which percentage would have the means,which percentage are living in these type of structures. I'm not sure—I mean,if you think that type of resource commitment is justified to the benefits,well, then that's something I think staff would happily pursue. I'm not sure—there was some logic behind the 10 percent ratio policy,and maybe I'll have to do a little bit more digging,as to what the justification was when we incorporated this policy. But at some point in time that 10 percent number,that ratio of 10 percent and having shelter space for 10 percent of our permanent population was deemed appropriate by the Planning Commission and the Board of County Commissioners. So maybe I--I could look to see what was the justification for that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But aren't you going to be coming back with recommend--Dan mentioned that the state may redo the whole--may provide a whole new layer of requirements or lessen requirements. Maybe that will give us the latitude that you need. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And the point I'm really making is that using the method that we used to derive this,which is us,we were here,proved wrong. So why come up with a way to adjust the method that proved wrong? You know.We don't need 32,000 spaces today,but we thought we did five years ago,because we assumed a bad population number. MR.BOSI: What I can commit to in terms of the resource availability and work load of staff and the limited resources we have available,was looking at the justification that was provided back when the policy was incorporated into the Growth Management Plan,see if it gives us any hints. And if it doesn't,I won't be able to—it's that type of a project I think I don't know if I would have enough time to put that together in order to make a solid recommendation to migrate from this policy that--at the EAR-based amendments in October. But if its recognized that that original intent or reasoning behind a 10 percent ratio is incorrect,as you stated,well,then maybe it would be something that you would task the staff to look at for a full GMP amendment at some point in time. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Yeah,that's a good start. But I just think there's a methodology that could float with times better. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Go ahead,Dan. MR. SUMMERS: For the record,Dan Summers. Mr.Chairman,if I could just comment on that too. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Sure. MR. SUMMERS: One of the challenges that we have also seen is the sheltering posture associated with our economic climate. When we were in good times,shelter numbers would traditionally be lower because folks had the resources to travel out of county,out of state. We are prepared,maybe,you know,if the economy is tough and the storm is significant,we may have some surge this year. So I kind of take that into account. And that is nothing more,I'm afraid to tell Page 39 of 69 August 16,2012 you,than just kind of the intuition of knowing the community on that given day as the storm arrives. So,you know,while I don't mind making a planning assumption to the high side,but understand that,you know,those constraints are made just upon the,you know,how much bricks and mortar are available to us. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay,thank you for the presentation. And Mike,thank you for your help with the GMP issues. And with that,I think it's better that we take a lunch break. We'll come back at 1:00 and we'll jump into the Land Development Code amendments at that time. So we're at break. (Luncheon recess.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: ***Okay,everybody,welcome back from our lunch break. When we left we finished up with new business and our old business is real old business, it's the LDC Amendment Cycle 2012. Each meeting we try and knock out a couple more of them,and this particular meeting we have four. I was going to proceed through these based on the attendance of the public.There's no public here. So we'll just take them in order,Caroline,as you have provided them,and move down. So the first one is the rereview of the draft for portable storage containers. That's section 5.03.07 and the definition--they're all in that section,so it's all yours. MS.CILEK: Great. This amendment was reviewed on July 19th by the Planning Commission. And following your direction,on Page 3 I've outlined the things that we have added or modified to this amendment. We have included a screening requirement for the Estates zoning district provided information regarding the enforcement of the standards for containers by the County Code Enforcement division;we have described the available sizes and dimensions of the containers. I did that both for shipping containers and for PODS. Identified the temporary uses allowed by the LDC;and changed the screening requirements for containers located in industrial zoning districts to allow for those that are no more than 200 feet away from another industrial zoning district to not have to provide screening;as well as change the limitation in the container size down to 400 square feet. This is all identified under supplemental information. And Fve included a table,table three on Page 6,that tries to simplify and provide an illustration of the current standards as they are today,as well as proposed standards by this amendment,just to get a bigger picture of what this amendment would do. And after that there are revisions highlighted in yellow to the code text. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. And by the way,I wish to compliment you on a job you do, because I had people in the Estates on both sides'of the issue say how well you've handled it and managed it. You approach it unbiasedly and with good detail. And I don't know what college you went to,but they taught you well. So we're glad to have you. MS.CILEK: Thank you,I appreciate that.It's a team effort,just to make that known. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Phil? COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: Just a couple questions. On Page 6 in the table you just referenced,table three,the second category,temporary use,no temporary permit required,how do we define temporary in that category as versus the first category with the permit,maximum 28 days but now second category is temporary use? Unlimited? MS.CILEK: That's a really good question.If you look at the first one,which is all under zoning and then it starts off with allowed at a construction site and it eirds noting the Florida Building Code,that is a temporary use that is a companion to the building permit for whatever construction purposes are going on at that site. So after the construction's done,then the temporary use would be lifted and the container would need to be removed. Next one,Susan Istenes's memo back in 2003 identifies that for occupants moving in and out,a week is what she recommended. But we know there's got to be some flexibility to that as well. So those are more kind of ebb and flow type of temporary time periods,as in they're not a specific amount of time. Page 40 of 69 August 16,2012 COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: I understand that.It just on the surface appears to me that someone that wanted to take advantage of that could. MS.CILEK: Certainly. COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: And basically I said I'm a very slow mover and I haven't quite moved in or-- MS.CILEK: I mean,we're not going to— COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: And if that's not disturbing anybody,I guess I'm good with it. MS.CILEK: It's a really valid question.I don't know if I have a straightforward answer for you. I mean,those two are instances where really they're on your honor. If you're moving in and out of a house and you're moving to another place,you know,in Collier County or outside,then that's how long you have to use the container. COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: I would imagine then that it would just be based upon someone making a complaint— MS.CILEK: Yes. COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: --and an investigation would-- MS.CILEK: If it was no longer being used for a temporary moving purpose,yes. COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: But since there's--I'm probably belaboring this,but since there's no permit required,no one would really know definitively when the storage containers showed up on the property. MS.CILEK: For number two which we're talking about the moving,that is accurate.For number one with-- COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: No,I'm good with number one. That's pretty tight. MS.CILEK: Right. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anything else,Phil? COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: Yeah,I have a couple more on here;might as well get them out of the way. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Go ahead. COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: On Page 7,if you drop down to 5.03.07.B.I.B. And this phrase is used in other places. Define bona fide agricultural use. MS.CILEK: Actually,I'm going to let Ray speak on that one. MR.BELLOWS: For the record,Ray Bellows. The county has put together a list of criteria that someone qualifying for a bona fide agricultural use must obtain. One of that is an agricultural exemption from the property appraiser. But there are some other things that go into making-- COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: I mean,it's a common description. MR.BELLOWS: Yeah,there's a form that someone fills out and they are deemed to be a bona fine agriculture-- COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: So someone would have to show evidence of that,if questioned? MR.BELLOWS: Correct. COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: All right,fine. On the next page,Page 8.E--excuse me,F. And drop down to item E--excuse me,F.1.E. And my question was again bona fide agricultural use,but in the Estates? Because this is specific-- isn't this specific to the Estates? MS.CILEK: Yes,it is. And Heidi and I identified that there would be a conflict if someone had an Estates zoned property and received a bona fide agricultural permit or exception. Then they would fall under that bona fide category. So that can happen in the Estates. COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: Can. MS.CILEK: Can. COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: Just seemed-- Page 41 of 69 August 16,2012 MS.CILEK: Yeah. COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: --incongruous to me. That's it,thanks. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Paul? COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: What about Immokalee? After this came up I realized there that are some that have sort of plopped down in Immokalee. One very close to me. They have to be—they'll just stay there unless somebody complains,right? MS.CILEK: Well,Code Enforcement does respond on a complaint-driven basis. And the future of those plopped-down containers would be from board direction and recommendation from the Planning Commission. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And I had a lot of-I was real concerned about this one. After last meeting I certainly understood the problem.But at the same time we got to consider people's right and freedom that we all should enjoy with our homes. When you live in a subdivided community that has like a gate or a private property,you've got generally deed restrictions. And the deed restrictions regulate all kinds of things like this,well and above and beyond code. And when you move into those places you know that. You know those deed restrictions are there because you buy into them. In public subdivisions like Golden Gate Estates we don't really have deed restrictions and it would be nearly impossible to get them enacted because everybody that owns property would have to agree on it. So we fall back on regulation. Well,when Caroline sent this stuff out and I looked at the attachments,the regulation for storage containers is already there. Not only is it already there,it was questioned in 2003 and it was questioned in 2006,and Susan Murray--and Susan did her job well,she was right on top of things--she responded both times saying they cannot be permitted as permanent structures. They could be allowed on a temporary base. Temporary is in the eyes of the beholder somewhat,but they were not allowed to be permanent structure. And she reemphasized that. So I thought,okay,well,if they weren't allowed to begin with,people could have them temporarily, where is the problem? How did we get here today with several pages of new regulation on something that wasn't allowed to begin with? So I guess my first question is: How did we get here? What caused the furor that we have now? And second of all,why don't we just forget all this new regulation and rely on the interpretations that we have and fix the issues that involve the people who have already gotten them based on mistakes made. And that's the direction I'm looking to head,because I really am--I think the intrusion we put on people's freedoms in this country as a whole but it goes right down to the individuals and every little piece of property we own,we ought to have some rights to some extent. And that doesn't--means we shouldn't be disturbing our neighbors. But how disturbing is it to a neighbor if the neighbor's not complaining? To have someone drive down a street and start pointing at things saying I don't like any of this,that's not right. And so I would suggest that part of a solution would be we rely upon--and I like the word bona fide --bona fide complaints by affected parties. That means you've got to put your name on the line if you've got a problem.And if you live two miles away then you're not an affected party. And the idea that you should be out there pointing fingers at people maybe is not the right thing to do to respect peoples freedoms in this country. So Pm real concerned about the way this is going. I do not like the way it's now evolved. Basically we're asking to approve something that's a de facto moratorium. It would be so onerous to make one of these work under the conditions in this rule that it would be like no one in their right mind's going to pay that kind of money to make it work. But then if you look back at the code the way it's written today and the interpretations we have,they already said you can't do it except for temporary uses,and if you want to use it temporary,well,fine. And that works.And if someone complains,then we can take a look and see if the temporary's been going on too Page 42 of 69 August 16,2012 long. But if there's not a bona fide complaint,leave people alone. They've probably got a million other things going on in their lives that are far more disturbing than dealing with a container. So anyway,I'd like to have you refresh my memory at least on how we got here today. I know how you developed the language,but how did this whole thing start? MS.CILEK: Absolutely. One thing I'd like to point out is on Page 1 under reason,it goes back to how this became an LDC amendment.And that was on September 27th,Code Enforcement brought an executive summary to the Board of County Commissioners-- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. MS.CILEK: --requesting that an LDC amendment be created to allow for portable storage containers to be an accessory structure in the Estates district. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But why did they bring that to the Board? That's my— COMMISSIONER EBERT: Yeah,Code Enforcement. MS.CILEK: And I will--that's kind of where my knowledge starts,but I'm going to let Ray go before that. MR.BELLOWS: Yeah,I've been working with--for the record,Ray Bellows. I've been working with Code Enforcement on this issue before they brought their executive summary to the Board. And the way they explained it to me is they have been seeing a dramatic increase in Code Enforcement cases involving these structures. And many people have been asking them why can't they have them.There seems to be a high demand for them. And we reiterated Susan's memo to Code Enforcement and they understood that it's not allowed,but they're still wanting to address the issue of all these people who want them,and so they asked the Board for direction. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. But--and I think that what you did was the right process and what Code Enforcement did was the right process,find out what the code really says.The code says no,except for a temporary basis. MR.BELLOWS: Correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So unless we get a complaint that provides for some method of timing where and when these occur,what is the problem? I mean,did Code Enforcement have cases that were generated by affected parties that were legitimate in regards to whether they were permanent or temporary,or were they permitted in regards to the staff making--because there are--I understand there are some that actually have permits. And were there some actually permitted? Because if those are,we should treat those like we treated that improper metal building setback that got away in the Estates for quite some time. We allowed--the Board allowed those people to be grandfathered in because they were permitted,and they just had to do like a hedge. And it wasn't to the intensity that we're even asking here. And this is for,you know,a 20 or 30-foot high metal building 20 feet from the property line. So I think we're going into way overkill on this whole new regulation issue,and I think we--I think one solution might be to back off,rely on the code,formalize the interpretations into the LDC,and then look at a way to either grand--either phase in over a period of time or fix the intrusion by those that are not consistent with their placement.You know,if someone has one but they got a permit but they don't have a hedge around it,a hedge like the metal building would require,not like you're asking for in here;because you're even stricter in here than the buildings were. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Mark? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: If you go by the code then you won't be able to have any of them and that would really be infringing on peoples freedom. They were saying,give us a way,show us how we can do it legally. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well,I think just the opposite. I think that this rule has been interpreted from 2003 and 2006 but it's been on the books before that. If someone had asked they would have gotten that interpretation. Page 43 of 69 August 16,2012 As far as can have it,yes. The rule doesn't say you can't have it,it says they're temporary,they're used under certain circumstances. The circumstances were correct.I went and checked regulation in other parts of the state and I know that Caroline's checked in other parts of the country. There is nobody that I could find that's allowing these in any areas similar to our Estates areas that I could find so far. And I checked quite a few. I sat there and went through different counties and then municipalities. And I'm thinking,they are useful and they ought to be able to be used just like you just said,but they're not--portable storage container by its very name portable I don't think was intended to be a fixed structure in place for eternity. And we've gotten out of--we've kind of been led into a different direction. And to add this many pages of new regulation over something that wasn't allowed to begin with,and maybe we can just fix what we had might be a simpler approach. And especially fixing the issue where we've had some permits issued. Just look at how we fixed that metal building issue and apply the same standard. MR.BELLOWS: Yeah,I agree,we could treat it that way. Because they basically would be grandfathered in. They're currently deemed now grandfathered in,because we do enforce the--they're not allowed now. But the only caveat is that the Building Department hasn't--I believe they mentioned this at the last hearing,that if an architect or an engineer signs and seals plans converting a pod into a structure,they would have to accept it. But-- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I mean,that's--I mean,we can't micromanage every single type of structure that would go into any particular property in this county. MR.BELLOWS: Yeah,I just want to make sure that was clear. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And we have building codes that will regulate the safety of these structures. But I jut--I'm concerned about overregulating again when we already have a code that really isn't broken,it just hasn't--it's been missed,that's all. Diane and then Phil. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Ray,do you know how many have been permitted? Do you have any idea? Because I know this is going to come back to us again too. MR.BELLOWS: I believe Code Enforcement has a rough idea,but I don't know if we have that. MS.CILEK: Mark,did you chat with code enforcement about the number? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I may have. I don't remember that specifically,though,no. MS.CILEK: I think it is significant. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Really? MS.CILEK: But with a permit,I'm not sure. And from what I understand,there are a lot of portable storage containers out there.But-- COMMISSIONER EBERT: Without permits at this point. MS.CILEK: Yes,I don't know. But there's going to be a combination of both. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Well,we did talk about this. And they want to go back and discuss it with everyone. So this is going to come back again? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well,yeah,but the basis under which they were to go back,this board was to produce a draft of what we felt was a code that could be implemented into the LDC for them to go back with so they got something. And the code that we've developed is so onerous and so many--I'm not sure that it's logical. I mean, if we want to say no,why don't we be truthful and stand to the plate and say no,instead of saying you can do this,but we're going to make it so hard that nobody in their right mind would do it. And that's kind of what this code says. I would rather we look back at the code we already have and the basis for the interpretations and say they aren't permitted under any basis of permanent structures,but you can have them to use on a temporary basis,and make it simple like that. And if there's a bona fide complaint,then the response to that complaint starts looking into whether-- Page 44 of 69 August 16,2012 how temporary those are versus permanent. But why not leave everybody alone until their neighbors have a problem with them.Just to have someone drive down the street and point them out as problems,that's not justifiable. At least I don't feel it is,so--go ahead. COMMISSIONER EBERT: We've had where I used to live a lot of people use them. But they are taken away and put up in storage.They are never left. You are allowed to keep them for a short time,one or two weeks,and then the PODS people come in,pick them up and take them to a storage center. That's really what they are used for. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That seems to be what the original code intended. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Phil,and then Brad. COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: Picking up on where you left off,Mark,if it was--we had two different interpretations three years apart. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: They're the same. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Same interpretation. MS.CILEK: One's elaborating on the residential temporary-- COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: We got an interpretation. And where did the confusion set in? I mean,if there was a definitive interpretation of existing code in 2003,then in reading through all of this history the attempt for this amendment was to eliminate confusion. I mean,I tend to agree with Mark's point,if there is existing regulations and it was interpreted in 2003,then who has the problem here? MR.BELLOWS: For the record,Ray Bellows. I don't believe there's confusion as--because the memorandum or staff clarification by Susan Istenes was pretty clear. But there were some--I believe it was prior to those staff clarification issued a building permit or tie-down permit because it was deemed to be a structure at that time. And that's I think was the genesis of Susan making her interpretation. So after the interpretation,I don't believe anybody has received a tie-down or building permit for those PODS,but there are,as Code Enforcement has indicated,many out there without any kind of permit at all. And when dealing with those residents,they found a tremendous desire for them and so they thought they'd seek direction from the Board. This amendment isn't to clarify misunderstanding in the code,it's just to allow them where they're now prohibited. COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: Okay. I mean,I accept what you say,except I read what I read. Because this amendment proposes to eliminate confusion regarding portable storage containers and blah, blah,blah,blah. MR.BELLOWS: Well,yeah,there is maybe-- COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: Okay. I mean,on that ba--I mean,I didn't clearly understand I guess that point before,Mark,that you made.And I think we're getting concurrence that existing LDC language has regulations in it that govern when you can and when you can't.And-- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But I think part of the difference comes from some people may have put these on their property not knowing there's even a code about them. And I can understand that,because if you're not in the loop on some of this stuff,it wouldn't even seem like--why do we need a code for a storage container?Okay. And if a whole bunch of people did that but their neighbors don't complain and nobody's concerned, until it rises to the level of a real complaint,what do we care? I mean,it's not hurting anybody. And I don't see what's the downside to just leaving them alone. COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: It would just seem to me that it's almost like let's make an amendment so that we can lessen the number of complaints or following up on complaints to Code Enforcement. If they're--by writing new LDC regulations here,people that want to put a portable storage container down wouldn't know any more about the new regulation than they did about the existing regulation, Page 45 of 69 August 16,2012 so-- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Probably right. And I think it actually would involve more effort on the part of staff to regulate the after-effects. Meaning it's required to have a hedge with irrigation. Well,if the irrigation goes out and the hedge dies,or.two trees die and you don't have 100 percent,or if someone with a microscope 200 feet away can look over and see a peak through the leaves when the wind blows,is that 100 percent? I mean,we're getting into stuff that is bizarre for someone's private home. I mean,I can see it in a subdivision like Diane lives in,for example. She's got a gated,deeded community. Those deed restrictions are--and you walk in there,you know that. And you're not going to have in small lots in that place someone next door doing something radical because it's instantly observed. I'm not saying that's right or wrong as to— but,I mean,if no one's complaining,what are we making a big issue about it for? MS.CILEK: Well,I believe there were complaints that prompted the-- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well,then we should address those complaints. Because-- ms.ce: And I think this was how they were to address them was to allow them.However,if you want to look at the two memos from Susan Murray,then that would be--we would codify that so that would be known they're only to be used on a temporary basis.So if Code Enforcement did receive complaints, because they are complaint driven,then they could say this is temporary and if you have a permit for it then this is the mediation,a hedge,or you have it signed and sealed by an engineer and architect. Those are the only way to allow at that point. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But were the complaints by people that were affected asked by the issue? See,that's where the--I mean,I could complain about Diane's tract of land if I wanted to,but I wouldn't know anything--it wouldn't bother me--I'm 10 miles from her house. So I'm more trying to understand is it neighbor upon neighbor is it just people creating complaints? And there's a big difference. And we don't know. And that's kind of hard. That's why it's hard to judge what to do with this. MS.CILEK: I can't speak to the complaints. MR.BELLOWS: We're going to have to follow up with Code Enforcement and fmd out the nature of all the complaints. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Brad? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Yeah,I mean,just stay on your vein a second. There were pictures in the newspaper of people plopping them in the front yard. That's the community's,you know,starting to go down when you do that. So according to this,the Susan Murray,they're not allowed anywhere except on a temporary basis, even in the Estates. I mean,you do note in here that they could be in the Estates if it was part of a--if it was engineered by an architect or an engineer. But why is that limited to only the Estates? MS.CILEK: It's not. Actually on— COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Right. And the--because I've seen,you know,it's a popular thing now,there's a Starbucks made out of them,there's all trendy little buildings,houses made out of them. So there's nothing that would stop us from being able to do an architecturally designed building that has components made up of storage containers. MR.BELLOWS: Correct. And that would be for any zoning district. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Correct,not just the Estates,as you know. MR.BELLOWS: As long as it meets the Building Code for that type of use. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And I think the other thing this kind of points out,Mark,I've always been against the what I slang the stealth code where there are a bunch of decisions that have been made by staff and the public isn't aware of them,unless they try to do something that's affected by--in this case staff had these decisions and was still permitting containers,right? MR.BELLOWS: That's--I don't believe that's the case. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: So everything was done before Susan's 2003? Every container. Because containers don't last long. So-- Page 46 of 69 August 16,2012 MR.BELLOWS: The ones issued a building permit. And there may have been some after,I don't know. But the staff clarification was intended to help the people who do the permitting understand what the zoning allows. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And I think we should get—when these come out and we used to be copied on them and we're not anymore,unless there hasn't been any in a while. I think it's a good idea that we get them into the cycle,because it's addressing the problem to the point where someone had to make an interpretation like this,it really would be important that we get it into the Land Development Code,which is where somebody should look. MR.BELLOWS: We are in the process of taking staff clarifications to the Board of County Commissioners,and where either Board directs or staff feels that the--the staff clarification should also result in an LDC amendment. And we'll do that. But we are in the process,the first batch will go in September,the September board meeting. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. Other than that,you do have a stealth code that not everybody knows or acts— MR.BELLOWS: Well,it's published on line under the zoning site. And it's not adding or changing what's in the Land Development Code,it's just the opinion of the zoning director what that means,the language in the LDC. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: But without these opinions of Susan,it's not evident in the code,or is it-- MR.BELLOWS: Well,if it's not specifically a permitted structure then it's not allowed. So you can't list every structure to be prohibited. But that was staff clarification to help clarify the intent. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Which has to be--you know,at one time we were hoping we could hyperlink from the Muni.Code the staff opinions,but that hasn't happened. The other thought is that since people really did want these,Mark,and essentially right now they can't have them,the game we were playing here I thought was is let's come up with the terms in which they could have them. MR.BELLOWS: Correct. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: The concern of all the landscape and everything is solely for the benefit of the neighbor. In other words,if you do not want this,you certainly don't want these in your setback,you don't want them piled three high. There's a lot of things you don't want,that this regulation gives you a game plan that you can go onto your site,certain sites,hardly any sites,and do that.And if you-- you know,I think putting the landscaping in is not something we did ask for the metal building. I mean,this is only going to be an eight-foot tat building. I can't see it being a difficult thing to cover. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No,see,I think I've got just a slightly different twist. I could be dead wrong in my assumption here. There's a lot of these out in the Estates,apparently,from what Pm hearing somebody say.And I don't know how many complaints you've had about them,but some of the people I've talked to,they don't care. I don't care if my neighbor has one of these. And some people care,like we heard in testimony,outrageously. So I'm trying to figure out is if we have a code that says you can't have them so that the person who does care and is concerned about a neighbor bringing these on their property has some ability to say wait a minute,you know,it's your freedom to put them there but I moved out here not to have to look at an industrial park. And I agree,that's a true statement,that's what—people should have that right. But I think it ought to be when those people have a legitimate complaint and they're an affected party,I'm more concerned about just this broad-scale attack on everybody that has a storage container now is going to be found a problem. And I'm wondering,is there a way to respond to this that is more orientated to the affected parties than just saying okay,we're going to make sure all these are stopped?Because nobody's complaining about them all.And I don't know if there is or not. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Well,but here's the thing,is if we open the gate. Remember, they're not allowed now. Page 47 of 69 August 16,2012 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: So people who have them out there either did it before 2003 or they've done them without permits. You know,and you're going to check and see if there were any permits filed,right? MR.BELLOWS: If that's the direction,yes. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Because I think these things don't last long. I mean,they do deteriorate. You know,they're metal. They rust out. So,you know,I don't think there's a lot of them in 2003 that haven't been damaged. So I think there's no problem,Mark,in coming up with rules. I mean,look at,one of the rules is you can only be one container high. If you didn't have that rule,what's to keep you from putting six of them on top of each other? Other than a height limitation. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well,you can't have them and you couldn't get access to it,I would think. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Well,whatever. I mean,we had--the alternate to this out there that some people are doing are tractor-trailers. They're pulling a trailer in their yard,keeping the wheels on it and putting porches on the back of them,going up and down that. That's got to be a lot worse than this. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: It is. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And they would be the ones that would go this path instead of that path. So I see nothing wrong with coming up with regulations in which we can--people can do it. If you want to go item by item.But you have to have regulations for them.Otherwise there's,you know,again,just the ability to put two on top of each other,you want to say you can't do that at least. And there's a lot of things you want to say. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well,by your statement though that you have to have regulations for them, then your position is that we ought to allow them. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I think based on conditions we can allow them. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. I mean,that's different than what the code now says. That's why-- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: The code says you can't allow them. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Because they're temporary. And obviously that's the big--you know,but the point is that if a guy wants to put it next--you know,on the property in the setback,he wants to landscape it well enough,you know,an eight-foot high,40-foot long landscape wall is not going to be a detriment to his neighbor. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And Tom's been patient-- MR.EASTMAN: There was testimony,I believe it was a woman who was a realtor,and her concern for the impact,the negative impact of these was not just the immediate neighbor,but she was giving more like the whole neighborhood's property value was affected or whatever. So I think from her position, and I'm not saying it's right or wrong,but from her position I believe it was a bigger issue for,you know, moving away from the trailer. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well,I mean,I--there's a whole pile of things I guess you could say could be detrimental to all kinds of different things and we need them changed for that reason because it's a monetary issue. But I'm not sure code is supposed to be written to address the ability to sell or not sell a property. Maybe there's some hook there that works for that,but— COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Well,Mark,the-- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: --I'm not leaning towards that-- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: --landscaping's not the only thing. There's opaque walls,there's-- I'm sure somebody could put a lattice across-- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Go ahead and tell them about the wall issue,the standard size wall versus the size of these PODS;they're getting into a whole program. MS.CILEK: I mean,our goal in writing this was to create a--to completely obscure the structure. But when we look at the standard size of fencing,fencing is six feet tall and eight feet wide,and that's for a Page 48 of 69 August 16,2012 standard wood or vinyl fence. So if you have an eight-foot storage container,it's going to be very onerous to go out to Lowe's or Home Depot and buy a fence because it's not going to be the right size.And then if you have your portable storage container on a concrete pad you're talking about even more. So the fencing option may work in some instances or it may not. We did provide several options. If you have a completely forested backyard,that would be a viable-- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: But remember,you're past the setback,so you could be attaching material to the side of this too. In other words,the fencing doesn't have to be a freestanding fence on the property line. MS.CILEK: I'm just saying that it wouldn't--it's not like you can go out to Lowe's and buy a fence that is eight feet tall.There would be some other things you'd have to consider. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Maybe lattice and stuff will come out that people can easily get to, but-- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But what you just said I never even thought of. You're saying that they could take plywood and screw it to the outside of this thing and leave it plain or paint it white and that would meet the code. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I would hope lattice would do it. But,you know,something that looks good. You can't have a law to allow people to bring containers on the property that does not respect the neighbor. That's the loser in this whole thing. You know,you can talk about people's rights,but one of the rights is not to,you know,have affect on the neighbor's property. So I think if you lived a certain distance from a neighbor,fine,you can do whatever you want. You can pile them 20 feet high,I don't care. But the point is is that the only thing we're writing here is what's the worst case the neighbor's going to see. And that's fair. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well,but what you said is you've got to respect your neighbor's property. If the neighbor doesn't object to what you're doing,who's being harmed? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Well,here's the--I don't--you know,let's say we had a situation where if the neighbor signed off you didn't have to do this,I don't really think we want to put people in that position. COMMISSIONER EBERT: No. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Because,you know,your neighborhood may have a bigger dog. You may not want to approach your neighbor with that conversation. I mean,we can't fairly in the Land Development Code put people in that position. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Diane? COMMISSIONER EBERT: Mark,I thought with the Land Development Code we were going to try and bring it down. And with Susan's,when this has been brought up twice it is not allowed,I think we should just keep the code the way it is and not allow it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well,the only problem with that is that we do have to do something to clarify the official interpretations. They've got to be codified. So that--other than that--I mean,but see,that only works if it's approached by a complaint-driven basis that isn't like we're looking at it today. Basically I think what's happened is we got a complaint or a number of complaints,I don't even know if they're by affected parties or not. It spurred a review of all the Estates on this issue. They found storage containers apparently in a lot of different places. And now this broad-brush approach is going to be-- could be applied. And if that happens,then people who really don't have a problem with their neighbor and their neighbor doesn't have a problem with them are going to be penalized for no reason at all. And that's kind of what I'm concerned about. If someone's living out there and their neighbors,everybody's happy and no one's concerned,what are we jumping in being concerned for? I just don't know if it's the right way to approach it. I'm trying to find out a solution and I don't have it. I'm just trying--this is a very frustrating one,because we've got to balance what people should have Page 49 of 69 August 16,2012 a right to do with their own home,especially if they buy in a rural area versus what they have to do to respect their neighbors. And I fully agree,we have to have rules to enforce when people aren't respectful. I just don't know if these new three or four pages is a practical way to approach it.That's what bothers me the most. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: But that's what we've been trying to do for the last-- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I know,and I don't think we're there. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: --since Susan Murray. I mean,here's the other thing,Mark. You and I live side by side,you say,hey,let's put some containers in. I don't mind,do you?No,I don't mind,do you? So you and I stick our containers in our back yard and we're happy. First of all,there is regulation. We have to--the code has to tell us they're structures,so stick them out of the setback.But anyway,we do that right. Then you go to sell your house and you're showing people through your house and they're sitting at the kitchen window saying man,there's a storage container in the back,in the neighbor's back yard. You know-- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I'll tell them to get it out of there right away. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I'll throw the one out in my back yard,but there's another one right next to it in the neighbor's yard. So,I mean,we really do have to come up with a way that if we're going to make these things allowable,then they have to be palatable to some standards somewhere. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Those are good points,Brad. I mean,I--actually,like I said,this one has --I have tried and tried and tried to figure out a fair solution. Because there's got to be a balance between people's rights and what they can do and how far it goes to disturb their neighbor,and I don't know if this does it. Because when I read this,all I kept seeing is an impossible situation. If you were to try to save money from--you know what its like to get a building permit on a shed,you've still got to go--it's as though it was a house,it's got to have all the right things and this and that. So this was a cost reasonable solution. Well,now we've made it a cost-prohibited solution. And I'm not sure why we have to do that if we're saying don't do it and we're going to make it so costly for you to do it you're not going to want to. Why don't we just say don't do it at all? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Well,but actually,you know,there's a scary thing in here,and I maybe shouldn't expose this because of my profession,but an architect could do anything we wants with it. In other words,I could decide I'm going to put it so it looks like a diamond shape in the back yard of some guy's house and you can't stop me. I can do whatever I want. I can put--I can go into any zoning development you're telling me now.I can go to Connor's over there by the waterside and put a storage container in the back there because I'm an architect,I'll have the drawing. And,you know,maybe I decide the only thing you need to do to it is paint it pink and Pm done. They can't deny me. And that's allowed now. So the scariest thing is watch out for me,not how much it cost to dress up the--isn't that right? MS.CILEK: Yes. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: So isn't that scary? COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: It is. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Yes,can we put it on the books that you accept nothing from this man? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well,why don't we take a look then at some of the concerns that could be addressed but not as--I mean,I can walk through the pages of my notes to show you some examples. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Well,Mark,you know,one thing I think that,you know,there's always been a lot of trouble with fences. So what smart communities,including Collier,has done is come up with a standard fence detail.And anybody,John Q.Public can yank that fence and build that fence according to that and that shows compliance with what a fence should be. Why don't we do the same kind of thing here,is we come up with--they've already conceptually done a lot of it with the landscaping. Show the people what you have to do if you put a container in. Page 50 of 69 August 16,2012 And maybe one solution is just to put lattice on it,paint it white and make it look like it belongs in Palm Beach or something.And there may be good solutions that we can--the worst thing in the world,you want the public to be trying to achieve this and not achieving it. So if we could make it easy so that somebody can put something that's acceptable to the community standards,which is our job,and show them so that it's nothing that they have to go crazy on getting people to design stuff for it,then I think that's the best we could give them. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Then we need to walk through this language,because that's not what you've got here. What you've got here is a system that I think is much more onerous than practical. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: We have prescriptive stuff,which is--what they're saying,they're prescribing ways in which you can achieve an acceptable esthetic for your storage container. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. But look at, 100 percent opacity. We don't even have that requirement on metal buildings in the Estates. So why are we putting it here? With the idea that the surrounding wall would have to be--if a fence was used,it would have to be the full eight-foot,six inches. Well,if you've got six feet of it covered up,what's a couple feet coming out of the top going to be distracting for? If they're set back 200 feet-- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Well,I mean if it's like a railroad car. I mean,these are not good-looking things. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But they're in the back of a residence. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Or in the front. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No,we would it wouldn't be in the front. We're going to--that's part of COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Some people's back yards are facing front yards of other people in the Estates. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Where? COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: There's some lots houses are built front and back of each other. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No,it's back-to-back.I mean I-- COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: I don't know,I've seen them. I've been to a house where there's somebody's back yard in the-- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Well,I don't know,I haven't--okay. MS.CILEK: Let me just chime in real quickly about the standards. We started at the very top of what— 100 percent. So if we want to discuss standards for screening that would be reduced,that's a really good discussion point. And in my attachment we even provided two different types of buffers for the first one,F.1.A.,so that there'd be the one here,and then we'd have a reduced one where you would buy shrubs that were only two or three feet tall. And so we didn't want it to be just--we wanted to have a discussion about the screening standards,so just to put that out there. MR.BELLOWS: And we can also go to a smaller size container. A 40-foot length is too long. A 20-foot would be better in your mind's eye,and that could be a recommendation too. Or prohibited. I mean, we're trying to figure out. Because based on the public meeting we had with Estates residents, it was almost 50/50 it seemed like,people for or against. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: In 600 feet you'll lose 40 feet pretty quickly. So you want to make it worth their while,I think. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I think probably the best way to proceed then is to walk through what you've provided-- MS.CILEK: Sure,absolutely. CHAIRMAN S!'RAIN: --and see what we can do with it. So why don't we start on Page 7,because the rest of it's backup material. So let's just try with the LDC language itself. And the first is on Page 7. Does anybody have any comments? MS.CILEK: If I might request that we actually look at the elevations and the plan use,because it Page 51 of 69 August 16,2012 has the language,it's exactly the same as the LDC,but it provides more of a visual. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: What page are you on? MS.CILEK: If you go to the end of the amendment and just turn the page,it says Attachment 1 in the right-hand corner. And then there's some lovely green hedges drawn around a large rectangular box. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. MS.CILEK: Same language,have a visual,you can talk about the height of different shrubs. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody want to start? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Well,I think page--because those are on Page 8 these come from. So let's stay on 7 until we get the--don't they? Or-- MS.CILEK: All the screening is on Page 8. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Yeah,so I just have a 7 question. MS.CILEK: Oh,I'm sorry. Okay. I apologize. I skipped the screening. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Just defending the use of 7 for a while there. Why do you reference that particular Building Code section? What that section states is that if you're using these things in a construction site,which you're allowed to do-- MS.CILEK: Yes. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: --you don't have to comply with the Building Code. MS.CILEK: Because they're available to be used as a temporary structure under that clause. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: But that clause is just saying that temporary buildings or sheds used exclusively for construction purposes are used exempted from the Building Code. I mean,yes,it describes those,but it's not describing the allowable use,nor should the Building Code do that. It's describing the fact that it's exempt from the Building Code.Which maybe-- MS.CILEK: Is there a section in the Florida Building Code that would allow for these to be used as a temporary structure in-- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: There's a section of the Building Code that exempts these structures from having to comply with the Building Code,and that's the section you've referenced. MS.CILEK: Okay,I guess what I--I mean,I reached out with staff to find the section that would be appropriate to refer to a temporary use. If this isn't the right section-- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Well,I don't think you'd ever get this board to go to the Florida Building Code to allow uses anyway,because we have no control over that code. MS.CILEK: I understand. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: It could add in here,you know,but make sure you paint it purple, you know,and we would have no control over that. MS.CILEK: I understand that. It's more for reference purposes of how you could-- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: But ails it's doing is reminding the person you don't have to meet the Building Code when you do have sections in here. And again,it's only temporary ones. MS.CILEK: Right. And that was the connection I was using. But if your recommendation is to not include that because it-- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I wouldn't include it. I mean,can ask somebody else. You know, whoever gave you that opinion that that's a good idea,maybe sit down with them and--but the reason I don't think it's a good idea,it does nothing more than state that a temporary--one of these structures used for construction does not have to meet the Building Code. That's all it's saying. MS.CILEK: Okay. Well-- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody else on Page 7? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I'm done. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I've got a couple. Under 5.03.07.A,intent. After the yellow highlighted word units that was crossed out,it says: In order to promote health and safety of the residents of Collier County. Page 52 of 69 August 16,2012 I don't see how a storage container has any impact on anybody's health and safety on a private lot in two and a half acres in Golden Gate Estates. So I think that language is not necessary. And to preserve the esthetic value. Now,esthetic is in the eyes of the beholder and I'm not sure everybody's going to agree with that.And I think that's just an opinion that ought to come out. And then after the blackened word,the bolded words portable storage container,it says: And other similar products to be used as an accessory structure. What do we mean by other similar products if this is strictly about portable storage containers? MS.CILEK: PODS. Like brand named ones.Originally-- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well,why don't we use the defi--but that's in definition. So if you just leave the definition and take out the confusion of other similar containers,we'd be-- MS.CILEK: That's actually a really good recommendation. When we wrote the intent we hadn't had the definition yet,so that's a really good connection,and we will just put a period after the bolded term portable storage containers. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. And under B-- MS.CILEK: Or actually remove and other similar products. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. And under B.2,Estates district limited to one container per lot. You mean legal conforming lot, right? MS.CILEK: Yes. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Well,wait-- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Because there are piles of these little skinny nonconforming lots out there that shouldn't never have happened. MS.CILEK: The first sentence in this,we tried to make it clear,so in the first sentence,portable storage containers may be permitted on lots that meet the minimum lot size and lot width requirements,so that's for all of these. So that's what we're trying to get to. MR.BELLOWS: Those are conforming lots.Original language we did have conforming,but we decided it was best just to throw the dimensions in. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Does it take anything away to add that to number two to just further emphasize it and clarify it? That way if staffs looking at number--look at the amount,they automatically know it's not going to go on a lot unless it's a conforming lot. MR.BELLOWS: Yeah,that's no problem. MS.CILEK: I think we were talking about this with Heidi on point that they're--and vaguely recalling this conversation--conforming lots of record that are smaller than the two and a quarter acre. I'm not sure what those are called,but we didn't want to include those in the Estates zoning because they're so narrow. MR.BELLOWS: They're nonconforming. MS.CILEK: Do you remember that conversation? MS.ASHTON-CICKO: I don't remember that conversation,but I think we're trying to get away from--I think we just indicate that it's not a nonconforming lot. Excludes nonconforming lots. Rather than getting into whether it's an illegal or legal. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well,she said something different. Are there any lots in the Estates that are below two and a quarter acres that are conforming? MR.BELLOWS: No,those are nonconforming lots. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay,well,then we're fine. I think Heidi,yeah,just say excluding nonconforming lots. That works. Okay,let's move on to Page 8. Anybody have any questions or comments on Page 8? Brad,do you have anything on this one? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: No,I mean-- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Actually,these are the details she was-- Page 53 of 69 August 16,2012 COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: These are the details,yeah. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. Do you have any? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: No,I don't. COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: You probably want to make the same recommendation on Item C up there with reference to the Florida Building Code that she made on Page 7? Or not? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Well,I mean,the Fire Prevention Code and the Building Code would only introduce the requirements for the fire resistance construction. We have--I mean,the concern-- I mean,these are steel structures for the most part. Are any of them wood? MS.CILEK: We're talking about in this section which is why it's highlighted,is we actually had structures in the first word instead of containers,and so that's why it's highlighted. But we included the-- regarding the minimum separation requirements,not necessarily the material. So that basically everywhere except the Estates. Because this does refer to industrial and commercial lots as well,that they're 10 feet apart. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: The building codes are designed--doesn't have the minimum separation,but it does have fire resistant requirements that change as you get closer. So essentially you would never find minimum separation requirements in any of those codes. MS.CILEK: Okay. It went in here because someone was interested in having that there.But if that's the case,then we can strike it. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Well,maybe you and I and that someone could have a conversation to make sure we're seeing eye to eye on that. MS.CILEK: Sure. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: But you could build buildings with zero separation in both of those codes. The fire resistent rating of the walls would obviously increase as you get closer. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Paul? COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: That 100 percent maybe is a little bit too strict. Is there any way we could lower that to 80 percent? MS.CILEK: Yes. This is a discussion.We just outlined the one,two,three,four-- COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: That's almost impossible. MS.CILEK: —five types of criteria to start with. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well,I notice that you were careful to put the 100 percent in the screening on F. But two,which is industrial and commercial,there's no percentage there,is there? What was the thought on— MS.CILEK: Right. Your direction was only to provide screening for the Estates and not to touch the industrial or commercial. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But there is screening required in industrial and commercial. MS.CILEK: Uh-huh. Uh-huh. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. So what opacity is that screening required to be? MS.CILEK: I am actually not familiar with opacity of that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But I think Paul's point is well taken. The 100 percent is too debatable on whether someone's reached that or not. MS.CILEK: That's just fine. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I would like you to take a look as an example whatever we did to those big steel buildings that are 50 feet into the setbacks where they're not supposed to be.Remember that went before the Board of County Commissioners and they approved a fix? We ought to take a look and see what their fix was,because this is--I mean,it's the same kind of situation. MR.BELLOWS: Yeah,the metal--the shed that was-- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Metal buildings. It was actually Russell Budd's property that spurred the whole issue,if you recall. The back of his--behind his house is where it occurred.And that's what started the investigation. We found that there's quite a few of them out there with that same kind of problem. Page 54 of 69 August 16,2012 But that was fixed. They went before the Board and the Board approved a fix for it. And I'd suggest MR.BELLOWS: Yeah,we can look at that language. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: --we see what it was. Anybody else? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well,I have a few. Under C you talk about setbacks. But I think another important relationship to setback is that the container does not break the side plain of the residence. MS.CILEK: Can you repeat that? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That the containers do not break the side plain of the residents. So if a person has a required say 10-foot setback but they actually have a 25-foot setback on the side, you don't want the container holding to the 10-foot or 20-foot setback so you'd see the container from the front of the road,you'd want it to be behind the structure. That was the intent. So I think you don't want to break the side plain of the residence--of the principal structure. I think that would make sure they're directly behind the structure and it would be less likely they'd be seen from the roadway. And again,that's a non-intrusive application. The setback issues I don't see as a problem in the Estates. They can be met. I think the screening portion of this is where my concerns got highlighted,and the cost of that screening. And number one,the second sentence,for this-- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Before we leave that point,can we talk about it? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Sure. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: First of all,the Estates zoning is going to be 30 feet, so-- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: It varies,though. If you have a smaller lot,it's less. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Then you can't have one of these on it. MS.CILEK: Right. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Oh,okay,you're right.Good point. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. And then in the agricultural area,that would be somewhat onerous,you know,because the guy has a barn and you're going to--he can't be close to the side setback. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well,I was only referring to the Estates when my comment was made. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: But it does cover that. Plus it also covers commercial. So I think that might not be necessary due to the 16 feet's a large setback. And the rest of it,like on a farm you can't-- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay,but- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: --you want to put it on the field. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: --you have a 330-foot wide lot. That's your standard five-acre lot.Your house is say 75 feet wide. So that leaves what,200 and some odd feet? And you can put these containers 30 feet off the property line. So you can have them all over the--you can have them on the sides of the property. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: You can only have one. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay,you can have it on the side of the property way out in the middle of no where compared to your house. Is that--really,do you want it that close to the neighbor if the whole thing is to protect the neighbor? Why not keep it behind the house if they like it so well? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I'm good with that. Go with Mark's language. MS.CILEK: My-- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: But note that it only applies to the Estates. MS.CILEK: Right. Would it be a form of screening? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: What? MS.CILEK: Making sure it does not break the side plain. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The side plain just means you can't put the container to break the side plain Page 55 of 69 August 16,2012 of the resident. MS.CILEK: Okay. Well,then I can break the setback section up. I was just thinking if we could include it with the screening section,that-- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No,it's not a screening issue. It's a locational issue. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: It just can't have a setback less than the principal structure. MR.BELLOWS: It's clarification of the setback. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: That's okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Under F.1,the second sentence,for this purposes--for the purposes of this section,chain link or chain link fence with privacy slats will not be permitted. I'm trying to understand how that fits,because you can put chain link or chain link with privacy slats around your entire property in the Estates I believe to any height you want. There is no regulation on fencing out there. So why are we making it--so you can't put it around here for some reason but you can wrap your whole house in it. MS.CILEK: Well,I worked with nancy on the screening provisions,and our goal really was to say well,a chain link would be very comparable to the side of a portable storage container. Still kind of more of a rustic industrial,commercial type appearance. This is just staff for laying--you know,trying to provide the best screening option. So we felt that chain link would keep and maintain that appearance of the portable storage container. That's why we included it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But you can drive down many streets and you'll see people have done their properties in chain link. MS.CILEK: That's fine. We were trying to screen the portable storage containers so it wouldn't look like a commercial structure,commercial or industrial type of-- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But unless we were to stop the--unless we were to regulate fencing as a whole on the property,I can't see why it makes a difference whether we just regulate the piece that's around the storage container versus what's around the whole property. So I don't know if that's a practical way to approach screening. MS.CILEK: Okay. Well,then I think that would be the most--people would really use that option. They would use the chain link fence,and is that really going to improve the screening situation that much? I mean,that's just my--that's my concern is that it's very similar in the type of visual appearance of the two. That's why we didn't include it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Is there a regulation that requires a fence to be within a certain distance of the container? MS.CILEK: No. Actually we have two illustrations that demonstrate you can--okay,no. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I know,I'm asking that for the--I know what the answer is. All I'm trying to say is fine,don't put chain link associated with the-- MS.CILEK: Around the-- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: --container,just put it around your property and you're covered. MS.CILEK: You're done. Well— CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I mean,I'm just trying to see why we have that rule if it can be so easily violated. MS.CILEK: I think connected to the perimeter of the lot. But that—yes,if they already had one then that would work. But we were just that the appearance of the chain link is so similar to the visual appearance of a portable storage container. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: B,an opaque fence installed at the perimeter of the storage container at height which obscures the view of the container 100 percent from adjacent property lines. There is an exception if you're a certain distance from the adjacent property lines.Didn't you put that in here or did I miss--did that not get in here? Page 56 of 69 August 16,2012 I mean,say you've got a 330 by 660 tract,which is five acres,and you're 200 feet from the property in all directions. Do you still need to put anything? MS.CILEK: E.I.says if it can't be seen from a property line then you don't have to do anything. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: E.I. Okay,that's why you caught it. Okay. MS.CILEK: If you have a five-acre property and no one can see the middle of your property where you put your portable storage container,then there's no need to screen it from yourself. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The 100 percent issue in all these I think is what Paul had alluded to is we need to look and check that other fix to see how that compares to the 100 percent. And then B,does that apply? Are you saying that they've got to build something over the top of these containers too? Because 100 percent,wouldn't that include the top? I mean,the example that was used,I thought it was kind of interesting that they could be on a second story of a house looking down at their neighbor and if they see the top of this thing,it's offensive. I don't see that. MS.CILEK: No,I don't think what's what the drawing was trying to illustrate. It was just that that's where you could place it around the container. No,we have no language to describe covering the top of the container. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay,then on G-1,I disagree with the reference to constitute a threat to public safety. I just don't see how we can construe that containers in Estates lots do that. MS.CILEK: Well,this is actually only for commercial. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Oh,that's right. Okay,I'm fine. Anybody else on A? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: If not,we'll go on to—well 9 hasn't got anything. We'll move to 10. Anybody have any issues on 10? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay,I-- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Just one quick thing. You know at the top you say it's less than 40 square feet--or 400. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Four hundred. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Make it that it's 400 square feet or less. MS.CILEK: Well,it's maximum floor area. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER Yeah,but you're saying it has to be less than 400 square feet. So in other words 399 works,400 doesn't. MS.CILEK: But some of them are 400 square feet exactly. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Which they wouldn't be allowed because you're telling me they have to be less than 400. MS.CILEK: Four hundred or less. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Right? MR.BELLOWS: Yeah,400 or less. We can fix that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And what I think you'll do is produce another clean draft of this.This is hopefully a final. And then it will be ready for you to send to those organizations in the Estates to get some input. MR.BELLOWS: That's correct. That was the intent of-- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I talk to those people a lot so I'll also kind to brief them. At least I talk to some of the members. I don't say everybody in there. But also to let them provide some suggestions that if this is too onerous,to at least give us input as to what may be better for the Estates. MR.BELLOWS: Definitely. MS.CILEK: I'm thinking that the illustration on--the second illustration which is a two-foot hedge is likely what was requested for the steel structures that were placed too close to the setback. So this would Page 57 of 69 August 16,2012 be kind of the language we would prepare. But it wouldn't be 100 percent opacity,it would be reduced because it's a tree. But they probably start at two. I'm just trying to say what we're likely going to bring back for that language. And it would probably look a lot like this. We could reduce the opacity to 80. I mean,they're going to be short in the beginning for several years. If we remove the irrigation,which is pretty burdensome,there's likelihood of,you know,frost and just natural weather causes that will create dead plants. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Frost. MS.CILEK: Frost. Occasionally,right,in the Estates. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: But can't you note that they have to be maintained? So if nobody cares that the plants are dead,as in Mark's scenario,no big deal. If the neighbor says there's a bunch of dead plants in front of the container,you have something to hang your hat on. MS.CILEK: Certainly. I just think that it's reasonable to expect that a lot of plants would probably not be replaced over time and that the-- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But there are a lot of species they could plant that would survive well with the drought conditions we--I mean,there's areca palms for example,they do really well off season—I mean off the rainy season.And those will hide anything. Ficus trees,there are some species of ficus that I still think are acceptable. And those,once they get rid of during the wet season,during the dry season they do great. MS.CILEK: Well,likely we'll bring back language on this page with the two-foot hedge and just reduce the opacity for the landscape buffer. And we will of course look at what was done in-- COMMISSIONER EBERT: Can I ask a question?What is the cost of one of these units? Do you have any idea? MS.CILEK: From what I understand,it ranges anywhere from less than$1,000 up to$3,000. But that is also just the cost of the container itself. If you do a permitting process and you work with an architect or engineer,it could raise the cost. But again I think it varies on the age of the container,how big it is,where you're getting it from, condition. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Well,I think when that lady brought that picture of that huge 40-foot-- that was all telling. And I have driven down a couple of the streets where one house is beautiful on this side and the other one,they have--I'm not saying--but I mean just plain junk. Then I think of the man where they took away his houses. He's always up in front of the BCC and the code enforcement. I mean,they took away--because he was a hoarder. I guess--I don't know what you can do with this. I'll have to agree with Susan,if it's temporary,it was fine. It was--that's one I agree with her on this. You know,just--it's been there since 2003. MR.BELLOWS: Yes,that's the direction of the board. That's what we'll take forward to the BCC. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And remember,the temporary ones are really going to be ugly. They're going to have signage on them,they're going to have a whole bunch of junk. Because they're leased. They're from the company who temporarily dropped it off. COMMISSIONER EBERT: We just can't have Brad working on any of these things for the Estates. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: You still haven't solved the problem of me. Because,you know, I'm going to run out of here today and put one on a single-family lot somewhere and there's nothing you can say about that. COMMISSIONER EBERT: We'll just cut out architectural. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Anybody else? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: We're moving on on this one? COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: I guess so. So this is going to come back again. Okay,we can go on to the next. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Well,one thing I'm going to do,I'm going to have to run. We still Page 58 of 69 August 16,2012 have to quorum,unless Mark went down the exit stair. Did he? COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: No. The little boys room. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. So you still have quorum,correct,Ray? MR.BELLOWS: Yes. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay,thank you leaves. (At which time,Commissioner Schiffer exits the boardroom.) MS.CILEK: All righty. Next amendment? COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Yes. MS.CILEK: Great. The next one in your packet is 10.02.07. And this was approved a while back. And when the county attorney read it he found a mistake. And language was struck that did not mean or was not intended to be struck. And that is on Page 3;it's highlighted in yellow. All we'd like to do is remove the striking. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's a tough one. Are there any questions,concerns or comments? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Is there a motion-- MS.ASHTON-CICKO: Actually,we will be bringing this one back for the formal motion at the next meeting. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Is there a reason we can't do that at this one? MS.ASHTON-CICKO: Well,the cycle wasn't continued through today. So it's--it can just go with the ones that will be heard next month. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. So we can't take a formal motion on any of them today is what you're telling us? MS.ASHTON-CICKO: Yeah. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. I just wanted to know. Okay,does anybody have any concerns? If not,we'll consider that one finished till next time. And let's move on to the next one,Caroline. MS.CILEK: Great. The next amendment is 4.05.02,design standards,and 4.05.04,parking space requirements. And again,this one was reviewed by the County Attorney before we went to the board last month. And since that time we have added additional language regarding the public safety concerns of grass parking and the liability issues. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Oh,yeah,grass is the real big public safety issue. COMMISSIONER EBERT: The zoo. MS.CILEK: That was the concern of the County Attorney. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: If you've got B,why do you need 6? MS.CILEK: I'm going to let Heidi answer that. MS.ASHTON-CICKO: Six is more of a liability issue. So if we were to get sued,we have this opinion--the county were to get sued,that we would have this opinion that we could use. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. So then why do we need little vi then? MS.ASHTON-CICKO: Well,B.I.(sic)is different because--there's no B.I.but you mean B is the reestablishment of the paved parking,that if there's an unsafe condition and the County Manager's approved something and it's brought to our attention,there's no mechanism in there to require them to then pave the parking. They would just be market driven,you know,that the property owner might make the change if they're starting to get sued or having liability issues. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay,I must be misreading this then. Because 1.A.vi says under the written opinion of the applicant's architect or engineer-- MS.ASHTON-CICKO: It's 1.B. Yeah,just 1.B. COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: But it's referencing B.I in the-- Page 59 of 69 August 16,2012 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I'm not sure what you're--we must be on different pages or something. MS.ASHTON-CICKO: Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay,we're at 1.A.vi is what I'm trying to say why do you need that when you have 1.B that basically allows you to do the same thing? What do we need them both for? MS.ASHTON-CICKO: I must not be looking at the same sections. MS.CILEK: He's saying V as in victory and it sounds a little bit like B as in boy. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I guess. MS.CILEK: So there's one,two,three,four,five,six. So go to like little six under— MS.ASHTON-CICKO: Okay,six. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Not number six,V as in Victor,I--not as in elephant. Eel? No. Illness. MS.ASHTON-CICKO: So vi. Okay,I understand now. I thought you were saying B.I. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's fine. MS.ASHTON-CICKO: Caroline's correct-- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: There is no B.I. MS.ASHTON-CICKO: --I am getting a hearing test in a few weeks so maybe we'll find out what the problem is. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: It could be me,you know. MS.ASHTON-CICKO: Hopefully it is you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you,I really needed that. COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: What is--if you--if I might? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah. COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: On Page 3.1.b,next to the last sentence,last two letters say: Meet the standards of B.1 above. What is that referring to now that we're into the B confusion? MS.CILEK: That's everything above it.B-1. If you look on Page 2,B starts. COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: Oh,okay. MS.CILEK: And then 1 continues at the top. So it's like the whole section. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But back to the question that I had,why do we need--and I don't know how to say this clearly--why do we need Victor Illness? MS.ASHTON-CICKO: In the written opinion of the applicant's engineer,is that that sentence-- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes. MS.ASHTON-CICKO: --that's you're talking about? That's just to provide justification for the county to approve the grass parking which could potentially be less safe if elderly people are walking around and their grass is dug up and people are tripping and falling, you know,you have somebody who's looked at it and feels that it's been compacted and,you know,all the issues have been addressed so that it doesn't create an unsafe condition. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well,doesn't--okay,so if a parking lot-- MS.ASHTON-CICKO: So first you get the opinion from the engineer saying it's unsafe and we're-- or that it's safe,excuse me--and we're relying on that and giving you the parking,but then we find out that there is an unsafe condition that would warrant requiring the property owner to start paving. That's what that is. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. And then if that's the case,we would probably send code enforcement out and say there's an unsafe condition out there,could you verify it,and then we kick into B if they refuse to fix it.So why do we need vi? MS.ASHTON-CICKO: That just means at the time when they apply they say this is--you know, we're representing this is a safe condition. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But doesn't the Building Department do that when they acknowledge that they're going to get a building permit? And doesn't an architect,when he submits a set of blueprints signed and sealed for a building permit,doesn't that signing and sealing acknowledge that without having to have it restated? I mean,they wouldn't submit-- Page 60 of 69 August 16,2012 MS.ASHTON-CICKO: I don't know. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: This just seems like redundancy and I don't know why we've got to have it in here. If you could just check on it. Is this going to come back? Or no,we can't,ifs got to come back,so-- MS.CILEK: It's going to come back-- MS.ASHTON-CICKO: Yeah,for the formal vote. MS.CILEK: --but I mean,yes,an engineer signs and seals their plans. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So they're going to--without this statement you're telling me they'd sign and seal it then and it would be against the public's health,safety and welfare? MS.ASHTON-CICKO: Hopefully not. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Well,then that's what I'm saying. You just made my point. MR.BELLOWS: Yeah,it goes without saying-- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I mean,if they're going to sign and seal something,but they have to still say ifs safe,I mean,I don't understand why they would sign and seal it to begin with if it's not safe. So that's what our codes are for and that's what our reviews are for. So I'm not sure why we have to re-- MS.ASHTON-CICKO: This is more from a litigation standpoint. We get,you know,brought into a suit and now we've got to do a motion to dismiss to get out of it. And,you know,having this written opinion of somebody that we relied on might help us get out and argue that we're more in a planning stage than an operational stage and,you know,get out through our sovereign immunity and other reasons,but-- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I think you're going to go down a path where you're starting to introduce redundant written opinion language--written language in this code to protect every situation,and it could go far beyond simple grass parking. It could go beyond the widths of parking spaces,the direction of turn radiuses. I'm not sure we need to get into it,but I'll leave it up to you to take a look at it again before it comes back to us. MS.CILEK: Really this is-- MS.ASHTON-CICKO: And,you know,perhaps I'm not articulating the reasons correctly.You know,I will talk to Mr.Klatzkow and see if there's anything further that he feels you should be aware of when you hear it again. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. I mean,an architect and engineer's license is pretty heavy. So if they're going to sign and seal something,they're doomed anyway if it's not safe. Let's move on to the--I guess it's the mangrove issue,3.05.05,the last one for today. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Steve stayed for that. MR.LENBERGER: Good afternoon. Stephen Lenberger again for the record,Natural Resources Department. The mangrove amendment was pulled prior to going to the Board. Some concerns raised by certain citizens. We initially started this amendment to try to make the code more conforming with state statute,and that was the objective. Since we last drafted this--well,prior to drafting this final version we had met with Heidi in the Attorney's Office. We had a lengthy discussion. And she's going to explain some of the different I guess options we have here and interpretations of state statutes for you.With that,I'll turn it over to Heidi. MS.ASHTON-CICKO: Okay. Now,you've previously approved a draft of this amendment.Now, originally the language that was in the code,staff was concerned that there was a conflict with the state statute and that our regulations,you know,needed to be conforming with the state statute that was adopted in'95, '96,the Mangrove Trimming Act. So the first version that you saw that you approved last time,it took our regulations and it removed the regulation of trimming but it retained the regulation of destruction or removal of mangroves. So first we had regulations that said,you know,you have to get a clearing permit when you're trimming mangroves. And in working with staff we looked at it and said well,really we can't regulate the trimming of Page 61 of 69 August 16,2012 mangroves because that's in the exclusive jurisdiction of the state. So we tried to modify it minimally to,you know,still give the county some regulations,so we were only regulating the removal or destruction of mangroves. With further feedback from some stakeholders,staff wanted to reevaluate that,and we've come up with a version that you're seeing now where essentially the only thing we're regulating is where we have a restrictive covenant or conservation easement. So if you've got trimming and it's not in a conservation easement and it's not in an area where we have a restrictive covenant,we defer 100 percent to the state,you know. But if we have the conservation easement or we have the restrictive covenant,then we do get involved and review it. So you started with one regulation where you were allowed,you know,that it had some permitting and if somebody came forward,we would have to address the issues of the conflict of the state statute and try to work through it. Your second rendition,in my opinion,the Tree Trimming Act does not regulate removal or destruction of mangroves;however,it's in a grey area. I don't have a case that I can point to and say we're right on,this is how a judge has interpreted the statute. So in light of the comments that we received from the public,we attempted to take a more conservative approach of what we could do,and that's why you have the amendment that you have today. And so I think Steve is looking for some feedback on how you would like to proceed or whether you would like to change your recommendation from the prior version. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Before we go too far,I think we all were given copies of one email that I had received and I sent it on to staff for distribution. That was from a gentleman in Pelican Bay. Is there any issues in that email that are in conflict with what's in front of us today?Because a lot of that was already addressed—it was based on a previous rendition. MS.ASHTON-CICKO: He was referring to the version that you previously approved. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. And do you feel most of the issues he's raised have been addressed in the language in front of us today?Or are moot at this— MS.ASHTON-CICKO: Well,you know,I'm not really sure on what all of his issues were. I mean, I am in agreement with him in that he says that the act does not regulate removal of mangroves. We are in agreement but,you know,we don't have a state court that's interpreted that. In the definition of alteration,is says it includes everything other than trimming. Which technically I guess that could be removal or destruction. However,I read it based on the intent and the way the whole thing is written together that that definition of alteration relates to--if it does relate to destruction or removal of mangroves,it's in connection with trimming. Because it's clear to me that if you trim and mangroves die, then it's the state that comes in under the Mangrove Trimming Act and enforces it. Unless the delegation of the regulation of mangroves has been made to the local government,which it has not in this case. You know, we're not delegated authority from the state to regulate mangroves. So I gave you a long winded answer. But some of the issues I think that we are in agreement with, the version that you're seeing does have a further amendment because the prior draft that you saw--and I don't know if you want to put one on the visualizer, Steve--but kind of the leading in language which was not proposed for amendment had some reasonableness language in it that was ambiguous,and so with this new version that's in front of you now that's proposed to be struck through. So that was an issue raised by Dr. Rhea that was not addressed in your prior draft. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: By the way,before I forget,Barry,did you take your drugs? COMMISSIONER KLEIN: Yes,thanks. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. We've got to keep him happy. Barry's on just an antibiotic,so-- COMMISSIONER EBERT: I have one question.Do you remember the gentleman that came in-- and Mark,I remember you commenting on this--who was going to put a,was it down in the Everglades,that he had to cut down the mangroves and then put his trailer home on? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Chokoloskee. Plantation Island,I'm sorry. Page 62 of 69 August 16,2012 COMMISSIONER EBERT: Plantation Island. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: They're specially exempt from this. COMMISSIONER EBERT: They are specially exempt,but like you said,why are they coming in and spending all this money for--you know,to get the permit to do this? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: We addressed that on another--didn't we--that was addressed in the previous-- MS.CILEK: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: --LDC amendment. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Okay,it was addressed? Okay,thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay,back to Steve,I guess. MR.LENBERGER: The amendment we gave you,if you open it up to Page 4,starting on line 36. MS.ASHTON-CICKO: Well,Steve,this is the old amendment that you have on the visualizer. Is that what you're referring to? MR.LENBERGER: Right. Yeah,I'm referring to the new amendment to show them where the crossed-out language is. The new amendment shows it on Page 4,line 36 through 41. You can see we struck through that language. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Uh-huh. MR.LENBERGER: And the version you've already approved last time didn't have that language struck out. So the language is struck and it just reads now: A vegetation removal permit may be issued under the following. And that was one of the concerns,having--well,we didn't have that language--we didn't have it struck out last time when Mr.Rhea commented. And he felt that that was kind of ambiguous language,it really wasn't clear. And also Commissioner Hiller made a comment about that as well,about that language. So we struck it out on the new version you have in front of you. But that language was not struck out on the version you originally approved. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Questions? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah,Steve,the--in the version that we have in front of us today,which is not the version on the overhead,G,section G has struck and the remaining words say for mangrove trimming or alteration. So it leads you to believe that you should read G for mangrove trimming or alteration. But then when it gets to number two it talks about for removal or destruction of mangroves shall only be allowed if. I think removal and destruction is different than trimming and alteration. Do we need to substitute the correct words in there or do you mean a difference? MR.LENBERGER: I had discussed this with Jeremy,actually,and yeah,it should read also trimming and alteration. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Good. Okay. So the words removal will be replaced by trimming,and the word destruction will be replaced by alteration. MR.LENBERGER: Alteration,correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Good. And then on the next page you listed how it could be allowed,A,B and C. A and B seem to go together because there's a comma after the H. So you've got to do both A and B. But if you don't do A and B,you could simply go and do C. Is that the way you intended it to read? MS.ASHTON-CICKO: It's intended to be a list of ors. So we can insert an or if you think that lacks clarity. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah,I do. But I also was wondering,so if you already have the preserve management plan,you don't need to go back to the BCC and-- MR.LENBERGER: Correct. Page 63 of 69 August 16,2012 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: --the mangroves are an impacted use already allowed by the PUD which already has been before the BCC,you don't have to go to them again. MR.LENBERGER: Correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And failing those two you could go to the BCC and get a mangrove trimming or alteration permit,but in order to do that you'd have to meet the intent of one and other parts of two;is that correct? MR.LENBERGER: Correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: G.1 and 2. MR.LENBERGER: G.1 and 2. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: To get the BCC to approve it you'd still have to have a DEP permit-- MR.LENBERGER: Absolutely. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: --and it has to encumbered by a conservation easement. MR.LENBERGER: Correct. MS.ASHTON-CICKO: Correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay,now I understand it. MS.ASHTON-CICKO: So if you have a DEP permit but there's no county easement,then we're not involved. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Understand. Okay,anybody have any other questions? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The other item I wanted,does this exempt dock walkways through the mangroves to get to docks? MR.LENBERGER: That would be included for uses in preserves,which would be G.2.b. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. So you're saying that in the single-family homes in Vanderbilt,for example,or anywhere,or even Isles of Capris,where they come in and they justify a dock extension,those areas outside by the waterway are considered preserves? MR.LENBERGER: No,no. I misunderstood you. Outside a preserve this would not apply.It's totally under the jurisdiction of the state for this amendment. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. I was--I kayak in different inland bodies and I was up at--not Barefoot Beach,what's the one by the Registry? Clam Pass. MR.LENBERGER: Clam Pass. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I kayaked to the south of that,and then there's a Seagate area over there with some highrises. It looks like they cut the tops off all those mangroves. Is that something that they would have gotten then from the state to do that,or would we have been involved in that? MR.LENBERGER: No,we have not--the county's not been delegated that authority for trimming or alteration from the state. So it's totally the state's jurisdiction. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. MR.LENBERGER: The only time we would get involved in this version here is if it was in a conservation easement or had a restrictive covenant in favor of the county. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay,anybody else have any questions? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay,with that,I think that's simple enough. You need any further direction? MS.CILEK: Yes. Can we please continue this meeting until the next? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well,do we need--if it hasn't been advertised we don't need to continue it. MS.ASHTON-CICKO: Yeah,because you're advertising for the next meeting,right? MS.CILEK: Okay,yeah. Tried to remember. MS.ASHTON-CICKO: But we can let people know when the next hearings will begin again. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So that takes--oh,Jeremy. I'm sorry,Jeremy. You've been sitting there Page 64 of 69 August 16,2012 patiently all day. Come on up. MR.FRANTZ: For the record,Jeremy Frantz,representing The Conservancy of Southwest Florida. Covered a lot of the things that I was going to bring up. I think that this most recent—I guess the new language is beneficial in that it really clearly delineates where the state has authority and where Collier County does and doesn't have authority. We have a little bit of a concern about--a couple of concerns,I guess. First with the language that was removed from the old version,that's on the visualizer,in the very beginning. I understand the concerns about the language maybe not actually being regulatory and being unclear. But there is some guidance in that paragraph that would be lost if it was removed,you know,specifically about maintaining some existing vegetation in the site plan and the possible requirements for relocation. I guess my question to staff,we're not take a vote on this today so we have extra time is it possible for those types of--for that type of guidance to be worked into the rest of the criteria in 3.05.05? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Is there a reason why it couldn't be,let's approach it that way. I mean,is there something in this redrawing of this where we are referring to state rights in ours that we couldn't put that language back in,or does it do some damage? MR. LENBERGER: No,I don't think there's any conflict with state law. It has to do with criteria for all clearing,not just mangroves.it was--well,Mr.Rhea's letter didn't like that language and Commissioner Hiller didn't like that language in there as well. And this is in response to those comments received to strike that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay,there's two sentences there. Was it both sentences that she—that she didn't like or was it just one sentence? Or three sentence are there. Do you know what specific language was disliked? MR.LENBERGER: Well,specifically there are reasonable efforts. That would be,on the current amendment you have,it would be under line 37 on Page 4. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. MS.CILEK: Line four. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well,reasonable efforts are one of those ambiguous terms that we generally pick on as well,so I can understand that. Is that what you're-- MR.FRANTZ: And I understand that as well. I guess what I'm suggesting is aside from the language that just talks about reasonable,the rest of that guidance is important and valuable and maybe it needs some further clarification,what are we going to consider reasonable. Maybe it just becomes a strict criteria that--not strict,but an objective criteria. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: This has got to come back to us. Jeremy,you guys are pretty well versed in this. Could you submit some language to staff so that they could then chew on it a little bit when it comes back to us? By that time we could have your thoughts and staffs,and if there's a reasonable way to work this out it can be done by then? MR.FRANTZ: We could work this out. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Just make your best reasonable effort to do so. MR.FRANTZ: I'm not sure how to interpret that. MS.ASHTON-CICKO: We could probably just-- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Good comeback. MS.ASHTON-CICKO: --determine the layout and design. MR.FRANTZ: So then the rest of the--I guess to put it most simply,I think we felt that the--this language for the most part got to that intent of the state,and with the exception of maybe clarifying that the county does have a role in preserves or property with restrictive covenants,it gets to that intent and it is pretty clear and it's simple,it's--it kind of goes along with the intent of the county in general to keep the LDC simple and clear. And when considered along with the state intent,the new language kind of where the state is saying in preserves there's not going to be any trimming,the LDC language kind of looks more like a road map to this is how you should go about getting your trimming permit. Page 65 of 69 August 16,2012 And with this language it does specify that--or it could specify that the county does have a say in preserves. And in those cases where it is a preserve,they already have to include a conservation easement. And so the criteria that are on the last page,or I guess under subsection two,those would all be covered in the normal process of designating a preserve. So Pm not sure that we benefit really from this expended language. And the last point about that expended language is in C where it says: Or the BCC approves the mangrove trimming or alteration.In this old language,it specified that they're giving a variance by the BCC. This new language we're a little concerned that it might automatically create consistency with the code.And if there is anyone with a concern under this process with the variance,they can discuss the consistency with the code.Whereas,this new language appears to just make everything consistent. I'm not sure I'm explaining that clearly. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah,I think what you're saying is the old language was a little more stringent in the sense that if they wanted to do some of this,they had to go through a variance process,which is multiple levels of approval. In this particular case, it doesn't say a variance is even needed,it just says you go before the BCC. If they like it,fine,if they don't—but you've got to abide by the rules of G.1 and 2 to get before the BCC. So you don't go to them if A and B's already addressed,you go to them only after you have a DEP permit and only if it's encumbered by a conservation easement but doesn't fit A or B.Is that how it's read? MR.LENBERGER: Correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. So they'd have to have a DEP permit and then they'd have to say okay, it's not a preserve management plan.There's no preserve management plan and there is no PUD ordinance covering this. Therefore with our DEP permit we want the Board of County Commissioners to weigh in on this because it's in a conservation easement. Would that normally require a variance? MR.LENBERGER: I will--I had discussed this with Heidi and I'm going it to let her respond. MS.ASHTON-CICKO: I was trying to come up with the answer of rewriting the prior paragraph. So your exact question is would they need a variance? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Don't ask me to repeat it,please. MS.ASHTON-CICKO: Would they need a variance? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I'm just kidding. MR.LENBERGER: I can-- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah,go ahead,Steve. MR.LENBERGER: Originally the original language that was crossed out says I can get a variance, but under the last category C we wrote BCC approves. I remember discussing that with the--we didn't write --we just said BCC approves the mangrove trimming alteration. It doesn't say it's a variance per se. I don't know what other mechanisms they could approve it by. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And I think that's the question that Jeremy's pointing out. MS.ASHTON-CICKO: Well,I mean,my understanding is that with the prior language the variance was in there,okay. So in the first draft that you saw that you previously approved,we just kept what was already there. We looked at the language in more detail and I worked with Steve to find out how does this really work,you know,and what are you trying to accomplish. And that's when we removed the variance process,because you had all these other options where you already had the ability under the current code. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But I think that's where the problem lies. Where you've got it now is you would have the ability to do it. Number one,you've got your DEP permit. Number two,you're in a conservation easement. Number three,its either by--you have an approved preserve management plan or you have a PUD ordinance. Now those are all consistent with our zoning and our codes. MS.ASHTON-CICKO: Right. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But what this is saying is if you don't have a preserve management plan and you're not addressed by your PUD ordinance,then the BCC can approve a mitigation trimming or alteration Page 66 of 69 August 16,2012 plan. And what I think Jeremy's saying,if they do that,what action is it that they're taking? They're not taking a PUD amendment,they're not taking a preserve management plan,they're looking at it as what,just a simple citizen request in front of the board with no review by other agencies or staff? Or how is it approached? What is it that they're-- MS.ASHTON-CICKO: It would probably go directly to the Board. I don't think that they--under the current proposed language then it would just go directly to the Board for their input. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But do you think that is the right way to process a mangrove trimming-- MS.ASHTON-CICKO: Well,what are you varying from? I mean,if you're-- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I don't know. MS.ASHTON-CICKO: --going below your native vegetation and you can get a variance for that kind of thing,which I don't know that you can,but if you could,then that would be what you'd be varying from. So I don't know that variance was the right word choice before. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So what was the intent then? It wasn't a variance,it was just simply a Board action? MR.LENBERGER: Well,generally when it's public petition to the Board,the Board directs staff on working out details with a concerned party and bringing it back to the Board. But I don't know if that's a variance or resolution or how it's--I don't handle legalities,that's for the Attorney's Office to determine. MS.ASHTON-CICKO: Steve,what was the process before? Is this a new process,the added in with this version,or was there already a process in place to-- MR.LENBERGER: Well,the original version we had,and it's on the visualizer-- MS.ASHTON-CICKO: I'm talking about in the existing code. Is there a variance procedure in the existing code? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well,this is going to come back to us anyway. I think you under--why don't you take the time and look at the issue and come back with an analysis of it for us? That will give you time- MS.ASHTON-CICKO: See,I think the differences in the prior version that you saw when the variance was in there,you were talking about minimum native vegetation,so I don't know if that meant it would vary from the minimum--I don't know. I mean-- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I would just rather you guys looked at it as a whole and not jumped into it-- MR.LENBERGER: Minimum native vegetation retention requirements a comprehensive plan requirements so I don't—we can't give a variance to that. It would be impacting the preserve. In the original language it's actually not in the criteria for removal. It's up in the exemption section. I believe it was a--yeah,if you look on your Page 4,line three--actually, it starts on line two. The Collier County Environmental Advisory Council may grant a variance to the provisions of this section. Then it goes on about unnecessary hardship. And it actually goes farther,it says mangrove trimming or removal for review shall not be considered a hardship. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And I think that you ought to look at this for our next time and really consider whether the BC--I can't imagine the Board would want to weigh in on mangrove trimming and alteration without at least the EAC review,if it wasn't;`covered in one of the other sections A and B. And maybe that's the coverage you need to look at.' MR.LENBERGER: So it's kind of like ST approval process where they-- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well,I mean,I don't know if this board necessarily needs to get involved in mangrove trimming and all,because this is a zoning board. But you may want to see--you may want to see --you may want to give the BCC the opportunity to have heard it after the nuts and bolts of some of the harder questions got kind of detailed at another level,like the EAC. Because the EAC previously was in the loop on these things like this. So it might not be a bad idea to go back and look at it and make sure we're covered. I mean,I'm not sure the BCC would even want not to be covered by that. Anyway,that covers it,Jeremy,or is there more? MR.FRANTZ: Well,if I could just sum up,I think The Conservancy likes the feel of this old Page 67 of 69 August 16,2012 language to better understand that there would need to be some alterations specifically calling out that the county does maintain the ability to permit in preserves. And might have to look at the variance process. But we think that that mimics the state intent more. We,you know,already have those processes for getting the allowed uses and things like that.And so we think that this language comes close enough to what needs to be done that with some minor changes it could work. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Well,if you could get your language to staff before the next meeting MS.ASHTON-CICKO: You mean the current or the prior? MR.FRANTZ: The prior version. MR.LENBERGER: Was it a prior version you're speaking about,or-- MR.FRANTZ: Prior. Yes,correct. The one on the visualizer now. MR.LENBERGER: The one on the visualizer. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well,we're already into the one that's in front of us so we're not going to reinvent the wheel on that. But I think two of your points to make the one in front of us more palatable would be worth looking at. The rest we've already addressed,I believe. MS.ASHTON-CICKO: Well,I still think that Steve is looking for direction on whether you want to stay with the current one that you've already approved or whether you agree that we should be only handling what's in the conservation easement or the restrictive covenant. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I'm not--I don't--the one that's in front of us today seems to catch everything we need,with the exception of there might be a couple areas to further look at,based on input we've received from The Conservancy. Now you're saying we're going to go back to this one that's on the overhead? MS.ASHTON-CICKO: No. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. You guys have got me confused. Which are you presenting today, Caroline? MS.CILEK: We are presenting the amendment in your binder. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. That's the one that I believe we've been addressing. That's the one I believe we've given direction on in which to change the language from removal to trimming,destruction to alteration. And that's the one to take a look at for the variance issue,and the--I think Jeremy had another issue involving the suggestion of keeping some language in the beginning of the paragraph. And I believe that's the direction you're getting from this board. Anybody have anything different? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay,that gets us there. Thank you. Are we finished with this LDC workshop-- MS.CILEK: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: --I think almost it's been because we can't take action? Thank you,Caroline,it's been another enjoyable experience. MS.CILEK: Thank you for your comments. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And I think the public's--Mike,you coming up to address public comment? Oh,please don't. Is there a motion to adjourn? COMMISSIONER EBERT: I second. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: All in favor,signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER KLEIN: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Aye. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Aye. COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: Aye. Page 68 of 69 August 16, 2012 COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Any opposed? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: We're out of here. **************** There being no further business for the good of the County,the meeting was adjourned by order of the Chair at 2:45 p.m. COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION 041- w MARK STRAIN,Chairman These minutes approved by the board on 31- 21- (L as presented vor as corrected . Transcript prepared on behalf of Gregory Reporting Service,Inc.,by Cherie'R.Nottingham. Page 69 of 69